Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Dr. Paul Marmet
local time: 2021-06-22 09:47 (-04:00 DST)
Dr. Paul Marmet (Abstracts)
Titles Abstracts Details
  • The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light (2006) [Updated 4 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located. We know that the Lorentz transformations and special relativity are unable to provide a realistic physical explanation of the behavior of matter and light. We show here that all these phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously (1) that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and physical bodies become longer because of the increase of the Bohr radius. These results allow us to answer the question: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away at velocity v, from a source emitting light at velocity c, the relative motion of the radiation is observed from the Doppler shift. How can we explain logically that these photons "appear" to reach us at velocity c and not (c-v)? The conventional explanation relies on special relativity, but it implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks synchronization. The Lorentz' transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light with respect to a moving frame is the most fascinating illusion in science.


  • The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment (2006) [Updated 4 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    We show here that Michelson and Morley used an over simplified description and failed to notice that their calculation is not compatible with their own hypothesis that light is traveling at a constant velocity with respect to a rest frame. During the last century, mathematicians uselessly solved the Michelson-Morley equations in numerous ways without realizing that two essential fundamental phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley equations. We see that the law of reflection of light on mirrors must be corrected when the mirror is moving. Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame, light does not enter in the instrument at 90o as assumed in the Michelson-Morley experiment. We acknowledge that, the basic Michelson-Morley idea, to test for non-isotropy of space-time by comparing times taken by light to travel in parallel directions vs. transverse directions, is very attractive. However, we show here that this test is not valid, because of those two classical secondary phenomena, which have not been taken into account. When these overlooked phenomena are taken into account, we see that a null result, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is the natural consequence resulting from the assumption of an absolute frame of reference and classical physics. On the contrary, a drift of the interference fringes must be observed in order to support Einstein's relativity. Therefore, for the last century, relativity theory has been based on a misleading experiment.


  • GPS and the Illusion of Constant Light Speed (2003) [Updated 4 years ago]

    Special relativity theory is not able to provide a satisfactory physical explanation for the behavior of matter and light. For example, when we move away at speed, from a source emitting light at speed, the photons appear to reach us at speed c and not c - v. This apparent constant speed of light with respect to a moving frame is perhaps the most fascinating phenomenon in science. The conventional explanation in terms of special relativity theory implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. How can we explain the phenomenon more logically? We show here that all such phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and that physical bodies become longer because of an increase of the Bohr atomic radius. The present paper gives a physical explanation for the apparent constancy of light speed. Constant light speed is an illusion: light speed is really c - v with respect to the observer, even if his tools always measure. The key to the explanation is the question: With respect to what does light travel? A physical understanding is crucial in clock synchronization and in running the Global Positioning System (GPS).


  • The Deficient Observations of Light Deflection Near the Sun (2000) [Updated 4 years ago]

    We report a full analysis of one of general relativity's predictions, which claims that light should be deflected by solar gravity. Experiments using visible light as well as radio signals are examined. The Eddington's observational expedition, used to confirm Einstein's predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun, was using a four-inch telescope carried in the jungle. Assuming a perfect optic, the theoretical limit of resolution is 1.25", but some of the displacements presented were sometimes of the order of 0.01". In daytime observations, about 30" resolution is expected. That deflection is so difficult to observe near the Sun in daytime, that even the largest telescope in the world is still unable to confirm it after 80 years. This paper also shows that the corresponding delay for a radio signal passing near the Sun does not permit to get a more reliable result. We show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun. There are even serious reasons to believe that this phenomenon does not exist.


  • Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light (2000) [Updated 8 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    Considering that photons travel at the velocity of light c in the fundamental frame, we expect logically that
    these photons travel at velocity c-v (or c+v) with respect to a frame moving at velocity v. We know that the
    observed velocity is measured as c. However, that logical consequence has never been explained. Using
    Newton's physics and conventional logic, we explain how the velocity of light APPEARS constant in the two way
    measurement of the velocity of light, while it is c-v (and c+v) in the Sagnac effect. We answer the question:
    "With respect to what does light move?" This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is
    really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the
    number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks
    synchronization. The Lorentz' transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light is
    the most fascinating illusion in science.


  • The Apparent Constant Velocity of Light (2000) [Updated 1 decade ago]

    When we learn that the absolute velocity of light is c, we must explain: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away from a source at velocity v, how can we explain logically that these photons are reaching us at velocity c and not (c-v)? No physical description has ever been presented to explain why the moving observer actually measures the value of c instead of (c-v). The standard explanation relies on non-conventional logic such as space-time distortion. This paper explains clearly why the velocity is really (c-v), while the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. This illusion is due to a two-way measurement of the velocity of light. The Sagnac effect and the Global Positioning System (GPS) can measure a one-way velocity of light. We show how the one-way velocity of light is measured as "c+v" and "c-v" using the GPS. All these considerations are based on mass-energy conservation, Newton physics, and conventional logic.


  • Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light (1998) [Updated 4 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet, Christine Couture   read the paper:

    This paper reports a detailed analysis of one of general relativity?s predictions, which claims that light should be deflected by solar gravity. The experimental data related to that prediction are analyzed. The substitution of the direct experimental test for the deflection of visible light during solar eclipses by the indirect measurement of the delay of radio signals traveling between a space probe or from extra galactic sources and the Earth is examined. Three different causes of the delay in the transmission of light near the Sun are examined. They are the relativistic delay, the delay caused by the plasma surrounding the Sun or for a geometric reason. The delay predicted by general relativity is equivalent to a reduced velocity of light in vacuum, in the Sun?s gravitational potential. Since the value of c is defined on Earth, inside the solar gravitational potential, this leads to a double value for the velocity of light on Earth. Furthermore, Einstein?s general relativity predicts that photons slow down when approaching the Sun, so that their velocity must be reduced to zero when reaching the surface of a black hole. This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable. Furthermore, the internal incoherence of general relativity, which leads to a double velocity of light on Earth, adds to the weakness of these tests. Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.


  • Book Review: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics (1998) [Updated 8 years ago]
    by Thomas E. Phipps, Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    Review of Paul Marmet, Einstein's Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics (Newton Physics Books, 2401 Ogilvie Road, Gloucester, ON, K1J 7N4 Canada, ISBN 0-921272-18-9), U.S. $30.00.


  • A Realistic Interpretation of Length Contraction (1996) [Updated 1 decade ago]

  • Relative Simultaneity? (1996) [Updated 4 years ago]

  • The Non-Reality of Time Dilation (1996) [Updated 1 decade ago]

  • The Cosmological Red Shift in an Unlimited Universe (1995) [Updated 1 decade ago]

  • Incompatability; Simultaneity (1995) [Updated 1 decade ago]

  • An Alternate Interpretation of the 3 K Radiation (1994) [Updated 1 decade ago]

  • A New Mechanism to Explain Observations Incompatible with the Big Bang (1991) [Updated 3 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    The Big Bang model describing the origin of the Universe has been accepted mainly on account of the lack of alternatives to explain certain observations. This model, in which the redshift of remote galaxies is interpreted as a Doppler phenomenon, runs into impossible difficulties with the cosmological background at 3 K because this background is too homogeneous. Many observations, such as the redshift on the solar limb, the redshift of hot binary stars, the K-effect and a plethora of other observations, are not compatible with current theories. An alternate mechanism is described which yields a redshift without Doppler effect. This mechanism is already confirmed by several observations, and leads to an unlimited Universe model. Results are compared with proposals made by Halton Arp.


  • Relativity and the Formation of Black Holes (1990) [Updated 3 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    In order to form Black Holes, matter has to move across the Schwarzschild radius. We demonstrate here that according to Einstein general relativity, matter cannot have the time to form a Black Hole when we consider either the proper time or the Schwarzschild time. Black Holes are incompatible with the time-limited Big Bang cosmology.


  • Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death (1990) [Updated 3 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones. At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted. These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.


  • Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe (1989) [Updated 4 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet, Grote Reber   read the paper:

    Updated paper from: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No: 2 April 1989. An increasingly large number of observations consistently reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic matter than presently accepted. Radio signals coming from directions between galaxies is discussed. An average density of matter in space of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived. It is known that the density of matter is compatible with many reliable observations. These results lead to a nonexpanding cosmological universe.


  • A New Non-Doppler Redshift (1988) [Updated 4 years ago]
    by Paul Marmet   read the paper:

    It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects for which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift of a given object is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
    A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the ?redshift controversy?.
    It is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics, without the need to introduce ad hoc physical hypotheses.
    A careful study of the mechanism for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gaseous atoms and molecules shows that an electron is always momentarily accelerated as a consequence of the momentum transfer imparted by a photon. Such an acceleration of an electric charge produces bremsstrahlung.
    It is shown in the present work that this phenomenon has a very large cross section in the forward direction and that the energy lost by bremsstrahlung causes a slight redshift. It is also demonstrated that the relative energy loss of the electromagnetic wave for blackbody radiation, such as for many celestial objects, follows the same ?Dn/n = constant? law as if it were a Doppler law.
    This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the lost energy should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.