Preface to the lecture, 1

theory of objectivity

 

123

 

6.15 Definition of the speed of light

 

If a light signal propagates in space, then as a consequence of the velocity of propagation 

c, it at a certain point in time t is in a distance r of the light source:

 

r = c * t  

(6.19)

 

S h o u l d   the  speed  of  light  become  smaller  for  instance  by 

  then the light signal 

obviously has covered a distance less by Ar or the time interval has changed by

 

 (6.20)

 

This equation describes purely mathematically the most general case which can be 

assumed. By writing out the multiplication and subtraction of equation 6.18 the change in 

distance considered for itself is:

 

 (6.21)

 

The answer of mathematics is that the change in distance can have its cause in a change in

 

time, in a change of speed or in both. We now want to turn to the physical interpretation 

and have a closer look at the two possibilities, in which either c or t is to be taken constant 

(see fig. 6.16).

 

In the first case the speed of light c is constant and as a consequence the change 

 = zero. 

The mathematical formulation (according to eq. 6.21) therefore reads:

 

case 1:          

           

(relativity) (6.22)

 

If in this conception world a change in distance is observed, for instance the Lorentz

 

contraction, then in order to save this relation inevitably a change in time, for instance a

 

time dilatation, has to make the compensation. Einstein in an applicable manner speaks of

 

relativity, because according to his opinion in the case of both variables, the length

 

contraction and the time dilatation, it only concerns observed changes.

 

For the time dilatation experiments are given. But for the measurement of time always 

only atomic clocks are available and their speed of running of course could also be 

influenced by the Lorentz contraction. In any case it can't be claimed the time dilatation is 

proven experimentally as long as we do not know the mechanisms of decay of atoms. 

Otherwise the statements of the theory of relativity are familiar to us, for which reason 

further remarks seem unnecessary.

 

In the second case the time t is constant and consequently the change At = zero. At a closer 

look this case is much more obvious, since why should time change. After all time has 

been stipulated by definition.

 

After all, we are the ones who tell, what simultaneity is! 

The mathematical formulation for this case reads (eq. 6.21 with = 0):

 

case 2:         

            

(objectivity) (6.23)

 

This equation does open up for us an until now completely unknown and fundamentally 

other way of looking at the physical reality.

 

---

124

 

relativity and objectivity

 

 

Fig.   6.16:    Theory of relativity and theory of objectivity, 

derivation and comparison.

 

---

theory of objectivity

 

125

 

6.16 Relativity and objectivity

 

New to the second case (equation 6.23) is particularly the proportionality contained in it:

 

 

(6.25 = 6.2)

 

But to us it is not new, because we have derived the same proportionality from the model

 

conept (equation 6.2, fig. 6.2), in which the elementary particles are understood as

 

spherical 

vortices. 

Equantion 6.25 unconcealed brings to knowledge that any change of the speed of light c

 

[m/s] in the same way leads to a change of the radius r [m], the distance between two 

points in space or even the length of an object, e.g. a rule. Such a rule after all consists of 

nothing but spherical atoms and elementary particles and for their radius r again the 

proportionality 6.25 holds. Therefore it is to be set:

 

r   ~ 1 

 

(6.26)

 

and taken both together we already had derived as equation 6.18 (fig. 6.11) from the field 

dependency. Here the vortex model as well finds a confirmation of its correctness, as in 

the derivation from the equations of transformation of the electromagnetic field. Because 

all three, the derivation according to the model, the physical and the mathematical 

derivation, lead to the same result, this second case should be called "objective".

 

With that the first case, which describes the subjective perception of an observer, is not

 

supposed to be devaluated. It contains the definition of reality, according to which only is 

real what also is perceptible. The theory of relativity of Poincare and Einstein is based on 

this definition.

 

With the second case, the case with a variable speed of light, we however get serious 

problems, since we observe with our eyes, and that works with the speed of light. If that

 

changes, we can't see it, as already said. If we could see it, then "reality" would have a 

completely different face and we surely would have great difficulties, to find our way 

around. In this "objective world" neither electromagnetic interactions nor gravitation 

would exist, so no force effects at all. Because all distances and linear measures depend on 

the speed of light, everything would look like in a distortion mirror.

 

The concept of an "objective world" at first has not a practical, but rather a theoretical and 

mathematical sense. The distinction between an observation domain and a model domain 

is founded in pure usefulness.

 

The observation domain should correspond to case 1 and the model domain to case 2. The 

mathematical derivation tells us, how we can mediate between both domains (equation 

6.21): This mediation amounts to a transformation, which provides us the instruction, how 

a transition from the observation into a not perceptible model concept, from the relativity 

into an objectivity has to.

 

---