Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Richard O. Calkins
local time: 2019-08-20 07:04 (-07:00 DST)
Richard O. Calkins (Abstracts)
Titles Abstracts Details
  • The Special Theory of Relativity is a House of Cards Built on a Parlor Trick and Sustained by Circular Reasoning (2015) [Updated 1 year ago]

    A simple change in experimental design shows that Galileo’s and Newton’s relativity principle applies only to the observed motion of physical objects, not to their actual motion. It also reveals that observations restricted to inertial reference frames are insufficient to support valid interpretation of the empirical data. The new design distinguishes between an inertial reference frame and a physical reference frame, such as a spaceship. A physical reference frame can be used to conduct an experiment in one inertial reference frame and then move it intact to another. The special theory’s postulates then determine the changes in motion, both for physical objects and for light, which must occur in response to the change in their source’s velocity. What this reveals is that the changes which the postulates require in the second reference frame are different from what the spaceship observer observes. When faced with a change in velocity, to move from one reference frame to the other, the first postulate of relativity refutes the theory’s premise of equal merit. It also shows that the second postulate refutes the first postulate. The new experimental design  reveals a previously unrecognized circularity between an observer’s own state of motion and both his definition and sensory perception of what constitutes motion. This circularity has numerous undesirable consequences. It selectively blinds an observer to changes in motion which are caused when the physical reference frame in which he and the experimental apparatus reside changes its own state of motion. It also causes the observer to observe changes in motion for objects whose motion has not changed. And it reveals that each observer in a different inertial reference frame has his own definition of motion which is both unique to him and entirely subjective. Their respective observations are virtually worthless for scientific purposes. Lastly, the paper discloses how unquestioning belief in the theory’s own postulates and premises has controlled the design of experiments and the validation and interpretation of data used to prove the theory’s validity. The role of circular reasoning helps explain how an internally contradictory theory has experienced more than a century of empirical validation. This paper makes its case simply by making two changes in experimental design. The results of the experiments are determined entirely by the special theory's own postulates. There are no flights of fancy into new theoretical realms to be found in this paper.


  • The Special Theory of Relativity is a House of Cards Built on a Parlor Trick and Sustained by Circular Reasoning (2015) [Updated 1 year ago]

    A simple change in experimental design shows that Galileo’s and Newton’s relativity principle applies only to the observed motion of physical objects, not to their actual motion. It also reveals that observations restricted to inertial reference frames are insufficient to support valid interpretation of the empirical data. The new design distinguishes between an inertial reference frame and a physical reference frame, such as a spaceship. A physical reference frame can be used to conduct an experiment in one inertial reference frame and then move it intact to another. The special theory’s postulates then determine the changes in motion, both for physical objects and for light, which must occur in response to the change in their source’s velocity. What this reveals is that the changes which the postulates require in the second reference frame are different from what the spaceship observer observes. When faced with a change in velocity, to move from one reference frame to the other, the first postulate of relativity refutes the theory’s premise of equal merit. It also shows that the second postulate refutes the first postulate. The new experimental design  reveals a previously unrecognized circularity between an observer’s own state of motion and both his definition and sensory perception of what constitutes motion. This circularity has numerous undesirable consequences. It selectively blinds an observer to changes in motion which are caused when the physical reference frame in which he and the experimental apparatus reside changes its own state of motion. It also causes the observer to observe changes in motion for objects whose motion has not changed. And it reveals that each observer in a different inertial reference frame has his own definition of motion which is both unique to him and entirely subjective. Their respective observations are virtually worthless for scientific purposes. Lastly, the paper discloses how unquestioning belief in the theory’s own postulates and premises has controlled the design of experiments and the validation and interpretation of data used to prove the theory’s validity. The role of circular reasoning helps explain how an internally contradictory theory has experienced more than a century of empirical validation.


  • The Mediums for Light are Hiding in Plain Sight (2015) [Updated 4 years ago]

    The propagation of light remains one of the enduring mysteries of science. Unlike every other known kind of wave, it travels at a constant speed without a medium of propagation. What supports its travel in empty space? Why is its speed so constant? And why is it so very fast? Even Einstein gave up trying to puzzle it out and simply stated the propagation of light as a postulate. While Maxwell’s equations explain the behavior (the what) of light, they don’t explain the how. They show that the speed of light is determined by two constants - epsilon and mu - but not why these two constants have the values that they do rather than having some other values. So our questions remain: how and why? Maxwell’s equations actually do answer these questions. We just haven’t understood the message because of our human laundry list of implicit assumptions about the characteristics required of medium of propagation. As often happens with implicit assumptions, nearly all of them are wrong.

    Light has not one but two mediums of propagation. The electric fields in electromagnetic waves are the medium of propagation for the magnetic fields, and the magnetic fields are the medium of propagation for the electric fields. Their dance with each other is what moves light through empty space, much like molecules of air do when propagating sound. Ironically, since the waves of light and the dancing electric and magnetic fields are the same things, the mediums of propagation quite literally have been hiding in plain sight.

    This paper examines both the equation for the speed of sound and Maxwell’s equations from a new perspective. In essence, it performs a mathematical autopsy of both to illuminate what lies within and, in the process, solves the mysteries of light’s propagation as simply the laws of physics at work.


  • Experiments to Test Whether or Not Light Acquires the Velocity of Its Source Using Current Technology (2015) [Updated 3 years ago]
    by Raymond H. Gallucci, Richard O. Calkins   read the paper:

    A friendly debate between the authors characterizes one that is prevalent among the community of ‘dissident’ physicists who do not accept Einstein’s relativity as the final explanation for the behavior of light.  They wonder whether or not light acquires the velocity of its source.  Maxwell’s equations strongly suggest a fixed speed for light upon its emission from a source.  Is the emission point fixed in space?  Would motion of the emitter alter the trajectory (and speed?) of the emitted light?  Light’s immense speed makes determining this extremely difficult to answer on a scale less than astronomical.  For example, despite supposed ‘definitive’ proof that there is no aether and light speed is universally constant alleged by proponents of a ‘null’ result from the 1887 Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment, debate continues over both of these subjects.  The authors propose experiments using current technology that might be able to offer a definitive resolution to this debate, or possibly open up even more speculation.