Public Domain information: In order to promote the widest possible
distribution of this Light Speed versus Special Relativity article, the content authored
by Stanley Byers is granted to be in the public domain.
This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements of 1994 AD that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as measured relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar system, and the Milky Way galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (c) relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity, is shown to be incompatible with the characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the 1994 AD data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing.
The one single fact that demonstrates that light speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" in Io's eclipse timing,... as discovered by Danish Scientist Roemer 1676 AD.
The given facts in this analysis are:
Conclusion:...This relative velocity between the retreating Earth and the Jupiter / Io light train is not constant at 300,000 km/sec, and therefore,...light does not maintain a constant speed (c), relative to all observers,... as postulated by Albert Einstein.
The remainder of this paper presents extensive detailed data and graphs supporting this conclusion, but it can be seen that Roemer's 1003 second delay in Io's eclipse event timing is the single data point that clearly demonstrates that it is not possible for the light speed in the intervening space to be constant at (c) in relation to the retreating Earth,... but of course it remains constant at (c) in relation to Jupiter.
Roemer, many other astronomers and NASA have
established that the eclipse period of Io in relation to
the Sun line to Jupiter is 152,915.9 seconds. The important
point concerning this period is the fact that it does not vary.
If the Earth could linger at the near point to Jupiter, it could be observed that Io's timing in crossing the Sun line to Jupiter does not vary over the years. It would make a very accurate clock for Sun dwellers.
When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,... if the speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth, then:
If the mechanics of the phrase,... [ if the speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth, then the observed timing of Io's period would not change ],... is not completely clear, the reader will not be able to understand the main argument of this Light Speed versus Special Relative paper.
A second concept which is also critical to understanding the argument is,... [ you cannot separate the speed and timing of the eclipse event image from the speed of the light. ]
Accuracy in measuring the eclipse timing and accuracy in the graphs demonstrating the changes of the eclipse period timing is not critical nor required to validate this argument. The single elementary fact that Roemer's 1003 second delay exists,... makes the second postulate of Special Relativity impossible. Without the second postulate of Special Relativity there is no known foundation or justification for the continued existence and / or advocacy of the Special Relativity and General Relativity Gravitational theories, and their publicly supported educational programs and investigative projects.
This paper is an extension of the work available on the web page "Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force". A review of the section titled "The Variable Speed of Light" may aid in perusing this article.
Papers by others with data demonstrating the falsification of Special Relativity are found at the following links:
Prof. Dingle shows time dilation of SRT to be untenable. 1971 AD
G. Wallace, radar data gives light speed as c + v. 1969 AD
Nasa JPL, Correcting for data Doppler shift with motion. 2004 AD
Light's Variable Speed Relative to Observers in Motion
In our experience with the speed of sound in air including the Doppler effect, we have found that the speed of sound through the air is independent of the relative speed between source and receiver. The speed of sound is constant only in relation to the homogenous medium, through which it is traveling. Sound travels as a longitudinal resonance wave within the physical properties of its medium.
Circa 1676 Olaf Roemer's Io eclipse timing measurements demonstrated that the speed of light is not infinite. Prior to this discovery it was a popular belief that light's speed was infinite. Using the eclipse period timing of Jupiter's moon Io, Roemer found that light took approximately 1000 seconds to cross the 300 million kilometer diameter of the earth's orbit, indicating a speed of about 300,000 km/sec. Thereafter it was assumed that interplanetary light traveled at (c) through a medium of infinitesimal material particles. This all pervading medium was called the Aether (ether). The speed of light was assumed to be constant in relation to this material Aether of space, in the same manner that the speed of sound is constant relative to its medium. This material Aether was visualized as pervading all planets, objects and space in its entirety . Therefore it was assumed that due to the orbital speed of the Earth, that light from space would show a measurable change in speed depending on the direction of the Earth's motion through this presumed stationary material "Aether". It also seemed reasonable that the light speed perpendicular to the direction of the Earth's motion would always remain at c, ( 300,000 km/sec ).
In ~1887 Michelson and Morley performed a famous experiment where they compared the speed of local light in the direction of Earth's velocity to the speed of light transverse to the Earth's motion. They found that the motion of the Earth had no effect on the velocity of local light,... relative to the Earth and within its cloak of atmosphere and secondary radiation. The surprising results of this local experiment were widely and erroneously extrapolated to a belief that all of light, including light from non local sources in space, also traveled at the constant c,... "relative to the observing location". In parallel with this development the theory of Special Relativity was published circa 1905, with main tenets that included the concept that not only local light, but that all of light in space,... traveled at c,... " in relation to the observer",... regardless of the observers velocity in relation to the source. ***
The following list of Special Relativity Theory advocates is presented to demonstrate how extensively the acceptance of the theory has propagated through the physical science community.
** National Academy of Science The following quotes are from the book GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS by the Committee on Gravitational Physics of the National Research Council and the National Academy of Science. It is clearly evident by this book that the Committee on Gravitational Physics is a strong advocate of Special and General Relativity and is advising that our government should continue funding research in support of Einstein's theory of relativity. Unfortunately the committee did not publish a list of their dissenters and their opinions for this study.
Quote 1 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in science and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS Exploring the Structure of Space and Time
Committee on Gravitational Physics
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council
Quote 2 National Academy of Science The committee's work was supported by grants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Quotes Cont.
Quote 3 National Academy of Science II. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PAST DECADE
The theory of gravity proposed by Isaac Newton more than 300 years ago provides a unified explanation of how objects fall and how planets orbit the Sun. But Newton's theory is not consistent with Einstein's 1905 principle of special relativity. In 1915, Einstein proposed a new, relativistic theory of gravity--general relativity. When gravity is weak ---for example, on Earth or elsewhere in the solar system---general relativity's corrections to Newton's theory are tiny. But general relativity also predicts new strong--gravity phenomena such as gravitational waves, black holes, and the big bang that are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those accounted for in Newtonian gravity. Modern gravitational physics focuses on these new phenomena and on high--precision tests of general relativity. END of Quotes
The NAS book is recommended for relativity believers only. The
bold treatment of text in the above has been added by this
author to bring attention to the committee's lack of a balanced pro and con
presentation of the relativity argument.
From Quote 2 above it is seen that the committee's work was supported by grant$ of (We the People's money) through the following (We the People's civil servants),... National Aeronautics and $pace Administration, the National $cience Foundation, and the U.$. Department of Energy. ~ $ ~
In a democratic republic established for the people and by the people,...the public's representatives ( civil servants, i.e. the U.S. Government, NASA, DOD, DOE, and the NSF and Universities ) should not be granting We the People's money to the unbalanced promotion of : books, studies, experimental programs and the teaching of one hundred year old unproven theories that have no foundation in facts. The glaring error in the foundation of Special and General Relativity is clearly revealed by the hard data fact that Roemer's 1003 second delay in the Jupiter / Io eclipse timing,...is true,...and is still measureable today. Light Speed is not constant relative to all observers regardless of their speed relative to the source.
The Pro Relativity book, GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS, is available for online reading, download and purchase via these links from the National Academy of Science.
A Contradictory view of Relativity is presented by this "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" paper. Continued
Special Relativity Advocates, Cont.
** An indication of the amount of TAX money that has been spent and is being spent on testing and studying and teaching relativity theories is obtained by performing a Google search on the terms: [ Gravity Probe B ] and another search on [ LIGO ].
Quote Welcome to the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) research group of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). LIGO is an ambitious national project funded by the National Science Foundation ,NSF, to detect and study the gravitational waves emitted by astrophysical objects. The UWM LSC group is part of the UWM Center for Gravitation and Cosmology and is an active member of the LSC working on data analysis and computing for the LIGO experiment. The UWM LSC Group is supported by NSF grants PHY 0200852, PHY 0421416, and PHY 0079683; any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. Unquote, From http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/
** A quote from Matthew Chalmers' article in Physics World January 2005, "Five Papers That Shook The World" , provides another view of this Special Relativity theory.
Quote: True to style, Einstein swept away the concept of the ether (which in any case had not been detected experimentally) in one audacious step. He postulated that no matter how fast you are moving, light will always appear to travel at the same velocity:-- the speed of light is a fundamental constant of nature that cannot be exceeded.
Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics are identical in all "inertial" (i.e. non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a completely new theory of motion that revealed Newtonian mechanics to be an approximation that only holds at low, everyday speeds. The theory later became known as the special theory of relativity, - special because it applies only to non-accelerating frames - and led to the realization that space and time are intimately linked to one another. Unquote
** The book, Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics, publishes another view as: The Postulates of Special Relativity, pg 169.
Quote: All observers, even when in uniform relative motion, will find the same value c for the speed of light in empty space. Unquote Cont.
** The following quote from Steven Hawking's famous book "A Brief History of Time", page 20, provides another description of the concepts contained in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
Quote: The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton's laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell's theory and the speed of light:...all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. Unquote
** Britannica's web site provides the following quote about Special Relativity.
Quote: Since he (Einstein) believed in (and experiment confirmed) the (extended) principle of relativity, which meant that one cannot, by any means, including the use of light waves, distinguish between two inertial frames in uniform relative motion, Einstein chose to give up the Galilean transformations and replaced them with the Lorentz Transformations. Unquote From http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
** Wikipedia's entry under the heading "Speed of Light" is abstracted in the following quote:
Quote: The speed of light in vacuum is now viewed as a fundamental physical constant. This postulate, together with the principle of relativity that all inertial frames are equivalent, forms the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity. According to the currently prevailing definition, adopted in 1983, the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 3×108 metres per second, or about 30 centimetres (1 foot) per nanosecond).
Experimental evidence has shown that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. It has also been confirmed experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example from a source, to a mirror, and back again) is constant. It is not, however, possible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and receiver should be synchronized. Einstein (who was aware of this fact) postulated that the speed of light should be taken as constant in all cases, one-way and two-way.
Unquote From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light Cont.
Special Relativity Advocates Cont.
** The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center's web site gives the following opinions regarding Special Relativity.
Quote: Theoretical Basis for Special Relativity.
Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- the two basic postulates of special relativity:
1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference.
This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
Given these two statements, Einstein showed how definitions of momentum and energy must be refined and how quantities such as length and time must change from one observer to another in order to get consistent results for physical quantities such as particle half-life. To decide whether his postulates are a correct theory of nature, physicists test whether the predictions of Einstein's theory match observations. Indeed many such tests have been made -- and the answers Einstein gave are right every time ! Unquote. From http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
** The Physics FAQ found on the web provides another view.
Quote : It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:
1) The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
2) The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time. Updated 1997 by Steve Carlip. Original by Philip Gibbs 1996. Unquote From, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
** Werner Heisenberg's book Physics and Philosophy (pg. 114) provides his opinion about Special Relativity:
Quote: The decisive step, however, was taken in the paper by Einstein in 1905 in which he established the "apparent" time of the Lorentz transformation as the "real" time and abolished what had been called the "real" time by Lorentz. This was a change in the very foundations of physics; an unexpected and very radical change that required all the courage of a young and revolutionary genius. Unquote
The level of detail used in the above review of relativity advocates may seem excessive to readers familiar with this issue, but the list of quotes included above is just a small sample demonstrating the popularity of the Special Relativity theory. Notice of the existence of: Universities, Government Science institutions or College and High School text books that propose concepts which refute the above quoted interpretations of Special Relativity (SR) will be appreciated and acknowledged on this forum. The intention here is to provide enough detail, data and transparency to allow those with opposing opinions to easily use this same material from the "Earth / Jupiter / Io" scenario, to challenge and demonstrate with specificity, the logic of :
In the vast world wide web and available publications there may be records of :
However,... limited searches by this author have not revealed such information ! Continued
Citations or notice of links to such information, especially from any SR or GR relativity advocates,... professors,... researchers,... Physics text book authors,... U.S. Government agencies,... Grant Authorities,... Universities,... The National Academy of Sciences,... Gravity Probe B project managers,... and LIGO project managers,...will be appreciated and promptly acknowledged on this forum. ***
An analysis of light's speed in relation to the motion of Earth is given here by reviewing Roemer's discovery and charting Io's 1994 AD eclipse data available from Astronomy On Line's web site. Olaf Roemer's measurements of 1676 AD demonstrated a finite value for the speed of light through interplanetary space. Roemer noticed that the eclipse event timing for Jupiter's moon Io was delayed approximately 1000 seconds when the Earth was at its farthest point from Jupiter in comparison to the event timing measured at the closest point in Earth's orbit. With the current knowledge of the diameter of Earth's orbit at approximately 300 million km, Roemer's delay of 1003 sec. indicates that Sun light reflected from Jupiter travels through space in relation to Jupiter at a speed of 299,103 km per second, (c).
During Earth's orbital trip from the point nearest to Jupiter (opposition), to the farthest point (conjunction), the moon Io completes 113 eclipse cycles as timed at the near point. If this is an exact calculation then the last eclipse event image, number 113 is crossing the near point when the Earth is at the mathematical far point. This last event will not be observed in the vicinity of the far point (conjunction) for another 1003 seconds (16.7 minutes). Many books and reviewers of this phenomenon list the time for Earth's journey from the near point to the far point as 200 days and equate this to 113 Io eclipse event periods as observed at the near point.
NASA's JPL Labs provides data listing a mathematical time period of 152,853.5 seconds (~1.77 days) for Io's sidereal revolution. Io's eclipse revolution time is 152,915.9 seconds , which is 62.4 seconds longer than the sidereal revolution time, due to the relative motion of the Sun line.
The argument about the velocity of Io in orbit does not need to be considered.
You can consider the shadow of Io cast on the surface of Jupiter when Io crosses
the Sun line,... as representing the timed event. The change in period per Io
revolution will remain the same, The only two velocities that need to be considered are "c" and the longitudinal velocity of Earth, both in
relation to Jupiter and Jupiter's inertial reference frame.
In order to clarify the issues of this argument we will linearize the arithmetic by assuming to take a spacecraft trip from Earth at the near point, following the diameter to the future far point. This constant longitudinal speed will be set to equal the Earth's average longitudinal speed when retreating in relation to Jupiter. In this scenario the spacecraft will rendezvous with the Earth at the far point after 113 periods elapse (~200 days) plus the 1003 second delay. The 113th event and the spacecraft will arrive at the far point with Roemer's famous 1003 second delay. The longitudinal distance traveled relative to Jupiter is the diameter of the Earth's orbit, ...~300 million km. Therefore Earth's retreating longitudinal trip of 300 million km in 113 orbit periods (~200 days), requires an average speed of 17.36 km per second in relation to Jupiter. The Earth only moves in its orbit approximately one hundredth of a degree during the 1003 second delay. Therefore assuming that the far point and the intercept point for the 113 eclipse event are the same does not introduce any significant error.
Since the diameter distance of 300 million km is evenly divided by the constant speed of the spacecraft , the distance from the start (near point) to the point for the first observed eclipse event will be the total distance, divided by the number of Io eclipse periods, 113. This places the point of observation, for the first eclipse observed by the spacecraft in motion,... at 2.6549 million km from the near point.
The time accounting tells us that if there are 113 Io eclipse orbits during this trip, and the last eclipse event is observed and measured to be 1003 seconds later than predicted,... therefore at the half way point in distance for the linear trip the delay must have been about 501.5 seconds. Continuing with this accounting, the first observed eclipse after leaving the near point on the linear trip, must have exhibited a delay of 8.876 seconds. This is obtained by dividing the total delay of 1003 seconds by the total 113 eclipse observations.
When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be a Doppler effect for events or digital information,.. and visa versa. It is necessary that this mutual relationship, between these two Doppler phenomena,... is clear to the reader for understanding the main argument of this paper. Continued
Now if the spacecraft leaves Earth at the near point and at the observation of an eclipse event, then the time to the next observed eclipse event will be 8.876 seconds longer than a stationary period, as calculated above.
The near point and Jupiter have no relative velocity, therefore the train of light imaging Io's eclipse events is traveling at c in relation to:.. Jupiter, and the near point and the first rendezvous point. .
When the next eclipse event passes the near point with the speed of c, it will continue toward the rendezvous with the spacecraft, and it will take light 8.876 seconds to cover the 2.6549 million km to reach the first rendezvous point. This, of course, is the reason for the delay observed by the spacecraft in motion.
Since the light speed, c, in relation to Jupiter is 299,103 km/s , and the spacecraft speed in relation to Jupiter is 17.361 km/sec,... this results in an average reduced relative speed of 299,085.6 km/sec. between the eclipse event image motion and the spacecraft motion.
If the speed of the train of light and events from Jupiter was not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth, succeeding observations of eclipse events would remain in synchronism with the observations of the near point. How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from Jupiter observe an eclipse event at the same time that it is observed at the near point?
The only way there could exist an absence of an observed delay during motion,... would be if the light speed was infinite. There would be no delays during the 200 day retreating movement, and the accumulation of 113 individual delays to equal the total 1003 second delay would not occur. Therefore there would not be a 1003 second delay to be manifested at the far point.
Of course Roemer's 1003 second delay of 1676 AD exists,... and is still measurable today. For 300 plus years this delay has been demonstrating that light from Jupiter exhibits a reduced speed in relation to the retreating motion of Earth. On Earth's return trip a proportionately higher relative light speed will be exhibited as Earth approaches Jupiter. Upon returning to the near point,... Io's observed events will again be in phase synchronism with the previous eclipse events at the near point.
With the light and the space craft racing to the same point at their different speeds,... how is it possible to subscribe to the concept of Special Relativity (SR) that states that the relative light speed does not decrease with changing motion. Furthermore, on Earth's return trip the relative speed will be greater than the "upper limit and constant speed of light" of SR. ***
There exists an argument that attributes the period changes which occur during Earth's orbit to the changing line of sight angle for viewing the eclipse events. If this argument were true the maximum changes in the length of the observed period would occur during the orbital positions when the Earth's motion is transverse to the line of sight to Jupiter. The following graphs plot the changing delay time from actual eclipse data recorded for a retreating and approaching orbital trip. It is seen from the following graphs that the maximum changes in the length of the observed period occur during the orbital positions that provide the highest relative longitudinal velocity between the two planets.
When the Earth is nearest to Jupiter during Earth's orbital trip,... Earth's motion is transverse to the line of sight to Jupiter. At this point of Earth's orbital travel, it is observed that the orbital period of Jupiter's moon Io is essentially the same as the JPL's published eclipse revolution period of 152,915.9758 seconds. Since there is no relative longitudinal motion between the two planets at this near point in Earth's orbit, the speed of the eclipse light train periods is taken to be 300,000 km/sec, c, in relation to both planets. If the Earth could remain at this nearest point for a few orbits of Io it would be found that each succeeding eclipse event would occur with the same predictable period. ***
As the Earth starts its orbit and leaves the point nearest to Jupiter there arises an increasing longitudinal velocity between the two planets.
As the light train speed is reduced relative to the retreating Earth, and remains at c in relation to Jupiter, there will be a measurable increasing delay in the events as observed from Earth. The following graphs display the changing delays in event timing (changing period) in relation to the changing longitudinal velocity as the Earth retreats from and approaches toward Jupiter. Continued
When the Earth retreats from Jupiter the relative longitudinal speed increases to its maximum which is approximately the orbital speed of Earth (29.79 km/sec). This maximum occurs when Earth has traveled through approximately one quarter of its orbit. Since this velocity is nearly one hundredth of one percent ( 1 X 10^-4 ) of the speed of light,... the light train traveling past the moving Earth will appear slower by this same percentage. Since the relative light speed is slower it follows that the apparent time period between eclipse events will necessarily be longer by the same percentage. Taking one hundredth of one percent of the eclipse period of 152,916 seconds gives the period a maximum elongation of 15.29 seconds. The charts of eclipse period elongations and reductions are given below which show this period change. Each of these maximum period changes is an independent measurement of the one way speed of light, following Roemer's 1676 AD example.
These charts were derived from the eclipse event observation records provided
on the web by Astronomy On-Line at the URL
When this Earth / Jupiter / Io scenario is analyzed with the concept of Special Relativity in mind, it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter does not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant speed of c in relation to Earth. However, once a light beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of atmosphere and secondary radiation,... it's locally measured speed between two points becomes c in relation to Earth. This has no influence on the Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period changes which are caused by the relative speed changes due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to Jupiter and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited a local light speed radically different then c, such as that speed change which occurs in water, Roemer's delay would still be evident.
When reviewing these charts it must be recognized that only the shape of the curve is needed to demonstrate the main point:...the maximum timing change occurs during Earths maximum longitudinal speed (29.79 km/sec) in relation to Jupiter.
These charts are generated by producing a moving average of an incomplete set
of eclipse events. A complete record of a set of 113 eclipse events is not
available due to the line of sight interference by the Sun. The moving average is obtained with the trend line sub-program
available in the MS Excel spreadsheet program. The chart lines would not be
offset and would intercept the zero second delay line at the near and far
points, except for the absence of data points and the averaging characteristic
of the sub-program. The absolute values shown on the changing delay chart should
not be used for precise representations of the actual delays corresponding to
Earth's actual orbital positions. The data points were not recorded to the
second, so this necessitated the use of a moving average plot to obtain the actual trend.
The 1994 AD data sets used from Astronomy On Line were checked against the scattered
data points available from the Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data. The citation for this data is "Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data by
A. Mallama, P. Nelson, J. Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
No discrepancies were found between the two data sources.
Citations and links to the supporting data sources have been included in order to encourage and aid other researchers to replicate this article. If any researchers wish to obtain the Excel files containing the data and charts used to produce this article, please email a request to email@example.com . The original data from Astronomy On Line as converted to Excel format is now ( 4/8/2007) available at this web site page Astronomy On Line Data, All reviews, alternate views, and comments are welcome.
Approximately 100 years have passed since the theory of Special Relativity (SR) appeared in 1905. The SR postulate that the velocity of light is constant in all inertial systems implied the necessity to revise the ideas of length, time and simultaneity. The data provided here indicates that this postulate is not compatible with the actual characteristics of light. This empirical data demonstrates that the speed of emitted light is isotropic and at c in relation to the source, and the observed light speed will be modified depending on the relative motion of the observer and the source. Newton's, Faraday's and Maxwell's concepts of physical systems, length, time, simultaneity, radiation and energy remain unchanged when the system of light (EM) transportation is recognized to function as the above data demonstrates. ***
In reviewing the data demonstrating that emitted light is isotropic from a moving source, it becomes necessary to propose a medium that moves with the source. This requirement eliminates the possibility of a material medium consisting of ultra mundane particles. The non EM Prime Force background radiation (Pf) as described in the article "Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force" provides the transport medium for inertia and light. EM radiation, including light, is propagated as a resonance within the non EM Prime Force radiation (Isotropic E field radiation frequencies) .
Our total Solar system has a motion referenced to sidereal space (star background) due to the rotation with the Milky Way. Due to the different Solar system orbits speeds of Earth and Jupiter, there will be times when Jupiter leads Earth and times when Earth leads Jupiter relative to the direction of our sidereal motion. In spite of our system's Milky Way sidereal motion,... the light from Jupiter remains at c in relation to Jupiter. If this were not so we would measure different speeds for light depending on the line of sight orientation with the Milky Way motion. Consequently the light emanating from a non accelerating source object is at c, and isotropic in relation to the source,... regardless of the speed and direction of the source in relation to other systems. The average published speed of our solar system in its trip around the Milky Way is 220 km/sec. This is almost 10 times faster than the Earth's orbital speed (29.79 km/sec) within the solar system.
A second example of this isotropic velocity phenomenon is the Earth Moon system. Whether the Moon is leading or trailing the Earth in its orbit, the same velocity of Earth shine light will exist arriving at the Moon. This fact disputes the intuitive and SR concept that light must travel through a medium and have a constant speed relative to this medium. It appears that for light to exist as a phenomenon of a background medium, each planet and Sun must have a medium that moves with it. This appears like an impossibility for a material medium,... however it is a reasonable concept for a Prime Force (Pf) radiation medium with a near infinite frequency spectrum. ***
In summary, this review of available data demonstrates that these characteristics for light exist, when it is acknowledged that the Doppler effect for light cannot be independent of the Doppler effect for the event images which are propagated with the light :
These characteristics are in direct opposition to the apparent concept from Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity page 56:
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which every light ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
This author's interpretation of this statement, which corresponds with the interpretations quoted by the Special Relativity Advocates listed above in this paper, is as follows:
This is obviously an extremely counter intuitive concept, and is the only concept that this paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" was designed to address. ***
When one searches the web for the term [Special Relativity] it is found that
there are groups and schools that embrace Special Relativity,... but interpret
Einstein's statement to mean that the speed of light in free space is not
constant, and travels at c
in relation to it's source.
If Einstein's constant c statement is interpreted in this manner for these ad hoc versions of SR,... then there is no reason for the existence of Special Relativity, and there would be no conflict with the charts of this paper. You cannot formulate Einstein's versions of the Relativities without his basic constant light speed tenet. The Jupiter / Io data and charts demonstrate that light has a closing speed for an observer ( c' ) that depends on the relative speed ( v ) between the observer and the source ( c' = c +or- v ). A quote from a sci. physics relativity news group discussion is an example of this second version of special relativity. This quote is arguing that the Jupiter / Io charts and Roemer's delay do not dispute Einstein's constant c statement.
Quote: SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed of objects relative to inertial reference systems. Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to objects that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Unquote
Returning to the English translation of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on SR we find a passage on page 66 that disputes the above quote and clarifies Einstein's meaning concerning the speed of light in the vacuum of space.
Quote: " In case I, the velocity of light would depend on the state of motion of the light source.
Light rays of most diverse propagation velocities would be present at one and the same location at the same time. The physical properties of light would not be determined, then, by the frequency alone, since the wavelength and the frequency would be independent of each other; the light originating from stars that are moving relative to us would have to be physically distinguishable from the light originating from light sources at rest. Experience has yielded nothing of the sort. The most convincing argument against this point of view, which has been advocated by Ritz, has been put forward by the Dutch astronomer Pexider. Quote Continued
The individual stars of stellar systems (double stars) must have sent us light of different velocities during different epochs of their orbits. Thus, the time of propagation of the light from double stars to us would be different for different epochs. The temporal sequence of the epochs as traced by us with the help of the Doppler principle would be different from that in reality; a simple calculation shows that, indeed, if the underlying hypothesis were borne out by the facts, the indicated influence would have to be so considerable that it would have been absolutely impossible for the astronomers to miss it. The untenability of this conception can surely be viewed (assumed) as being definitively proved. " Unquote
The passage of the above quote is essentially stating that the speed of all starlight through the interstellar space travels at the same speed, c, towards us, regardless of the speed of the star in relation to earth. This is clearly refuted by the Jupiter / Io light speed data and charts presented with this paper. The word (assumed) in the above quote is added by this author to highlight the fact that Einstein's erroneous conclusion, which is the basis for special and general relativity, is based on this unfounded assumption.
Advocates of the variant form, Special Relativity II, that believe that
SR can continue to exist without the constant light speed assumption,... that
interstellar light speed is
not dependent on the speed of the source,... should not
assume that they have an argument with this paper. This author has not and
does not intend to address any variant forms of special or general relativity.
The clear single intent of presenting the Jupiter / Io light speed charts is to show that these measurements refute the version of Einstein's statement claiming that interstellar light is independent of the source and the observer's velocity,... and refute Einstein's star light scenario in the above quote. ***
The Special Relativity Advocates, listed above and readers who may believe that the SR concept is a "law" instead of just a "theory",... need to closely review the following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends.
Circa 1913 Quote: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.
Circa 1949 Quote: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it will stand the test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right track at all.
Various English translations of these above quotes can be found on the internet.
The 1913 quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich dated
The 1949 quote is Einstein's response to Maurice Solovine's letter of congratulations on his 70th birthday.
The use of the universally recognized term "Inertial Space" demonstrates that
we already accept the fact that the medium which supports inertial force is
present, regardless of an object's speed or direction in
relation to sidereal space and Newton's inertial space. The medium supporting
inertia is the same medium supporting the isotropic characteristics of light
relative to its source, regardless of the source's speed or direction.
In this model of physical systems, this medium is called Prime Force background radiation. A review of this web site's section on ...Inertia,... may lead to a better understanding of how this model demonstrates the unity of matter and Prime Force radiation (Pf),... and how it allows light in free space to exhibit a constant speed in relation to each of its individual sources. ***
In addition to Roemer's discovery there are two other examples of EM radiation demonstrating that light speed is constant in relation to it's non accelerating source,... and is not constant to all observers regardless of their line of sight velocity relative to the source.
One clear example is provided by a problem with data rates
Cassini spacecraft and it's Titan lander Huygens. The fact that Doppler effects are
between Earth and spacecraft is another sure indication that EM radiation
maintains " c " in relation to the source and not the
observer. When the radio carrier frequency of a spacecraft is known
and a Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift of the carrier and data
is observed, how is it possible to assume that the "free space
speed of the EM radiation" did not change in relation to the observer
The following link from IEEE provides a quote regarding the Cassini / Huygens problem and the repair required due to the lack of recognizing the Doppler effects of relative EM radiation speed on the data rate.
QUOTE: ESA IMMEDIATELY CONVENED AN INQUIRY BOARD, with two NASA observers. One of them was Richard Horttor, who was then JPL's telecommunications system engineer for the Cassini project. He recalls, "We worked our way out by being totally candid from top to bottom once we detected the problem. There was no hesitancy or lack of resources. Nor was there any 'nation-to-nation finger-pointing.' "
The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's carrier signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another subtle consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the carrier wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but also the digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push the signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the phase-modulated carrier.
Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of 8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was reduced UNQUOTE
In the above quote concerning Nasa's Titan
data test it is seen that the carrier frequency and the digital data
frequency displayed a Doppler effect. If that same transmitter was
parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a repeat of Roemer's data
during Earth's orbital trip. In one case you have a light
train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a
radio carrier modulated by digital data.
You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the speed of the radio carrier.
A second example has been available on the web site of B. G. Wallace using 1969 radar data to establish that light speed is not constant for all observers. The information is available at:
description of the Doppler effect is available on the web at the URL
The frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the Doppler effect in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth and Jupiter, therefore the light train speed relative to the Earth changes at the same rate.
All reviews, comments and corrections for this article are welcome. Reviewers wishing to challenge the viewpoint of this paper and show that courses on Special and General Relativity theory should not be eliminated from our schools and universities,... should first endeavor to prove that Olaf Roemer's 1003 second delay, continually demonstrated by the actions of Jupiter and Io,... does not exist.
A hint from Will Rogers quotes may provide some relative light on this issue.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble,...it's what we know for sure,... that ain't so.
Professor Dingle shows time dilation of SRT to be untenable.
Science at the Crossroads; Professor Herbert Dingle
Astronomy On Line web site, http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/experiments/advanced/skills302.html
"Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data by A. Mallama, P. Nelson, J.
Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force
Web page address URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
Web site by: firstname.lastname@example.org