World Science Database
Home Scientists Abstracts Books Events Journals Experiments Topics Index More Find Login
Scientists Interests Profession Websites Notables Countries World Map Recent Memorials Memorial More


Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org

View count: 1105
Marmet, Dr. Paul     (Easy Link: http://www.worldsci.org/people/Paul_Marmet)
Professor of Physics (Deceased)

Interests: Newtonian Physics, Big Bang, Redshift
Nationality: Canadian
Born: Friday, May 20, 1932
Died: Friday, May 20, 2005 (Age 73)

Memorial Wall: read / add a dedication

Related Websites:
Newton Physics - Links to P...


Books:
1997Einsteins Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics
1993/1995Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution

Abstracts Online:
2006The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light
2000The Deficient Observations of Light Deflection Near the Sun
1990Relativity and the Formation of Black Holes
1991A New Mechanism to Explain Observations Incompatible with the Big Bang
1998Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light
1990Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
1989Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe
1988A New Non-Doppler Redshift
1998Book Review: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics
2000Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light
1996A Realistic Interpretation of Length Contraction
1996Relative Simultaneity?
1996The Non-Reality of Time Dilation
2000The Apparent Constant Velocity of Light
1994An Alternate Interpretation of the 3 K Radiation
1995The Cosmological Red Shift in an Unlimited Universe
2006The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment
2003GPS and the Illusion of Constant Light Speed
1995Incompatability; Simultaneity

Event Attendence:
2009-10-24Relational MechanicsVideo Conference
2007-06-30Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT) Moscow 2007Conference
2006-04-0313th Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference
2000-09-15Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory VIIConference
2000-06-057th Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference
1999-05-26Galileo Back in Italy IIConference
1996-06-023rd Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference
1995-05-222nd (A) Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference
1994-06-201st Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference (Absentia)

Biography

From 1990 to 1999, Paul Marmet was a Visiting Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa.  He was a Senior Research Officer at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, from 1983 to 1990.   From 1962 to 1983, he was a Professor of Physics and after 1967 the director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Qu?bec City, the same place he receive both his BS and PhD in Physics.

A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-1982), he also served as a member of the executive committee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada from 1979 to 1984.  Marmet was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (F.R.S.C) in 1973 and was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1981.  The Order of Canada is the highest decoration bestowed by the Canadian government.  An acknowledged expert in the field of Electron Spectroscopy, he authored more than 100 papers on the subject.

MARMET, Paul Ph.D., F.R.S.C., O.C. In hospital, on his 73rd birthday, on Friday, May 20, 2005. Dearly beloved husband of Jacqueline Cote. Loving father  ....   More - Ottawa Citizen, 5/21/2005.

Articles:


Books by Dr. Paul Marmet



View count: 1384
Einsteins Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics

by Dr. Paul Marmet

KeyWords: einstein

Pages: 200
Publisher: Newton Physics Books
Year: 1997
ISBN: 0921272189
ISBN: 978-0921272182

Websites: www.newtonphysics.on.ca

Read it now online

Buy it now

Description


The aim of this book is to demonstrate that using "Conventional Wisdom" and "Conventional Logic", classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. The arbitrary principles of Einstein's relativity are thus useless.

It is very important to recognize the fundamental importance of the principle of mass-energy conservation. It took thousands of years of development for scientific thought to finally reject the magic of witchcraft. During the nineteenth century, scientists became convinced that matter cannot be created from nothing. Conversely, matter cannot be destroyed into nothing. It seems that even Einstein believed this, since he is the one who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, introduced the equation E = mc2 implying mass-energy conservation. However, he later developed general relativity which is not compatible with that principle. Indeed, according to Straumann, the "general conservation law of energy and momentum does not exist in general relativity".  Twentieth century science moved backward in accepting again the magical creation of matter or energy from nothing, even if this is hidden in complicated mathematics.

Contrary to what Einstein did, all the demonstrations in this book are compatible with the principle of mass-energy and momentum conservation. Using classical mechanics, we demonstrate that length contraction is a real physical phenomenon. We examine how this leads to the Lorentz equations. Then, we show how classical principles are sufficient to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and derive Einstein's equation. The fundamental reason for this advance is illustrated with a classical apparatus. We also study the Lorentz transformations in three dimensions and the Doppler phenomenon. Then we see how the problems brought by the relativity of simultaneity and by the principle of equivalence can be explained using conventional logic. We also show how classical mechanisms produce perturbations in the internal structure of atoms and molecules. Finally, we show that the presence of intense gravitational potentials leads to degenerate matter corresponding to Schwarzschild's black holes.

Einstein's relativity principles are not needed in these demonstrations. The only principles used are the ones already existing in classical mechanics. All the solutions are based on a physical model compatible with conventional logic.

Einstein's theory of relativity is a mathematical model which is not compatible with the physical models described in classical mechanics since it is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation. This is a well-known fact. It is claimed that the theory of relativity is so advanced that it is not possible to give a Newtonian physical description of it. It is also often argued that abandoning classical scientific concepts leads to a scientific revolution. It is erroneous to believe that a new scientific revolution must abandon the fundamental principles brought up by Newton's classical mechanics and logic which gave birth to all our knowledge in physics.
As stated in several papers, Einstein's relativity implies "New Logic" which contradicts "Conventional Logic". Einstein's theory implies that because we can find some arbitrary mathematical relationships that fit some experiments, we must abandon conventional logic. History reports some rudimentary scientific models that also fitted experiments but which were based on nonsense. Those models were rejected. A new scientific revolution based on "New Non Conventional Logic" can lead to a scientific disaster or to a dead end. No scientific concept can be so advanced that it is no longer compatible with logic.

Einstein's relativity assumes new mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely the concept of models to describe physical reality. Einstein supposed that time and space can be distorted and that simultaneity is relative but he did not give any serious description of what this really means physically. In Newton's time, physical descriptions of phenomena were accompanied by mathematical equations giving quantitative predictions corresponding to those physical descriptions. Einstein's relativity claims that nature can be described with mathematical equations without any physical description. There is a complete abandon of all the physical models that made physics understandable in Newton's time.

Our main argument here is not whether Einstein's hypotheses are true or not. We believe that if Einstein's hypotheses are correct, they must correspond to a real physical mechanism. Such a real mechanism is described in this book using classical mechanics and classical logic.

With Einstein's new logic, contradictory results have appeared. For example, Gerald Feinberg developed the theory of tachyons which move faster than the speed of light. There are also mathematical models calculating wormholes, strings, multidimensional space, superluminal objects, time reversal and even time lines. Certainly, these claims do not make sense when we use conventional logic.

An expert in Einstein's relativity is described as an expert in the mathematics of relativity. Since the conventional wisdom of classical physics is not used in relativity, an expert in relativity is not trained to deal with Newtonian logic. Consequently, this book on relativity will be much more easily understood by an expert in classical physics since he or she already knows the mathematics and understands the classical mechanisms involved. It might appear surprising to some readers that relativity can be explained with classical principles. However, they will never escape out of their preconceived notions and learn how this is done unless they carefully read this book. - From the Preface.

Book Review: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics by Dr. Thomas E. Phipps Jr.



View count: 1419
Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution

by Dr. Paul Marmet

Publisher: Les Editions du Nordir
Year: 1993/1995


Read it now online

Description

When I chose to study physics, I thought that science was always rational. Modern physics has certainly failed to fulfill those expectations. For example, I found that the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not allow us to believe in the real existence of matter and that the law of causality is not applied in quantum theory. David Layzer gave one of the most honest descriptions of modern physics when he said that modern physics is merely a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements. Unfortunately, his statement is true. Physics can be studied from many different points of view. Its aim can be to make numerical predictions of some phenomena or to present a rational way of explaining physical observations. These are two quite different aspects. Let us consider the first aspect predicting events. Using mathematical equations, modern physics can make predictions with extreme reliability. The mathematical formalism used in physics is so powerful that, when it leads to cases that can be calculated, it gives predictions that are compatible with all known experiments. This book does not directly deal with mathematical physics. Therefore, we will avoid using, as much as possible, most of the equations known in modern physics. We do not challenge any of the mathematical equations of modern physics. The usual aspect of physics, as being a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements, is not considered here at all. In this book, we consider only the second aspect of physics. When we deal with physics, we must ask: Do rules other than the ones imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes, there are in physics some elements that do not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with concepts such as mass, length, time and energy. These concepts correspond in our mind to images different from the ones represented by mathematical relations. They have a different representation in our mind because they must be submitted to external tests. They have to comply with observational results. There is no equivalence in mathematics. A mathematical demonstration never implies any experimentation. Mathematics simply deals with the calculation of relations between those concepts.

Once available from R. Yergeau, Simard Hall, 165 Waller Street, Ottawa, ON K1J 7N4, CANADA at $20.


Papers by Dr. Paul Marmet


Abstract:

When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located. We know that the Lorentz transformations and special relativity are unable to provide a realistic physical explanation of the behavior of matter and light. We show here that all these phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously (1) that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and physical bodies become longer because of the increase of the Bohr radius. These results allow us to answer the question: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away at velocity v, from a source emitting light at velocity c, the relative motion of the radiation is observed from the Doppler shift. How can we explain logically that these photons "appear" to reach us at velocity c and not (c-v)? The conventional explanation relies on special relativity, but it implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks synchronization. The Lorentz' transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light with respect to a moving frame is the most fascinating illusion in science.



The Deficient Observations of Light Deflection Near the Sun

(2000)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca

2000, 7th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States
Keywords: Light, Deflection, Sun

Lookup: light (157), sun (12), deflection (2)

Abstract:

We report a full analysis of one of general relativity's predictions, which claims that light should be deflected by solar gravity. Experiments using visible light as well as radio signals are examined. The Eddington's observational expedition, used to confirm Einstein's predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun, was using a four-inch telescope carried in the jungle. Assuming a perfect optic, the theoretical limit of resolution is 1.25", but some of the displacements presented were sometimes of the order of 0.01". In daytime observations, about 30" resolution is expected. That deflection is so difficult to observe near the Sun in daytime, that even the largest telescope in the world is still unable to confirm it after 80 years. This paper also shows that the corresponding delay for a radio signal passing near the Sun does not permit to get a more reliable result. We show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun. There are even serious reasons to believe that this phenomenon does not exist.



Relativity and the Formation of Black Holes

(1990)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



Apeiron, Volume 1, No. 7, pp. 20-27
Keywords: Black Holes, Schwarzschild radius, Big Bang cosmology

Lookup: black holes (10), schwarzschild radius (2), cosmology (47), big (24), bang (23), black (22), holes (10), radius (8), schwarzschild (5)

Abstract:

In order to form Black Holes, matter has to move across the Schwarzschild radius. We demonstrate here that according to Einstein general relativity, matter cannot have the time to form a Black Hole when we consider either the proper time or the Schwarzschild time. Black Holes are incompatible with the time-limited Big Bang cosmology.




A New Mechanism to Explain Observations Incompatible with the Big Bang

(1991)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



Apeiron, Volume 1, No. 9-10, pp. 119-139
Keywords: Big Bang, observations, redshift, Doppler phenomenon

Lookup: redshift (27), big bang (23), observations (4), big (24), bang (23), doppler (15), phenomenon (2)

Abstract:

The Big Bang model describing the origin of the Universe has been accepted mainly on account of the lack of alternatives to explain certain observations. This model, in which the redshift of remote galaxies is interpreted as a Doppler phenomenon, runs into impossible difficulties with the cosmological background at 3 K because this background is too homogeneous. Many observations, such as the redshift on the solar limb, the redshift of hot binary stars, the K-effect and a plethora of other observations, are not compatible with current theories. An alternate mechanism is described which yields a redshift without Doppler effect. This mechanism is already confirmed by several observations, and leads to an unlimited Universe model. Results are compared with proposals made by Halton Arp.




Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light

(1998)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
Christine Couture
Ottawa, Canada



Abstract:

This paper reports a detailed analysis of one of general relativity?s predictions, which claims that light should be deflected by solar gravity. The experimental data related to that prediction are analyzed. The substitution of the direct experimental test for the deflection of visible light during solar eclipses by the indirect measurement of the delay of radio signals traveling between a space probe or from extra galactic sources and the Earth is examined. Three different causes of the delay in the transmission of light near the Sun are examined. They are the relativistic delay, the delay caused by the plasma surrounding the Sun or for a geometric reason. The delay predicted by general relativity is equivalent to a reduced velocity of light in vacuum, in the Sun?s gravitational potential. Since the value of c is defined on Earth, inside the solar gravitational potential, this leads to a double value for the velocity of light on Earth. Furthermore, Einstein?s general relativity predicts that photons slow down when approaching the Sun, so that their velocity must be reduced to zero when reaching the surface of a black hole. This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable. Furthermore, the internal incoherence of general relativity, which leads to a double velocity of light on Earth, adds to the weakness of these tests. Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.



Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

(1990)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



(15 pages)

Abstract:

We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones. At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted. These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.



Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe

(1989)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
Grote Reber
Tasmania, Australia; grotereber@worldnpa.org



Volume 17, No. 2, (10 pages)

Abstract:

Updated paper from: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No: 2 April 1989. An increasingly large number of observations consistently reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic matter than presently accepted. Radio signals coming from directions between galaxies is discussed. An average density of matter in space of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived. It is known that the density of matter is compatible with many reliable observations. These results lead to a nonexpanding cosmological universe.



A New Non-Doppler Redshift

(1988)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca


Physics Essays, Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 24-32

Abstract:

It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects for which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift of a given object is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift. A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the ?redshift controversy?. It is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics, without the need to introduce ad hoc physical hypotheses. A careful study of the mechanism for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gaseous atoms and molecules shows that an electron is always momentarily accelerated as a consequence of the momentum transfer imparted by a photon. Such an acceleration of an electric charge produces bremsstrahlung. It is shown in the present work that this phenomenon has a very large cross section in the forward direction and that the energy lost by bremsstrahlung causes a slight redshift. It is also demonstrated that the relative energy loss of the electromagnetic wave for blackbody radiation, such as for many celestial objects, follows the same ?Dn/n = constant? law as if it were a Doppler law. This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the lost energy should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.



Book Review: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics

(1998)

Dr. Thomas E. Phipps Jr.
908 South Busey Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, United States; tephipps137@gmail.com, 217-372-9491
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



Physics Essays, Volume 11, No. 2, pp. 332-333
Keywords: Book Review

Lookup: book review (2), book (2), review (3)

Abstract:

Review of Paul Marmet, Einstein's Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics (Newton Physics Books, 2401 Ogilvie Road, Gloucester, ON, K1J 7N4 Canada, ISBN 0-921272-18-9), U.S. $30.00.



Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light

(2000)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



(10 pages)

2000, Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory VII, Burnley, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Keywords: light, frames

Lookup: light (157), frames (5)

Abstract:

Considering that photons travel at the velocity of light c in the fundamental frame, we expect logically that these photons travel at velocity c-v (or c+v) with respect to a frame moving at velocity v. We know that the observed velocity is measured as c. However, that logical consequence has never been explained. Using Newton's physics and conventional logic, we explain how the velocity of light APPEARS constant in the two way measurement of the velocity of light, while it is c-v (and c+v) in the Sagnac effect. We answer the question: "With respect to what does light move?" This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks synchronization. The Lorentz' transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light is the most fascinating illusion in science.





Relative Simultaneity?

(1996)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca

1996, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United States
Keywords: Relativity, Simultaneity, Time

Lookup: relativity (390), time (100), simultaneity (20)




The Non-Reality of Time Dilation

(1996)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca

1996, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United States
Keywords: Time Dilation

Lookup: time dilation (19), time (100), dilation (23)




The Apparent Constant Velocity of Light

(2000)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca

2000, 7th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States
Keywords: Speed of Light

Lookup: speed of light (35), light (157), speed (58)

Abstract:

When we learn that the absolute velocity of light is c, we must explain: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away from a source at velocity v, how can we explain logically that these photons are reaching us at velocity c and not (c-v)? No physical description has ever been presented to explain why the moving observer actually measures the value of c instead of (c-v). The standard explanation relies on non-conventional logic such as space-time distortion. This paper explains clearly why the velocity is really (c-v), while the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. This illusion is due to a two-way measurement of the velocity of light. The Sagnac effect and the Global Positioning System (GPS) can measure a one-way velocity of light. We show how the one-way velocity of light is measured as "c+v" and "c-v" using the GPS. All these considerations are based on mass-energy conservation, Newton physics, and conventional logic.



An Alternate Interpretation of the 3 K Radiation

(1994)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
(Absentia)

1994, 1st Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, San Francisco, CA, United States

Abstract:





The Cosmological Red Shift in an Unlimited Universe

(1995)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
James B. Wright


1995, 2nd (A) Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Norman, OK, United States




The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment

(2006)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca



Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 17, No. 4, pp. 63-71

Abstract:

We show here that Michelson and Morley used an over simplified description and failed to notice that their calculation is not compatible with their own hypothesis that light is traveling at a constant velocity with respect to a rest frame. During the last century, mathematicians uselessly solved the Michelson-Morley equations in numerous ways without realizing that two essential fundamental phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley equations. We see that the law of reflection of light on mirrors must be corrected when the mirror is moving. Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame, light does not enter in the instrument at 90o as assumed in the Michelson-Morley experiment. We acknowledge that, the basic Michelson-Morley idea, to test for non-isotropy of space-time by comparing times taken by light to travel in parallel directions vs. transverse directions, is very attractive. However, we show here that this test is not valid, because of those two classical secondary phenomena, which have not been taken into account. When these overlooked phenomena are taken into account, we see that a null result, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is the natural consequence resulting from the assumption of an absolute frame of reference and classical physics. On the contrary, a drift of the interference fringes must be observed in order to support Einstein's relativity. Therefore, for the last century, relativity theory has been based on a misleading experiment.




GPS and the Illusion of Constant Light Speed

(2003)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 14, No. 2, pp. 23-30

Abstract:

Special relativity theory is not able to provide a satisfactory physical explanation for the behavior of matter and light. For example, when we move away at speed, from a source emitting light at speed, the photons appear to reach us at speed c and not c - v. This apparent constant speed of light with respect to a moving frame is perhaps the most fascinating phenomenon in science. The conventional explanation in terms of special relativity theory implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. How can we explain the phenomenon more logically? We show here that all such phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and that physical bodies become longer because of an increase of the Bohr atomic radius. The present paper gives a physical explanation for the apparent constancy of light speed. Constant light speed is an illusion: light speed is really c - v with respect to the observer, even if his tools always measure. The key to the explanation is the question: With respect to what does light travel? A physical understanding is crucial in clock synchronization and in running the Global Positioning System (GPS).



Incompatability; Simultaneity

(1995)

Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca

1995, 2nd (A) Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Norman, OK, United States

Abstract:



hotmail iniciar sesion hotmail inicio de sesion