Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2005

 My previous attempt at this was fairly ordinary.

--------
The Inside Out Universe.

Whatever our circumstances of existence, right here is where we are
compelled to perceive the universe. We can do absolutely nothing to
change that. We can only theorize and observe until a theory comes
along that predicts why the universe behaves in the way it does. But
that's the best we can possibly do.

Light invariably moves at some speed relative to matter, and as a
consequence, matter invariably moves at some speed relative to
light. That still holds even for relativistic matter velocities
(relativistic relative to a local and very much larger mass that
is). It's impossible for light and matter to ever be stationary
relative to each other. **They do not and cannot ever exist in the
same realm.** Directly comparing time-distance in the realm of light
using measurements taken in the realm of matter is illogical. Matter
exists only in the present, while light travels only in the past and
future. The past and future coincide with the present when E/M
radiation intersects with matter. **And that's the only time.**

Picturing the divergence of a light beam as a maze of point
particles that in themselves don't diverge, makes it impossible to
understand why light should behave differently to matter.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/planck.html

If a ring laser gyro could be constructed to encircle the earth
around the equator the standing waves around the ring would be
moving west at 465m/sec relative to any fixed point on the equator,
on average for each sidereal day. The only valid explanation for
this phenomena is that the speed of light pointing east is
2*465m/sec slower than it is pointing west. The average east-west
speed of light for anything fixed to the equator is then 465m/sec
slower than in the ECI frame. An anisotropy in the one way speed
of light must then exist around anything fixed to the earth's
surface.

Speed of Light Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt; is the proof.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

Simple geometry demonstrates that the round trip time for an E/M
wave front traveling back and forth between two mirrors in an
east-west orientation alters at the rate of  t' = t/(1-v^2/c^2).

Each frame of the animation was extracted from the result of running
a Qbasic program which was designed to simulate two E/M wavefronts
that always move at a constant rate across the screen. The screen
represents the non rotating frame of the earth (ECI frame), which is
assumed to be the base on which light propagates. In the east-west
direction (right-left), E/M wavefronts are emitted simultaneously
in opposite directions from the center of the apparatus and are each
reflected from mirrors at each end which are equally spaced about
the center. In the animation, the apparatus is set to move relative
to the screen pixels at half the speed of the wavefronts, which is
equivalent to half the speed of light.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/eastwest.gif

The Qbasic program can be found here
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/eastwest.exe
as a self extracting zip file. The animation generated by the
program is equivalent to many thousands of the above and it's
entirely interactive, even at the program level. The file should
be 7171 bytes after it's extracted. Qbasic is an amazing
communication tool.

The time for the journey increases with velocity of the apparatus
relative to the screen according to the measured round trip distance
in pixels for the moving apparatus, divided by the round trip
distance for the apparatus when its velocity is zero, relative to
the screen. The wavefront and the apparatus each measure the
distance in compounding steps, and the result is equivalent to using
the equation  t' = t/(1-v^2/c^2) (assuming that light propagates
on a base which is set by the ECI frame). A pure light clock would
function according to that equation. But that would not be the case
for a clock oscillator which includes matter in its tick function.
The two oscillators are certainly not the same.

In the real world, when the wavefront is moving in the same
direction as the motion of the beam source, because the rate of
divergence of the wavefront into the dual dimension around its
propagation path remains constant, and because the time taken to
cover the distance to the mirror has increased, the wavefront rate
of divergence relative to the source will have increased. When it's
moving in the opposite direction to the motion of the beam source
the rate of divergence will reduce by the same amount. Which isn't
going to affect anything in either direction because the propagation
path for the entire diverging beam is along the line of motion.

However, when the beam is pointed perpendicular to the direction of
motion, due to the beam's sideways motion relative to the base on
which light propagates, the time-distance between source and mirror
has increased, for the entire journey. The arm lengths of the
apparatus haven't changed, only the time to travel the distance has
changed, and as a consequence, so too has the beam divergence rate
relative to the source. As before, the beam diverges further into
the two planes perpendicular to the beam path as velocity of the
source increases. But the added divergence is now of some
consequence. The diverging beam is now shifting into two planes of
dimension that are perpendicular to the motion direction of the beam
source.

As the source velocity increases, both the length of the light path
and the beam width increase in exact proportions. That's a 2D change
rate. The path scribed by the beam enroute to the mirror, the
measured path length to the mirror, and the distance that the source
has traveled in the time, must each be squared before any valid
comparisons can be made. If c=1 and source velocity is .5c the leg
lengths of the right angle triangle are (C^2=A^2+B^2) = 1.25, 1, .25
And that's where the comparison stops. Taking the square root of any
of those measurements brings them back into the realm of matter, but
the comparison is no longer valid.

When matter enters the realm of light, the rules of the matter realm
no longer apply. Why on earth should they?

-----

Max Keon