The c+v hoax

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.

Ives Stillwell is consistent with classical theory of emr.

There are various erroneous claims made by relativists from Einstein through Ives Stillwell to the present. All of them claim that a classical model predicts no offset for the Ives Stillwell experiment. As we know, an offset is observed. Supposedly validifying relativity and ruling out a classical model of light where observed speeds of light are assumed to be c+-v. The reason why this erroneous claim has survived unchallenged for so long is simple. The various formulas evoked for "classical" are actually not correctly modelling light as c+-v. If one wishes to *correctly* model observed speeds for classical the following formula must be used. (Assuming v is 0.005, and f is the emitted source frequency as in the Ives Stillwell experiment) 1.005 X f = f1(forward) 0.995 X f = f2(rearward) Calculate the two Doppler shifted frequencies. Convert both shifted frequencies f1&2 to wavelength w1&2 and average them out ((w-w1)+(w2-w)/2). This gives an average predicted offset for classical , that matches the observed offset in the Ives Stillwell experiment. Verifying that a classical model is consistent with Ives Stillwell.

EM drive can be modelled by wave only model of light

In the EM drive the thrust direction is towards the larger end of the cone. This can be explained using only a wave model of light where the transfer of energy is from the oscillating magnetic wavefront inside the cavity to the cone ends. Whereas the photon model of emr has a transfer of energy via mass from the moving photons bouncing around the cavity. In the photon model a violation of conservation of energy in the system as a whole prevents one end from recieving more thrust. However as the transfer of energy in a wave only model is magnetic ( from the oscillating wavefront inside the cavity to the cone end) the larger end of the cavity can recieve more energy than the smaller end without violating conservation of energy.

Ives Stillwell modelled as a classical effect

The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted wavelength and W is restframe wavelength.
So if v were 0.5c and W was 100 nm, then approaching blueshifted light would be 50 nm and receding would be 150 nm. Which is what relativists call a null result for classical theory ( ie, wavelength change is the same amount for both red and blueshifted in classical). Hence the well used argument that classical theory cannot correctly model the observed offset displacement in the spectra in the Ives Stillwell experiment.
This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c and for redshifted light it is 0.5 c.
Now if if one looks at the the redshifted lightspeed first: It is 1/2 the speed of the restframe light. If the restframe wavelength is 100 nm at c then at 1/2 c it will appear to be the same as 200 nm light at c ( thats the appearance of double the wavelength for half the frequency) And for the blueshifted light; 100 nm at 1.5c will appear to be the same as 66.66 nm of light at c in the spectrograph. In other words classical theory actually predicts that a restframe wavelength of 100 nm will have its observed wavelength stretched by 100 nm when receding at 0.5 c but ONLY compressed by approximately 33.33 nm when approaching.
On the linear scale this would give an offset, not a null result. And this is observed in Ives Stillwell.
(It is important to remember that the actual wavelength under the classical model doesnt change. But the frequency does, which makes it appear as if the wavelength has changed.)

Delayed Choice Classical Eraser Experiment

The main illustration above is a schematic of the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. (Kim et al 1999)

The coincidence rates compiled from the 5 detectors can be explained by a classical model. By assuming the following: The light arriving at D0, D3, and D4 is vertically and horizontally polarized. Alternating between the two states once per frequency cycle of the light beam. (Circular polarization is one possibility). Each polarized state has its own associated interference pattern. The image on the movable detector plane of D0 is of two, overlapping, out of phase interference patterns rapidly oscillating between each other. Once per frequency cycle of the light. The overall superimposed image of the two overlapping patterns, over time, is of no overall interference pattern. 

The lightbeams arriving at D1 and D2 have been additionally plane polarized. One vertical one horizontally. This also puts the horizontal out of phase by half a cycle, temporaly, from the vertical.Thus essentially, the detectors D1 and D2 each only recieve half of the light pulse that leaves the beam splitter. Either vertical or horizontally polarized. This allows detectors D1 and D2 to only trigger light detections coincident with a light detection from only one of the two rapidly oscillating interference patterns at D0. 

Detectors D3 and D4 on the other hand, receive both vertical and horizontal plarized light. And thus detectors D3 and D4 have coincident detections with both overlapping oscllating interference patterns at D0.

This is what is observed in the Kim et al experimental setup.

There is no need for a counterintuitive "quantum erasure". The observed coincidence rates are explained simply by polarization states of light incident on the 5 detectors.

(Sept2021 postscript: Ive noticed from some comments that a more detailed explanation is needed. Here is additional information: This experiment is as easily explained using classical wave only theory and polarised states. Light leaves the double slit/BBO/Glan Thompson prism with alternating polarity between vertical and horizontal.

(This is essentially circular polarised light. Because if the two beams going to detector zero werent alternating between horizontal and vertical polarised light each cycle and instead were just two same plane polarised beams as some pretend, then the two phase shifted interference patterns and diffraction patterns observed at detector 0 would not be possible) 

Detectors 1 and 2 get two light beams each. One beam reflected twice which means the light incident on each detector is a combination of left and right hand circular polarised light beams. Which can only result in plane polarised light hitting each detector 1&2.  (Note that if one combines a left handed circular polarised beam with a right handed circular polarised beam the combined result is a beam that alternates between two opposing polarised states and plane polarisation each cycle. That is effectively plane polarised light.

Because the D1 beams undergo opposite reflections at the mirrors and beam splitters from the D2 beams...the two detectors 1&2 thus also each receive polarised light that is phase shifted by half cycle from the other. Ie..vertical and horizontal respectively.

Detectors 3 and 4 only get one beam reflected once, each.(The one reflection restores the polarity of the beams from orthogonally polarised circular light leaving the BBO/G-T prism setup back to identically circular polarisation. Which means they get the same phase light as that arriving at detector zero. 

The resulting polarised states mean D1&2 each only “observe at Detector Zero” via the coincidence counter two seperate phase shifted interference patterns from the other .And detectors 3 & 4, having the same incident polarised light as detector zero , observe diffraction patterns via the coincidence counter. 

No spooky quantum mumbo jumbo  maths needed to explain this experiment.

And finally to address claims that the Glan Thompson prism used in the experiment cannot send circular polarised light beams to the rest of the experimental setup. Critics cite evidence showing that similar birefringement mediums such as calcite crystals split the beam into two orthogonally plane polarised beams. And using plane polarisation filters they show how the two exiting light beams must be only plane polarised. As a plane polarised filter put over the two images only allows through one of the two images coming through the calcite filter. 

However this ignores the fact that a vertically plane polarising filter allows through not just vertical polarised light...but all angles except horizontal. So for instance around 45% of the light polarised at 45 degrees to vertical is let through a vertically polarised filter. The more the polarisation angle of the light deviates from vertical the less light is let through etc.

In other words a circular polarised beam will be split into two polarised beams by the crystal one beam preserving majority vertical, one majority horizontal. But still containing elements of all other angles of polarisation. And thus the circular polarisation of the beam is preserved.

Proof of this is available at any demonstration showing unpolarised light going through two plane polarised filters. Position both filters at vertical and all vertically polarised light from a source goes through, and blocking all horizontal polarised light. Turn one filter slowly to horizontal and the light coming through decreases to zero as both vertical and horizontal light from the source are now blocked. Light coming through doesn’t immediately decrease to zero as soon as the two polarised filters angle starts to diverge. It is an incremental decrease. Proving a plane or linear polarising filter still lets through almost all angles of polarisation. But at different amplitudes. 

This is how one can explain how two circular polarised light beams can appear as two plane polarised beams exiting the Glan Thompson prism.

For further description of how this can be modelled as a classical effect only, watch the following...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.

Gamma ray bursts and Fast radio bursts: A Theoretical model

Gammaraybursts and Fast Radio Bursts: A Classical Model.
This page was originally published 2000-2014 at gammarayburst.com

The following description of a GRB model can also be used to explain
more recent FRB observations. Essentially a FRB is a very fast GRB where
wavelengths shorter than radio are too short in duration to be observed.

In a non expanding universe of infinite age and size, observors should see
emr from all directions and from great cosmological distances. This assumes
a non Big Bang universe  not conforming to the laws of relativity. At these
scales some stellar sources will actually be moving away from the earth at
speeds greater than c. The earth then must be travelling away from the
source, at speeds greater than c and we would therefore overtake this light
and "see" the light in reverse. That is, what appears to be a flash above us is
actually light we are overtaking from the opposite direction below our feet.
Much as a fast boat can overtake slower waves on water and the waves
appear to be coming towards the observer in the prow of the boat when
in fact they are travelling in the same direction as the boat but at a slower
speed. Taking into account the assumption that we would always be
decellerating in relation to the source of the light, the burst would first
be seen as more blue shifted (at the gamma end of the spectrum) and as
time progresses observations in longer wavelengths would be observed.
So the original gamma lightcurve profile would be seen stretched out
over longer time frames in longer wavelengths . If the burst was for
20 seconds in gamma and 200 in optical and then it would be seen for
2000 sec in radio. But always show the same distinctive profile for each
burst in various parts of the observed spectrum.
For a brief visual explanation of this see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8

The model I describe here predicts that the afterglows in different parts
of the emr spectrum will be similar in profile to that of the gammaray
lightcurve, but with different timescales. This is consistent with all
observations and shown in the illustration below. The graph below shows
this in data from grb 970508. Using gamma, optical and radio observations.
The prediction would be that other unmeasured lightcurves like x-rays
would also have similar profiles as their counterpart in gamma.
The shorter the wavelength the shorter the timescale. That is; in x ray
the burst duration would be shorter than optical and longer than gamma.
In the comparison graph below, between the 3 lightcurves,  a self
similarity of lightcurve profiles from different parts of the emr spectrum
is observed. The length of the afterglow is directly proportional to the
wavelength. It also indicates that if  gamma and optical burst time lengths
very were small, on the order of smaller than milliseconds. Then in radio,
these bursts would be observed having time scales in millisconds. And
that there would be measurable delays between shorter and longer
radio wavelengths. This is confirmed by recent Fast Radio Burst
observations.