3. Frequently Asked Questions
The introductory component of this document is compiled as a "FAQ" list. This does not mean that I have necessarily been asked these questions, but they seem like a reasonable way of introducing the topic.
A discussion of the details are contained in the sections following this one.
Do you really believe that Relativity is "wrong" ?
Well, that is something of a distortion.
SR does "explain" some important experimental results. However, these explanations are derived consequences of Relativity's fundamental principles. The evidence on which these fundamental principles are based is not decisive, and the explanation of experiments is dependent on interpretation - Relativity is not the only explanation of them.
In addition to the explanation of experimental results, SR has philosophical consequences which we take for granted while we have no direct evidence for them.
So you're a crackpot, then ?
I prefer the term "crank", myself.
How can it be, if thousands of physicists over the world believe in Relativity ?
Early this century, physicists were trying to understand the apparently contradictory way that light behaved in different situations. While different theories could explain light's behaviour in different situations, they could not explain its behaviour in all different situations.
Relativity was the first theory to come forward which was apparently able to explain the behaviour of light in all situations.
At this time, an alternative theory which was competing with relativity was Ritz's emission based theory. However, at the stage at which Ritz developed it, this theory was unable to explain all of light's behaviour consistently.
Ritz developed the basics of his theory in 1908, and died an untimely death in 1909. Einstein was still around to promote his theory, however. We know what a genius Einstein was ..... so if there was an alternative theory, it would take a similar genius to go somewhere with it.
Relativity won the race by default, rather than as the result of a fair race.
In embracing relativity, physics has built up a whole set of arbitrary assumptions which they use to support the very same perspective which "justifies" relativity, and stops physicists from considering approaches which would demonstrate Ritzian principles. I will show just what these assumptions are and how they shape our perceptions later in this document.
Ah, so you're a genius, right ?
Don't be silly.
At the time of the great upheaval in physics, you did have to be a genius to develop a theory on the fly, with only sparse experimental evidence and barely formed ideas to work with.
Since the upheaval, a lot more experimental evidence is out, ideas are a lot better formed, and other workers have advanced the ideas originally put forward by Ritz.
I am only developing work done by others.
I am not a genius. But genius is not important. Communication skills and theatrics are the most important things in this particular race.
Hang on. Doesn't Relativity get all the numbers right, too ?
Well, a theory can get it numbers right and still be looking at things from the wrong viewpoint. History is full of examples where an exceedingly primitive model still manages to get the numbers right, even though we later discover just how primitive the approach that model took was.
Certainly, given a set of observations, not just any random theory will explain them. The theories which explain the observations with any precision will be a very tiny subset of all the theories you could imagine.
Even though those theories may be small in number, there could still be more than one ....
At this level, reality has a certain geometry .... and there may be more than one angle which you can illuminate it from to generate sharp shadows.
Einstein's theory does take advantage of an underlying geometry of reality, but nevertheless is looking from the wrong angle. Ritzian theory it a much better angle to view things from.
What about the Michelson-Morley experiment ?
Even from an establishment viewpoint, the Michelson-Morley experiment does not "prove" relativity. It only eliminates one "simple" ether theory from the race. From an establishment view, relativity explains the Michelson-Morley experiment and a host of other experiments which no other theory could explain in their entirety. But more complex ether theories, and Ritzian style ballistic theories explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Are not Maxwell's equations Lorentz invariant ? Is this not an indication of the elegance of Special Relativity ?
From a Ritzian view, this is the result of a "fix" after the fact. Maxwell's equations do not have the full picture, and need the Lorentz transforms to better approximate reality. The nature of the fix is such that must be a relationship between Maxwell's equations and the fix, if the fix is to be applied consistently regardless of situation. Maxwell's equations will be Lorentz invariant. This is a consequence of the fix, rather than an indication of underlying elegance.
What about Relativity's problems ?
Relativity does have conceptual problems, and shall we say errors or contradictions.
One set of contradictions revolves around the twin paradox, definitions of time and various convoluted philosophical issues. There * is * a problem here, but it is very difficult to get a handle on. Simply put, it is not worth pursuing with any vigour, because advocates of the theory will just say "The theory does explain everything and get the numbers right. The concepts are difficult to grasp. So you must be misunderstanding it.".
There other areas where you could say there are problems, but they are fiddly parts of the theory. To be honest, I don't really understand these things myself yet and will not be considering them further in the document. I hope to consider them in the future.
I have concentrated on an approach which looks at the fact that relativity does supposedly explain everything and get the numbers right, for this reason.
It's said that people critical of Relativity are attacking authority figures. What are your feelings about Einstein ?
In understanding a new area of science, many people 'speculate'. It's part of the process. Eventually, some of the 'speculations' are shown to be in error, but science has advanced in making this realisation. While the initial 'speculations' have been shown to be wrong, the people making these 'speculations' have nevertheless contributed to the advance of scientific understanding.
Einstein's Relativity theory should be seen in this context. Had history been different, it would have been a speculation which would have been shown incorrect, but would have nevertheless helped advance scientific understanding.
Einstein contributed to the development of Quantum Mechanics, with a theory of electron emission. He rightly won a Nobel prize for this. Einstein was a very intelligent man.
Nevertheless, we must remember that, like you and me, Einstein was a human being. On reading the literature on relativity, we would be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Newton's theory was questioned when it first came out. Some people make an analogy with critics of Relativity at the present time. What's your response ?
This approach relies on a definite historical similarity between Newtonian mechanics and Relativistic mechanics. However, there are a few fundamental differences :
-We have evidence for Newtonian mechanics all around us, in terms of car smashes, acceleration and so forth. We have seen direct evidence for Newtonian physics. Astronauts pushing themselves about demonstrate that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Colliding pucks on an air table provide evidence for the idea that a body will remain in motion in a uniform straight line unless acted on by a force.
With Relativistic Mechanics, we have nothing approaching this "before our eyes" demonstration. In fact, we have not seen anything close to the basic "thought experiment" on which Relativity is based.
-While Newtonian Mechanics have what would have seemed radical consequences at the time, this is nothing compared to the departure from common sense ideas that Relativity brings with it. We no longer have uniform space and time - time and space vary with the situation. This is really radical.
-SR has fundamental conceptual problems, and requires a great deal of intellectual gymnastics. It has problems like the twin paradox. Newtonian physics has nothing comparable.
Quite apart from all these considerations, the mere existence of historical precedent does not force the present to behave in a particular way.
You mentioned Ritz. How much of the theory is 'your own' ?
Ritz's theory was developed and extended by workers such as Dr. Z Budrikis, who showed that it is possible to derive equations which closely parallel Maxwell's equations (Maxwell's equations describe interactions between fields and are at the foundation of theories of light propagation).
Much of my work regarding light propagation and its relationship to Ritzian theory is based on Budrikis' original work.
This is not just a theory I have 'dreamed up'. I derive it from a worthy tradition of thought.
What other workers and alternative perpectives are there ? How have they progressed ?
The Ritzian perspective has been developed by Domina Spencer, who has been active for many years, and has published a review of the Ritzian approach in the American Journal of Physics. Dr. Spencer is a mathematician, but embraces the idea that there is an alternative to Relativity.
Bryan G Wallace is another worker, who has concentrated on the fact that radar reflections from planets in the solar system indicate that the speed of light is not strictly constant. I have not been able to give his ideas a critical review, but they certainly sound reasonable. It could be a piece of scientific evidence in favour of a variable speed of light.
Bryan, needs to get a grip on all the experimental evidence for constancy or otherwise in the speed of light, and make a side by side comparison. This is something I am working towards.
Assuming that radar reflection did provide objective evidence for the variable speed of light, and the mainstream scientific community conceded this, they would then review * all * the scientific evidence. Of course, there's a big * if * here.
I concede that the experimental evidence that Bryan puts forth may have merit. Nevertheless, his own perspective focuses around an "ether"; this is one area where our two perspectives differ. Ritzian theory does not explicitly require an ether.
He has put together a document, "The Farce of Physics", which is a little too verbose for my liking - no slur intended on his motives, however !!!
Bill Owen is a contributor to the alt.sci.physics.new-theories newsgroup (one of a number, of course). His own perspective focuses on the idea that relativity has a few conceptual problems, and that the idea of an unchanging speed of light requires revision. But he does try to operate in a mostly relativistic context.
One of things he has identified could be an inconsistent expositions by Einstein. However, it may be possible to "fix" Relativity without significant implications. It is also possible that he is onto something with significant enough implications to cause some upheaval in the theory.
Mr. Owen has underlined that Einstein himself said that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light may require revision. Playing devil's advocate here, Einstein could simply have been wrong here, without there being a problem with relativity. Certainly, it is an interesting statement, and I plan to look at the context in which it was expressed.
Mr. Ownen is also looking at problems with the Hafele-Keating experiment, an experiment where clocks are flown around the world in aircraft. I too have problems with this experiment, and hope to compare our views on this experiment.
Is the speed of light limiting in your theory ? Can you travel faster than the speed of light ?
It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. However, if we have a spaceship travelling at such speeds in the vacuum of space, the gas particles it collides with will have a more than proportionate apparent momentum (in partial agreement with present relativistic principles).
The increased "momentum" of these gas particles may erode the hull of the spacecraft quite rapidly, making FTL travel unfeasible. The justification for this line of thought is developed in a later section.
Why are you promoting this alternative theory ?
I was intrigued by the idea that alternative theories to relativity could be worthwhile, and that you could travel faster than the speed of light, about a decade ago I decided to "look into it". I found some interesting results, which told me there were possible problems with relativity.
I sent a letter to 'New Scientist', which was not responded to. While I identified myself as, like the people at 'New Scientist', being a thoughtful person with a worthy point of view, it came as a shock that they did not identify me as being part of 'their' group. A lot of people go through this realisation at least once in their lives.....
I had a good think about things, and decided that while there were problems with relativity which would never see the light of day, I would never get very far with them because of the problems in getting past the editor's desk. It seemed tragic that this truth would never come out, but I nevertheless decided I would do other things with my life.
Some time ago, however, I entered the internet. I realised there was potential. While I could get past the editor's desk, I would still need to package my ideas if they were to get anywhere on the 'open market for ideas'. And I thought I'd give it a try.
During this time I argued the case, and was generally derided and dismissed. I became somewhat paranoid. Its evidence for the fact that people respond to the environment they are in. I know I did.
More recently, however, I've been in touch with some academics. While the vast majority of scientists and people with some familiarity with the theory are dismissive, or not interested, it is possible to find a tiny few who are. I'm now looking at getting things promoted in scientific circles, and perhaps even published in reasonably respectable scientific journals.
However, even with such publication the chance of the ideas getting very far is in the lap of the Gods. Even moderately radical ideas within the scientific mainstream can sink without a trace. Academia is an ecosystem of ideas, and the ones which develop interest are the ones which happen to develop interest, not the ones most deserving of it. It is a pressure cooker of fads and fashions, with everyone watching each other very carefully.
But, even so, the process of getting familiar with these formulae to the point where they work, developing mathematical models which take a bloody long time to program, but then give you novel results, well that's a buzz, even if the world does not beat a path to your door over it. A few people do appreciate it - enough to give me a warm feeling. This is the thrill of achieving a goal after waiting for so long. It is its own motivator. Admittedly, its a reason to do it, not a reason to promote it, but it is a related issue.
The results I've seen are enough for me to think - "hey, I've done this, and even if the whole theory is wrong - heck, its an intriguing result." And, it means I'm more relaxed about being wrong. I suspect being wrong was never the issue. Being ignored, derided and insulted, was.
You said you would not get far with your ideas before you came across the internet. Is there a conspiracy ?
No. And, hey, there may even me a chance of getting somewhere in mainstream science. A voice in the corner, whose view is described in a single paragraph and dismissed, but voice which has at least some little bit of the mainstream scientific terrain.
But, thinking of what you might call "almost conspiracies". Not deliberate conspiracies, but effects which add up ...
A lot of people in positions of power individually pursue what they believe to be in their own best interests, and these decisions do not conflict, but rather add up into what looks like a conspiracy.
Consider this. Einstein's two works on relativity have reached the all time best seller list, being in the company of the Bible, the Koran, Plato's Republic and the Communist Manifesto.
Between the physicists who actually deal in SR and GR, who would have a lot to lose from SR being found incorrect, and the much larger group of physicists who would find SR being found incorrect an embarrassing blow for the * whole of physics *, they have a vested interest in seeing what they want to see.
I realise that a lot of people have said that "If a theory superior to relativity comes along, people will jump to it if it really is superior". This is an idealistic statement I do not really believe. People's perceptions will be, in the first instance, guided by their preconceptions.
Even in mainstream science, it is very difficult for new ideas to be noticed. Science is an ecosystem of ideas, a competitive market, and this dominates over any high minded ideals of "openess" which might be claimed.
It would appear you think your theory will not get very far because it is 'too radical', quite apart from its intrinsic truth. But what about Einstein's theory ? It was radical at the time, wasn't it ?
Einstein's theory was radical at the time, but physics was in turmoil. It could not find an answer. Relativity provided an answer, and was accepted as much for what it said as the environment that it was in.
Since then, physics has become a lot more self assured. It has built up defensive perimeters to theories which are as radical as Relativity once was, because it is no longer looking for an answer.
Does it really matter ?
Short answer : No.
Long answer : Relativity being wrong or right matters as much as all the general speculation on Cosmology, Black Holes and so forth.
There's a lot of publication and intellectual effort along these lines. It captures people's imagination, but has little effect on our everyday lives. The theory put forth in this document is along similar lines.
The truth of the theory in this paper may make us review our ideas about interstellar travel and what alien intelligences may have been up to. Of course, the importance of these ideas varies with the individual.
How are we to assess the truth of your theory ?
Obviously, consider it carefully and think for yourself. I paraphrase some material from Patrick Esch, who gives his opinion on whether someone is a "misguided critic" of a theory or not, for guidance :
I think that one is not a misguided critic just because one "attacks" a current theory. That would actually mean most of current theorists would be misguided critics.
A misguided critic is rather someone who claims that all of current knowledge is bullshit, that he/she knows the Ultimate Answer and that it is only because of the conspiracy of morons in scientific establishment that his/her geniality isn't recognised.
Furthermore, a misguided critic usually doesn't even bother to understand current theory (why would he/she ? It is anyway inferior...) but doesn't accept any criticism on its own Formidable Ideas.
Einstein had a great respect for Newton. Most misguided critics haven't got the slightest respect for current scientific theories (as far as they understand what they are talking about) and don't even realise they have to build a theory which should at least contain the successful predictions of current theories as limiting cases.
I would note in passing that I consider members of the establishment to be humans rather than morons. In fact, it would be fair to say that most people who call themselves scientists are people first and scientists second.
Wayne Throop posted something along the lines that critics of relativity take advantages of ambiguities in natural language to show there is a contradiction in Relativity, when actually there is none. Critics do not use a thoroughgoing logical analysis in showing that there is a contradiction.
How about some references ?
OK.
Z.L.B., Ritz's Electrodynamics as a basis for Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetism, Proc. IREE Aust, *29*, 343-358, 1968.
This is quite fierce on the maths, but worth reading if you have some familiarity with Maxwell's equations.
Z.L.B, Might electrical earthing affect convection of light, Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 4 or 5.
This is quite specific paper, but may nevertheless be of interest.
P.M. & D.E.S., Electromagnetism without Magnetism : An Historical Scetch, American Journal of Physics, *22*, 120-124, 1954.
This has a few formulas, but is a more general introduction to Ritzian style electromagnetism.
Next: 4. The Development of the Theory of Relativity