Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Dan Wagner
local time: 2018-02-21 03:49 (-04:00 DST)
Dan Wagner Abstracts
Titles
  • Fresnel vs. Einstein - a New Direct Test (2015) [Updated 2 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:
  • New Direct Test Proposed for Einstein's Velocity Addition Formula (2011) [Updated 6 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:
  • Lorentz Contraction relative to Fresnel dragged reference frame explains Solid-State Michelson-Morley Experiment Null Result (2009) [Updated 1 year ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:
  • Lorentz Driven Density Increase Results in Higher Refractive Index and Greater Fresnel Drag (2009) [Updated 6 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:
  • Modern Physics (A Poem) (2009) [Updated 6 years ago]
  • Fresnel Drag vs. Einstein Velocity a Case for Further Investigation (2008) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Experiment Proposed to Resolve Simultaneity and One-Way Light-Speed Issues (1998) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Preferred Reference Frames Based on the Motion of Nearby Matter (1994) [Updated 1 year ago]

  • Abstracts Details
  • Fresnel vs. Einstein - a New Direct Test (2015) [Updated 2 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:

    When the phase velocity of light in a moving medium is used to predict the phase velocity of that light relative to a stationary observer then the Einstein low speed approximation to his velocity addition equation and the Fresnel drag equation both predict the exact same result. Therefore existing interference fringe shift experiments do not differentiate between the Fresnel and Einstein predictions. However, when the group velocity of light is used, the Fresnel prediction and the Einstein prediction are different. When Fresnel predictions based on group velocity are made for the proposed experiment, the difference in round trip arrival times for the two halves of a split laser pulse is substantial. When Einstein predictions based on group velocity are made the difference in round trip times is, of course, zero. Thus a positive result for the proposed experiment would violate Special Relativity Theory (SRT) with regards to the relativity of simultaneity and suggest that the Lorentz-Poincare’ physical viewpoint on the SRT equations is a better viewpoint. If the Einstein prediction for group velocity is not correct, then when positive data for the experiment configuration shown in Figure 1.0 is collected at various orientations at different times of the day it is possible to identify a local preferred reference frame in which the speed of light is actually (not just apparently) isotropic. This reference frame could be used in place of star reference frames for spacecraft navigation. Other implications of a local preferred reference frame are explained in the paper.

     


  • New Direct Test Proposed for Einstein's Velocity Addition Formula (2011) [Updated 6 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:

    When the group velocity, as opposed to the phase velocity of light is measured, Einstein's predictions for one-way light velocities in a transparent medium differ from Fresnel's predictions by substantial amounts even at speeds as low as our speed relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (365,000 m/s). Calculations show that if Einstein is wrong, then a measurable light round-trip time difference will be found between clockwise and counterclockwise fiber optic light paths, where each light path has synthetic fused silica fiber in one direction and air-core fiber in the other direction. The magnitude of the difference will be a function of velocity of the experiment and observer (both the same) relative to a presently unknown preferred reference frame (i.e. a frame preferred by physics not by physicists for convenience). If the light round-trip time difference is measured on an oscilloscope and the length of the loops is about 1,000 m, then a speed as low as 365,000 m/s relative to the preferred reference frame can be detected.


  • Lorentz Contraction relative to Fresnel dragged reference frame explains Solid-State Michelson-Morley Experiment Null Result (2009) [Updated 1 year ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:

    The formulas for the physical Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and the Lorentz mass increase are re-derived based on speed relative to the Fresnel dragged reference frame and on the isotropic speed of light in this reference frame. This derivation leads to length contraction and mass increase formulas which are similar to the current formulas but include the refractive index. The new formulas explain the essentially null result of the Solid-State Michelson-Morley experiment performed by J Shamir and R. Fox and allow a sizeable mass (i.e. as opposed to isolated sub-atomic particles) to be accelerated somewhat beyond the speed of light with only a relatively small mass increase.


  • Lorentz Driven Density Increase Results in Higher Refractive Index and Greater Fresnel Drag (2009) [Updated 6 years ago]
    by Dan Wagner   read the paper:

    This paper builds upon an earlier paper that re-derived the formulas for the physical Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and the Lorentz mass increase based on speed relative to the Fresnel dragged reference frame and on the isotropic speed of light in that reference frame.  The acceptance of a real physical contraction and mass increase means that the density of a body, and therefore its refractive index and Fresnel drag, will also increase.  It is shown that based upon this reasoning, the speed achievable for a sizeable mass (i.e. as opposed to an isolated sub-atomic particle) and a desired mass increase is further beyond the speed of light than specified in the earlier paper.


  • Modern Physics (A Poem) (2009) [Updated 6 years ago]

    Two pillars of our modern world of physics we are told

    Cannot be reconciled without something very bold !

    But stretch and pull with strings and chance and many more dimensions
    And all we get is further in our quagmire of convention.

    Could it be that one is wrong or maybe even both !

    Tape your mouth and close your eyes you 'heretickle' quack !

    But let me say just one more thing I think I have a knack

    For seeing things that make no sense regardless of their status.

    Quantum probability and Einstein's simultaneity I fear are both at fault.

    Change these two and what a lovely marriage will be wrought.

    Mistaken wavelength measurements may also give a clue.

    De Broglie issues will fade away 'cause Lorentz's viewpoint is true !

    Written June 28, 2009 (please accept poetic license for some words)


  • Fresnel Drag vs. Einstein Velocity a Case for Further Investigation (2008) [Updated 1 year ago]

    When the group velocity, as opposed to the phase velocity, of light is measured, Einstein's predictions for one-way light velocities in a transparent medium differ from Fresnel's predictions by substantial amounts, even at speeds as low as our speed relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (365,000 m/s). Calculations show that if Einstein is wrong, then a measurable light round-trip time difference will be found between clockwise and counterclockwise fiber optic light paths, where each light path has synthetic fused silica fiber in one direction and air-core fiber in the other direction. The magnitude of the difference will be a function of velocity of the experiment and observer (both the same) relative to a presently unknown preferred reference frame (i.e. a frame preferred by physics not by physicists for convenience). If the light round-trip time difference is measured on an oscilloscope and the length of the loops is about 1,000 m, then a speed as low as 365,000 m/s relative to the preferred reference frame can be detected.


  • Experiment Proposed to Resolve Simultaneity and One-Way Light-Speed Issues (1998) [Updated 1 year ago]

    A feasible experiment with two separated atomic clocks in solar orbit is proposed to answer the question: "Will clocks synchronized by light signal still measure one way light speeds of c when uniformly accelerated to a new velocity?" Expected results are presented based on the fact that moving atomic clocks really do slow down and on the assumption that the one way speed of light depends upon the reference frame in which it is measured. These results differ from those predicted by relativity theory. Analysis shows that the effect of error sources on critical measurements is negligible. Results from actually performing the experiment will either support or contradict the concept of the relativity of simultaneity presented in the Special Theory of Relativity.


  • Preferred Reference Frames Based on the Motion of Nearby Matter (1994) [Updated 1 year ago]

    The view taken in this paper is that if we accept a theory where earth's gravitational field constitutes a preferred reference frame, it is reasonable to assume that this reference frame has at least some ?rotational? velocity near earth's surface. Under this view, the gravitational field of a given element of earth is considered to move with its mass center. The possibility is raised that the rotational velocity is below the value detectable from existing experiments because the effects of mass on opposite sides of the earth moving in opposite directions tend to cancel one another. Fundamental thoughts are presented for establishing a theory which predicts a field rotation which lags behind the rotation of the body producing it. A vector equation is then proposed for determining the velocity of a local preferred reference frame based on the motion of nearby matter. A computer program was developed to apply this equation to the rotating earth. The program allows the earth to be divided into 1 million elements and computes the unique velocity, density based mass, and distance from point of interest, for each element. As expected, the net field rotation at the poles is zero and increases as the equator is approached, with the rotation at any given latitude always being substantially less than the surface rotation at that latitude. Results also show that the rotation approaches zero as we move away from the rotating planet. The proposed vector equation is written to include an unknown function, F(R), describing how the influence of a given mass varies with distance, R, from the point of interest. Two specific functions are examined where the influence of earth dominates that of other mass in the universe. A third function, derived based on the variation of light speed within a gravitational field, is then examined. For this function, the influence of the sun and possibly of other mass in the universe cannot be neglected. Results obtained by applying these functions to the rotating earth are used to predict expected results for the Michelson-Gale experiment ?The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on The Velocity of Light? and for the Hafele-Keating experiment ?Around-the-world Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains?. It is shown that the proposed vector equation can be made consistent with experimental results when an appropriate function, F(R), is selected. It is also shown the Michelson-Gale experiment would not detect a rotating gravitational field, regardless of the magnitude of the rotational velocity, if the rotational velocities in the upper and lower legs of the experiment were nearly equal.