Preface to the lecture, 1

114

 

universality of the speed of light

 

From the comparison of the derived proportionalities:

 

 

follows: 

 

1   ~    c 

(6.18)

 

The speed of light is proportional to the measurement path. 

The variable speed of light is being measured with itself. 

The result at all events is a constant value.

 

The constancy of the speed of light is based on a measurement 

which is faulty from the principle!

 

 

Because of c ~ r:  physical length contraction

 

Fig.   6.11:    Derivation of the length contraction 

(field dependent Lorentz contraction)

 

---

theory of objectivity

 

115

 

6.11 Universality

 

Why can't the rule be replaced by an optical measurement arrangement? The crucial 

indication provides the comparison of both derived proportionalities 6.15 and 6.17. 

According to them holds the same field dependency for both the Lorentz contraction and 

the speed of light:

 

 or 

1   ~   c 

(6.18)

 

If the rule has proved to be useless, then we will experience the same disaster if we

 

measure optically, i.e. with the speed of light.

 

Obviously both, the length 1 and the speed of light c as a length per unit of time, depend in 

the same manner on the respective local field strength. On the one hand do both measuring 

methods lead to the same result; but on the other hand will anything which can't be 

measured with one method, neither be measured with the other method. 

If now the speed of light is being measured optically, then the measurement path will be 

proportional to the speed of light and as a result will the unknown factor be measured with 

itself. The result of this measurement, which is faulty from the principle, at all events is a

 

constant value, because here two variables which stand in direct proportionality to each 

other are related to each other.

 

Was the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley unnecessary, the result trivial? And 

how does it stand about the postulate of the universality of the speed of light? 

If we for that consider a cube (fig. 6.11). And we assume that the speed of light is a 

vectorial quantity, which in our experiment is for instance in one direction twice as large, 

as in the direction of the other two space axes. By means of the mentioned influence of the 

speed of light on the spatial length is, as a consistent consequence, the cube along this

 

edge pulled apart to a cuboid. We however register this spatial body with our eyes, which 

is with the speed of light and that has increased proportionally to the length of the edges, 

for which reason we as subjective observer still see a cube in front of us and not a cuboid. 

If we trust an apparent objective measurement more than our sense organ and measure the 

three lengths of the edges of the cuboid again with a rule then we get three times the same 

length, which is a cube. 

We probably are dealing with an optical deception using the true meaning of the word.

 

If the by Einstein postulated universality and constancy of the speed of light in reality 

doesn't exist at all, we in no way would be capable to register this; neither to observe nor 

to measure it!

 

The Galilean theorem of the addition of speeds objectively seen still is valid, even if the 

fact that the speed of light apparently is independent of the speed of the source pretends us 

the opposite.

 

If for instance a light source is moved towards a receiving device or away from it, then the 

speeds will overlap, like for the passenger, who marches in a driving train against or in the 

driving direction through the corridor. For the ray of light also the fields, which influence 

the speed of light and the measurement equipment, overlap. As a consequence will a 

measuring technician, who himself is exposed to this overlapping field, always observe 

and "measure" the identical speed of light. The observer as a result imagines, there is an 

universality of the speed of light.

 

---

116

 

aether

 

The field takes over the function of the aether.

 

 

Fig. 6.12:      Experiment of Michelson  and Morley to  

detect  an aetherwind

 

:     A.P.French: Special Relativity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966.

 

: Nikola Tesla: "This is the same as writing a business letter and forgetting the 

subject you wish to write about". To Einstein's Theories, Rare Book and 

Manuscript Library, Columbia University, 15.4.1932.

 

: Einstein proceeds in the same manner with the time dilatation, by assuming 

a time constant by definition for the derivation to present at the end of his 

derivation a variable time. And with that he presents a result which 

contradicts his approach completely.

 

---

theory of objectivity

 

117

 

6.12 Aether

 

Important experiments like the one of Doppler concerning the redshift or the one of 

Bradley concerning the aberration of the stars show only to clear, where the influence of 

the speed of light subjectively still is perceptible, or for laboratory experiments like the 

one of Michelson and Morley, where the influence isn't perceptible anymore, because the 

length of the interferometers always changes proportionally to the speed of light. 

The look in the stars at the same time is a look in cosmic areas, where completely other 

field conditions prevail and as a consequence completely other values for the speed of 

light and for the dimensions of space are present. The mentioned observations suggest that 

we together with our measuring station are moving through the cosmos and therefore a 

relative velocity has to be present with regard to an aether which determines the respective 

speed of light.

 

If we however constrict our range of vision and retire in a laboratory, then we no longer 

are capable to observe the influence of the field on the speed of light. The experiments of 

Michelson which Maxwell had prompted to and which Morley with a higher precision had 

repeated with the goal, to detect the aether, inevitably had to turn out negatively. The 

laboratory experiments resulted in the misleading picture, as if the earth was resting in the 

aether.

 

The not understood measurements will suggest any observer, he forms the centre of the 

universe and everything rotates around him, entirely in the sense of the Ptolemean view of 

life, which, although long ago abolished, here belated has experienced support. 

With a Swabia caper Albert Einstein has prevented a relapse into the dark Middle Ages 

and removed the open contradiction in the question of the aether, which once is measured 

as moving and another time as resting, by without further ado abolishing the aether. With 

that he undoubtedly has solved a central problem of physics and at the same time created a 

new one. As is known does the speed of light have a certain value, and therefore the 

question is raised, what determines is size. Exactly for this purpose a luminiferous aether 

had been introduced, however it is constituted.

 

Scientifically it does make little sense, to make an assumption, if at the end of the 

derivation the prerequisite is deleted without substitute. In such a case either in the 

approach or in the derivation is a principal error*

1

"*. Nikola Tesla comments on the 

working method of Einstein with the applicable comparison, as if Einstein had, while he 

was writing a business letter, forgotten completely the subject he wanted to write about 

(fig. 6.12

).

 

The answer, which removes all contradictions and is entirely in accord with all 

observations and measurements, is obvious. Naturally a luminiferous aether exists, which 

determines the velocity of propagation and of course it by no means is bound to the 

observer.

 

As has been derived in figures 6.5 and 6.6, will for a relative velocity v arise a field, which 

according to proportionality 6.17 determines the speed of light. With that we have derived

 

completely.

 

The field takes over the function of the aether.

 

The equations 6.10 also answer the question, why no aetherwind is being observed, 

although such a wind actually is present: we experience, as we have discovered, an E-field 

with ,,head wind" as a resting H-field and vice versa and therefore we aren't capable to 

detect the head wind in the aether!

 

---