Since SR was first conceived it has been assumed that classical theory cannot explain various phenomena like Sagnac, Ives Stilwell and the deSitter double star experiment. The claim being that light leaving a rotating or moving source travels at c+v in the inertial frame. That being the lab frame in Sagnac or the earth frame in de Sitter. This is an incorrect assumption made by supporters of relativity to rule out a classical model. Leaving SR as the only viable alternative. Analysis of this assumption shows it to be false.
Take the De Sitter example. ( De Sitter, Willem (1913), "On the constancy of the velocity of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 395-396 ). In the currently available wiki page we have the quote: "According to simple emission theory, light thrown off by an object should move at a speed of c with respect to the emitting object". The authors of this page then proceed to contradict this statement by describing the exact opposite and say it travels at constant c+v in the inertial earth frame. This is a mathematical impossibility. If as relativists admit light must always travel at c in the source frame. It is impossible to have light travelling at a constant c+v speed in a inertial frame if one calculates using a Galilean transformation. To satisfy classicals constant c in a source frame it must be variable in the inertial frame. And in the accompanying java applet animation they actually show light leaving the source at *a variable speed* with respect to the source. In other words they have ignored the fact that they have just admitted classical theory only has light travelling at constant c relative to the source as it moves or rotates.
It is worth pointing out here that Classical theory of light does not have light at constant speed c in all frames. Only in the source frame. This is a fundamental aspect of Classical theory developed over many years prior to the inception of SR. Experiments such as MMX have only helped to confirm this property of light. The same mistake is made by relativists for the Sagnac theory in respect to Classical predictions. Here too the erroneous assumption is that light is c+v in the lab frame. Ignoring the fact that light should only be at constant speeds in the source frame. Regardless of the fact it rotates in the lab. If one looks at the Michelson Morley experiment from 1887 we observe light at constant speeds in all directions in the lab frame. Not in the inertial earth frame that the earth rotates in. This means that as the MMX rotates around the earths axis, light must be travelling at constant speeds in the rotating frame. Any Galilean translation to the inertial frame, as too with the rotating source in deSitter, will not give a constant speed in the inertial frame. Contrary to the claims of constant c+v in the inertial frame made by relativists. If one calculates speeds correctly for classical theory it becomes obvious that in fact light is variable in the inertial frame for Sagnac and deSitter among others and DOES not pile up on arriving at earth in deSitter. And CAN give a fringe shift in the rotating Sagnac source.
Examples of this are given as simulations in the video channel accompanying the blog channel "physics explained" for this article.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCcCBqQ2VHaWLL3Gzb8dIk-w
Further to this, some relativists claim that in fact light is variant in the MMX lab frame and that this therefore rules out the possibility that light is invariant and therefore constant only in the MMX lab frame. And by inference all other rotating source frames. Their argument is that although to date this claim they make hasn't actually been observed, the effect is there but too small to measure! This is basically suggesting that they believe that confirmed observation is overidden by unsubstantiated assumption. Not a very scientific approach on their part considering they usually insist verification by observation is of tantamount importance for any theoretical validity. As it turns out their assumptions about current experimental evidence not being sensitive enough to this 'imaginary' invariance appear to be false anyways. Because their assumptions are based on the assumptions made in 1887 that the aether winds effect on path difference was velocity of earth diluted by the refractive index of this in a theoretical aether
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In other words the aether wind was less than v of earth through the aether because it's refractive index reduced its effect. Whereas to test whether light is at c in the inertial or source frame, one does not have m take into account the refractive index of any aether and rather, just perform a straight Galilean translation from one frame to the other without invoking a refractive index. The following experiments are usually proposed by relativists to falsely claim that light cannot be only at c relative to its source. Contrary to relativists claims, they ARE all consistent with the prediction by classical theory that light is observed to travels at c relative to its source.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
IVES STILLWELL:
As explained in separate posts on this blog site, the Ives Stillwell experiment IS consistent with classical, and in fact invalidates SR. Contrary to claims made by relativists. And is probably the best classical style experiment to show this. Essentially to get the correct observed fringe offset, one needs to correctly calculate c+v. As opposed to relying on the erroneous calculations and assumptions made by Ives Stillwell. Correct calculations are supplied elsewhere on this blog in the relevant Ives Stillwell posts. If the only way to get the observed offset is to calculate using c+v, then it is impossible to have light at c as SR neccesitates to produce the observed offset. The SR calculations must then have been falsified to achieve the same result as classical. Probably some sort of lorentzian transformation to falsify data is used as SR does with Fizeau.
ALVAGER:
This is possibly the most audacious falsification of experimental data ever attempted by relativists. Essentially their argument is that a theoretical particle, the neutral pion, is the moving source for the observed gamma rays observed to travel at c in the experiment. As it turns out, neutral pions are assumed only and cannot nor ever actually have been observed experimentally. Their presumed existence relies solely on the observations of yes, you guessed it, gammarays observed in colliders in this very experiment.
Essentially what IS observed in this experiment are only gammarays travelling at c emitted by the non moving beryllium target. Perfectly consistent with classical theory which predicts emr will always only be observed to travel at c relative to its source. Relativists, desperate to discredit the obvious consistency of the experimental results with classical physics have invented an imaginary unsubstantiated particle that is emitted at near c by the target and then supposedly emits the observed gamma radiation. It is also worth pointing out the existence of these and other imaginary particles are in fact part of the standard model. Which itself is a theoretical framework based on false assumptions made by quantum theory about wave particle duality. An assumption about emr that has no substantiation. The photon is never actually observed, but only inferred. Either by scintillation or by photodetectors. Processes which themselves are easily explainable by a wave only classical theory of light. Utilising resonance to describe wave only light being absorbed or quantised in discreet amounts by the atoms in the detectors. FILIPPAS AND FOX: ( Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source, T.A. Filipas and J.G. Fox, Phys.Rev. 135, B1071). In this experiment it's not clear how curves A and B are calculated in the paper. No supporting calculations or assumptions are made to explain how exactly they have derived "incorrect" curves to invalidate classical theory. But a fundamental problem here is the assumption of photon pairs. Classical theory does not incorporate the concept photons or photon pairs. Light is a wave. Like Alvager any predictions can be identified as false assumptions for any classical model.
BECKMANN MANDICS:
Here the problem is simple. Light as a wave is not known to gain or lose velocity from reflection. Hence classical wave theory would also predict c in the lab seeing as the source is not moving. (Even if we were to assume additive velocities for wave reflection... why would the non moving lloyds mirror not return the speed to c again. It doesn't move relative to the interferometer.)
BABCOCK BERGER AND KANTOR:
Here we have another false assumption. The source window rotates. This means the speed for classical is NOT c+v. But rather variable. Data on window speed and design are not supplied and thus Calculations for the windows rotation need to be made to confirm what the average v would be for classical. But the conclusion would have to be much less than the assumed v as the rotating window as a source varies between 0 and v relative to the forward motion of the beam. Note there is an "unexplainable" fringe shift observed anyways in the experiment. Consistent with a slower than assumed source speed. At the very least these experiments are not conclusive either way.
