Member

Many theoretical physicists failed in the past to justify (or even mention) some important assumptions during the 19thth and 20th centuries -- even though their results might be significantly influenced by those assumptions. For instance, improper results were repeatedly reached by Michelson & Morley, Einstein, Minkowski, and a host of other scientists and astronomers during much of the 20th century -- because they simply failed to list, check and control assumptions. A few examples of their flaws are discussed briefly below and Ref. [3]. The good news is that such past errors in SRT have finally been recognized by many in the scientific and astronomy communities, and appropriate corrections made. And, the scientific community has already moved on to research into hyper-light speed particles (considered impossible by Einstein) and the many other challenging fields for the brilliant members of NPA and other scientific groups around the world.

Lorentz and Einstein correctly predicted length contraction or dilation that is observed with relative motion.  BUT, those lengths were the path lengths of light travel over a physical length -- not the physical length itself.  Such physical lengths never change lengths when viewed in relative motion.  It?s the light path length which changes when measured by moving observers.  If we assume the speed of light relative to its source on that physical length is a constant c, the light speed c? measured by an observer moving at velocity v relative to that source really does change by the simple equation  c ?= c +/-v .  This simple but critical flaw in assumptions invalidates special relativity (SRT).  That flaw, in turn, has retarded theoretical physics research for a century.  When that error is corrected, some additional consequences are:

a) It is confirmed that physical lengths never change with velocity.

b) Special Relativity (SRT) and its presumed contraction of a physical length with speed can thus be rejected.

c) The elapsed time of a single light over a single fixed length is shown to be constant regardless of the observer?s relative speed.  So, special relativity?s time dilation concepts can also be rejected.  That?s now recognized by most astronomers who use Universal Time (i.e., constant passage of time throughout the universe) because that gives them greater accuracy than any other known concept. 

d) The unchanging elapsed time of light travel over any specific length is the reason why Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX)  never produced expected results; MMX was based on expected changes in the elapsed time of travel which do not happen.

e) One flawed conclusion in Special Relativity was that objects cannot exceed light speed c .  When the above flaw is rejected, it is seen that there is no known limit to the speed of objects such as particles in space.  The knowledge of that will encourage research into possibly important influence and nature of super-luminal speed particles. For instance, cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts (GRB) may not be radiation (which travels at constant speed c) but rather tiny particles which can be at much higher speeds than c.  Better research into that may now be possible, perhaps with benefits in human health and non-fossil-fuel energy availability on Earth, as discussed in my third paper.

The NPA has always encouraged healthy questioning of existing contradictions of science.  After 15 years,  NPA members can take some pride in our modest part in the following recognitions:

1. Universal Time (which assumes time passes at the same rate everywhere in the universe) is almost universally used by astronomers.  That quietly contradicts SRT? s presumed ?time dilation?.
2. Constancy of light speed c relative to its source, has been measured in the laboratory now with impressive accuracy to 8 places, even though those measurements have been at different places relative to any supposed aether.  But those light speeds relative to a moving observer do change contrary to SRT concepts.
3. There appears to be constancy of speed at light speed  c  relative to the source of each of the wide spectrum of radiation vs wave lengths.  That would seem to be a confirmation of the Bohr model of quantum mechanics -- and a rejection of SRT.
4. That would also seem to be a confirmation of the Ritz model of light speed which also contradicts SRT.
5. Once we recognize that  there is constancy of elapsed time of light travel over any fixed length, regardless of observer?s speed,  we can then recognize why Michelson-Morley (MMX) experiments have never consistently measured any interferometer fringe shifts. That contradicts SRT?s time dilation concepts.
6. This writer has never found anyone who uses SRT because it provides better answers than any competing concepts in rectilinear motion -- but this author would welcome hearing about any tests confirming SRT.
7. Once SRT and length contraction (LC) of physical lengths are rejected, we find that there is no limit to object speeds.  Scientists might then better explain some of the effects of ?cosmic rays? and the so-called ?Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR).  Those further confirm the errors in SRT.
8. In fact, super luminal speeds of stars and galaxies have occasionally been seen in astronomy with an amazing array of fabricated explanations, see ?Sky & Telescope? [1], of how such speeds only seem to be super-luminal speeds.   Those diversions needlessly slowed or halted awareness of the superluminal travel of objects and particles. The quiet by-passing of the errors in 20th Century ?Modern Physics? will be as described in Thomas Kuhn in [2]

In this author's opinion, there are few avenues of future scientific research which hold as great a potential today for improving human life  on this planet as this subject area.  It has long been known that cosmic ?rays? frequently pass though human bodies from conception throughout  their lifetime with  many possible consequences.  Such rays have unbelievable energy.  For example, cosmic rays have been sensed half-a-mile underground in a U.S. iron mine [3]. The changes in  number of higher energy cosmic rays (called muons) there appeared to closely match temperature variations in the upper atmosphere -- which in turn are predictors of winter severity.  Lower energy (lower speed?) particles following decay of other cosmic rays are called mesons.  So cosmic ray knowledge might help forecasting and/or reduction of harsh weather. Also, the frequency of cosmic rays passing through astronauts in space is also known to be greater than on Earth and that probably limits time of people in space travel.  The possible connection of cosmic rays with miscarriages, cancer commencements, and a host of other human ailments remains unknown, as do the possibilities for minimizing their occurrence.

To date, the primary reason for the lack of experimental study of their effects was that we had no way of knowing when and from whence they come and thus little chance for their systematic study.  Now that scientists believe ?cosmic rays? may not be radiation at all, but particles at high speeds,  science may soon be able to study the nature of such super-luminal particles and possible methods for reducing  their many bad effects.   Also, they may well be on the way to rejecting SRT's flawed conclusion that objects are limited to light speed.

Another area of high interest is the newly-recognized existence of highly energetic gamma ray bursts from gamma ray clusters (GCR).  Some of those GCR's in astronomy last only a few seconds or minutes but are thought to have as much energy as our sun produces in its entire lifetime.  Sadly, the long-held acceptance of SRT's statement that objects cannot exceed light speed c did indeed delay the research into how GCR's can have so much energy.  As the capability for super-luminal speeds of particles is better recognized and used in research, who knows what new observations and explanations will be reached?

Yet another possible benefit of super-luminal speeds might be in the transfer of solar energy in great quantities from large collector solar-cell equipped satellites.  If related problems are solved, that might help solve the world's limited energy shortages--assuming that adequate safety controls can be implemented. And, there undoubtedly will be many other areas of interest --once existence of superluminal particles is recognized and if controlled methods of their production and use in experiments can be found.

1. Sky & Telescope, Vol 81, No. 2, Feb 1991, p. 153-157, ?Light Echoes of Nova Persi? by James Felton; also, ?Echoes of the Supernova? Sky & Telescope? Jan, 1990, p. 22:; also:?Faster than Light? by Eric Sheldon, in ?Sky & Telescope?, Jan., 1990, p.25-29
2. Kuhn, Thomas, ?The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?, Chap X, XI, XII, Univ of Chicago Press. 2nd Ed. 1970.
3. Internet articles on ?Cosmic Rays? in: Enviropedia;  Wikipedia; and: ?30th Int'l Cosmic Ray Conference July 3-2, 2007 in Mexico in http://ww.icrc2007.unam.mx/.

As in Bohr?s Model, it is assumed here that incoming energy is received by an atom and then emitted as a photon each time its received energy has increased by the discrete amount of hc/ l , where h is Planck?s constant in Joules-sec, c is light speed at 3E8 m/s, and l is wavelength. If that l is the distance between emitted photons, as assumed by Planck (when c is constant), the enormous range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum is readily achieved. Here, sequential emission of photons from a single atom is called an ?emission ray?. That ray is so tiny it is as difficult to see as seeing a single atom. A group of those rays, traveling together, is here called an ?emission beam?, which can be seen and measured. A beam?s properties may well be the statistical mean of values of its component rays. If correct, the constant speed c of all emissions might be attributed to constant ?escape velocity? from the atomic sources, rather than the still-unfound all-pervasive aether. Concepts by Galileo, Ritz and Doppler still apply for an observer moving relative to the emission?s source. The enormous energies of the minuscule wavelength gamma rays are easily explained by the inverse energy-wavelength relationships in this concept. Also, if a photon is a spherical cloud of energy particles, it would pass any point in some sort of an energy wave profile and references to ?duality concepts? in quantum mechanics may be un-needed.

Some critical flaws resulting from inadequate control of assumptions are:

• Lorentz and Einstein inadvertently attributed the variability of an observed light path over some fixed length to the fixed length itself. That fixed length does NOT vary with observed velocity; it's the observed light path length which DOES vary per Lorentz-type transformations.. This critical error is irrefutably shown in a copy of parts of Einstein's own 1905 text in the appendix to this paper. That led to other critical errors in Special Relativity. When corrected, we see that light speed c is reasonably constant when measured in the frame of its source; however its speed really is seen to be different when measured by a moving observer. The error in presuming variation in physical lengths resulted in incorrectly presumed increases in mass with velocity reaching infinity at light speed c. Those are also incorrect. It's the light path length which varies and that has no discernable influence on mass.
• Einstein also assumed that elapsed time of that observed light travel varies; it does not, as explained here. So, there never has been a ?twin paradox? once assumptions are controlled.
• Minkowski based his ?Space-time? on assumptions that zero can equal one. Also that light can arrive before it leaves. Both are incorrect and hence his space-time concepts can also be rejected.
• Michelson-Morley's experimental equipment was unable to recognize variability of observed c'. That's because its round-trip travel of light beams obscured the measurement of comparative light speeds.
• One simple method for improving assumption controls is suggested.

The nature of white light, per Newton?s observations with prisms and the resulting spectra, is first considered. The enormous number of colors and independence of colored light rays becomes obvious. Using Galilean concepts [1],.the large required range of wavelengths might be by met by large velocity variations within the materials surrounding the atoms emitting those light rays. Those Galilean concepts may be correct, but these do not provide applicability over the larger EM spectrum. A better and simpler solution for variation in EM wavelengths over the 16 orders of magnitude is reachable with the Bohr Model of quantum mechanics by defining Bohr?s wavelength in the emitted photon energy term as between emitted photons. Emissions from the atoms are not ?..discrete wave-lengths nor ?. frequencies..?, nor wavelengths within the photons. A better concept might be that the discrete photons are separated by the discrete wavelengths. If correct, this may provide a better understanding of light as well as the other emissions in the full EM spec-trum.

This paper describes overlooked results seen when Galileo's views from a ship or land are coupled with uniqueness of start and stop times of a falling object. There, the same elapsed time of travel of a specific object would be seen by all observers. Observers moving relative to that unique environment DO see measurably-different path lengths and velocities along those various path lengths. Those same results are shown to hold for a light ray in rectilinear motion. This appears to confirm universal time, as defined herein. Contrary to assumptions by both Lorentz and Einstein, it's NOT the physical length over which light travels that changes with velocity; it is the path length and speed of light travel passing over the fixed physical lengths which contracts or dilates with relative velocity. This also applies on a ?micro' level for a single light ray where it's the period between light waves (or frequency) which remains constant and it's light speed and wave lengths which vary in the view of moving observers. This contradicts centuries of erroneous assumptions that light frequency and wavelength are related by constant light speed c. However, it is difficult to measure light properties for a single tiny light ray from a single light source, so some real-life adjustments are needed as discussed in a second paper.

This paper is aka "Important but Overlooked Implications of Galileo's Relative Motion Observations".

This paper describes important but overlooked results that are seen when Galileo?s views from a ship or land are coupled with
uniqueness of start and stop times of a falling object. The same resulting elapsed time of travel of that object would be seen by all observers.
But, observers moving relative to that unique environment see measurably-different path lengths and velocities along those
various path lengths. Next in this paper, those same results are shown to hold for a light beam in rectilinear motion. And an added
assurance of uniqueness of elapsed time of travel is found. Since constancy of the unique elapsed times theoretically should be experienced
anywhere in our universe, this seems to confirm universal time, defined here as ?that time which passes at the same rate everywhere
in the universe?[1]. That kind of universal time in our visible universe is confirmed daily by astronomers and NASA mission controllers
in accurately predicting motions and positions of objects in space. For a single light beam originating in a unique environment (as further clarified herein), we would expect constant elapsed times between light travel between waves (constant periodicity and constant
frequency) regardless of the relative velocity of observers. The non-primed values are unique

for any single specific light source and primed values are those actually measurable by moving observers. Some numerical examples
are included for visible light wave lengths. It is conceivable that this relationship holds throughout the entire spectrum of energy emissions,
not just for visible light. But of course all of this needs to be confirmed experimentally. If it happens to be verified experimentally,
it would certainly have a significant impact on our future understanding of light itself, as discussed briefly in a second paper [2]
by this author, as well as impacting many other areas of optical physics and astronomy.

[ 1 ]
This definition and use of ?Universal Time? is analogous to that proposed by P. Moon, D. E. Spencer and E. E. Moon in ?On the Establishment of

Universal Time?, in Philosophy of Science? , Vol. 23, p,. 219 (1956).
[ 2 ] Munch, N. E., ?The Possible Nature of Light Emissions? in NPA?s 14th annual conference at UConn-Storrs, May 21-25, 2007

Newton's 300 year-old observations with prisms and light spectra show that white light is composed of many different colors. After light passed through Newton's prism, any single light color (say red) through a second prism produced no further spectral spread. Assuming this author's prior paper [1] is correct, each color would have a slightly different wave length and light speed, but all would have the same periodicity (frequency). The uniqueness of each tiny energy bundle of each color was possibly established at the instant of its original emission [escape] from its unique tiny location within the light source. If true, white light would not have a single light speed as is currently assumed without proof. Rather, it is a mix of a nearly-infinite number of light speeds whose average speed might conceivably be that which is measured. But, there are significant problems in accurately measuring speed of light --even light with a single wave length. A few of those problems are mentioned in this paper. To avoid those problems, we can turn to Christian Doppler 1842/6 discussions [2] of colored light and his equations still in use today in which wavelengths shift with velocities of the observer and the velocity of each tiny light emitter. If true, definitions of Doppler's kind of ?ether? might be clarified by the concepts of uniqueness of each tiny light source plus Galileo's relativity. A conceptual experiment of possible use in investigating this is discussed in [3]. [ 1 ] N.E. Munch, ?Universal Time Confirmation Using the Unique Aspects of Relative Motion in Galileo's 400 year-old Observations? in NPA's 14th annual conference at UConn-Storrs, May 21-25, 2007 [ 2 ] Christian Doppler, ?On the Colored Light of Double Stars and Certain Other Stars of the heavens? [translated] , 1842 Publ. Abh. Konigl. bohm. Ger. Wiss. 2, 465-482, 1843. [ 3 ] N.E. Munch, ?Possible Experiments Simulating Optical Doppler Effects at All Speeds?, In Proceedings of NPA's 14th Annual Conference at UConn-Storrs, May 21-25, 2007.

There have been a number of papers (c.f. [1]) showing the invalidity of Einstein's Special Relativity, and hence the invalidity of its assertions that light speed c is constant (regardless of source speed) and that speed of objects is limited to light speed c. In this author's prior paper [2], it is assumed that average values of the variable light speeds ci, wave lengths li and wave periodicity Ti may still be useful for practical applications of optical instruments. It is also noted that vast number of Doppler applications , which must be using averaged values of light properties if [2] is correct, provide sufficiently accuracy for practical uses. So, it appears that experimental configurations using gated laser pulses (as short as 80 femto-seconds) as described in [3] might be useful in studying simulated speeds of light waves at both sub-luminal and super-luminal speeds. Such experimental apparatus would avoid the prior needs to adjust components within a fraction of a light wave length (such as in Michelson-Morley type of experiments). If successful, such experiments would permit future inexpensive studies of sub-luminal and super-luminal source speeds in many areas of physics, astronomy and cosmology. [ 1 ] Munch, N.E., ?Consequences ot Relativity's Failure to Control Assumptions?, pp 112-117, and ?Light Wave Discontinuities and their Solutions?, p. 118-124, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 12th Annual Conference 23-27 May, 2005, Vol. 2, No. 1. [ 2 ] Munch, N.E., ?The Possible Nature of Light Emissions? in NPA's 14th annual conference at UConn-Storrs, May 21-25, 2007. [ 3 ] Munch, N.E., ?Possible Doppler Experiments at Super-Luminal Source Speeds?, p. 89 - 93 in Proceedings of Natural Philosophy Alliance June 923, 2003, in Journal of New Energy, Vol. 7, No. 3.

This paper identifies at least three simple but critical flaws in assumptions that prevented meaningful results in the famous Michelson-Morley experiments.  Their inevitable results were followed by erroneous rejection of an optical aether.  In the absence of adequate control of such assumptions by the world of physics, those conclusions de-railed much of 'modern' physics progress for 120 years and fostered equally flawed programs, such as the Lorentz Length Contraction, to needlessly justify aether, of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory to replace it.  If this paper is coorect, the conditions within the physics community that permitted the 'lost century' should be considered and remedied where possible.

The reasons for special relativity?s flaws, e.g., use of self-contradictory assumptions, are still not understood nor accepted. To the contrary, this author has encountered respected physicists who feel it?s acceptable to shift to assumptions contradicting the derivation assumptions. The resulting errors abound in special relativity, even though they are obvious to anyone who cares to look -- such as its requirement for a moving length to both contract and lengthen at the same instant. As a result, the practical physics world has already bypassed relativity and thereby missed the interested conclusions found when assumptions are held constant. For example, Einstein?s ?train paradox? can be solved only with an aether, as in Doppler?s 1842 solution or Domina Spencer?s general system of coordinates and universal time. Once that solution is verified, we need to find the inappropriate conclusions that came from the flawed special relativity concepts. For example, neither light speeds nor speed of objects are limited to the currently perceived constant value of c -- as supposed by SRT. In addition, we need to consider implications in electrodynamics as well as in astronomy and cosmology. Also, it may be worthwhile for a world-wide committee to evaluate (in a non-adversarial way) how things went so wrong and why relativity?s errors were not discovered or corrected over the past century.

Special relativity?s flaws are directly traceable to inappropriate shifts in its basic assumptions. Detailed analyses of such flaws are listed in the references. It?s appropriate that such simple flaws and their implications be described here in ways understandable by anyone. For example, when its basis in the light wave equations [x] is held constant, we easily see that lengths in special relativity are the lengths of light travel; and times are the time of that light travel at light speed c. That seemingly small distinction means that lengths are not those chosen at random, nor can elapsed times of light travel be clock-times or clock-rates or the lifetime of twins -- as supposed in special relativity. In another case, an inappropriate assumption of linearity hides the impossible need for lengths in special relativity to both shrink and expand at the same instant. Special relativity?s two principles -- a) that light speed is constant relative to each of 2 frames moving apart at velocity v, and b) that observers on each of those two frames see the same view of the other frame -- are shown to be self-contradictory. Such critical flaws provide adequate reason to reject special relativity. Special relativity?s space-time concepts are also impossible and can be rejected. Any basis of general relativity on special relativity can be seriously questioned. Conclusions from special relativity, such as the constancy of light speed or space-time concepts, or that objects cannot exceed light speed can likewise be rejected until proven otherwise.

Light wave discontinuities, readily seen by graphically considering spherical waves from a single light source moving over two frames, are corrected only by replacing SRT's two principles with a third frame (aether?) relative to which light speed is constant [1]. Universal time (i.e., that light passes at the same rate anywhere in the universe) also appears required. If so, observers at the light source and receiver (and any other place not on that 3rd frame) must see a variable speed of light energy transmission-- but what is the nature of that transmission? Might we use light energy periodicities rather than light waves or quanta? If so, might there be a wide spectrum of frequencies corresponding to a wide spectrum of periodicities in light transmission. And how, then, are we to measure speed? and of what? and relative to what? If the nature of light speed is uncertain, how then are the 'light wave equations' to be written, e.g., how do we express the relationship between periodicity (frequency) and distance between light energy peaks (at each periodicity)? Looking back now, we see that Michelson-Morley experiment was an invalid instrument to measure that. It was also invalid in SRT because both its source and receiver were in the same frame, hence never would measure length contraction per SRT which expected such changes in the 'moving' frame. There are also valid questions regarding the use of light speed c in electrodynamics and in astronomy. All of which arise from the simple graphical rejection of non-aether concepts in optical-kinematics.

1. N. E. Munch, "Light Wave Discontinuities and their Solution", Proceedings of the NPA, V2, N2, pp. 118-124 (2005).

Like an Escher print with its contradictory viewing assumptions, relativity and related cosmology theories are also flawed by use of contradictory assumptions. For example, the light wave equations were an assumed basis of special relativity (SRT) equations. So, the time terms in SRT must be the elapsed time of light travel along the length term regardless of its direction, not clock time or clock rates or the age of twins as often assumed. Consequently, its Lorentz transformation (E-LT) is critically flawed. When light passes to and fro over a moving length, the universality of its derivation assumptions requires that length to both contract and dilate at the same instant. That?s impossible. SRT?s erroneous shift to focus on clocks and their simultaneity has side-tracked progress in modern physics for decades. Zero rest mass of a photon, assumed to avoid SRT?s requirement for infinite mass at light speed c, is contradicted by the finite rest mass of photons in Bose-Einstein condensate experiments. The presumption by SRT that objects cannot exceed speed c can be rejected by the above flaws and because super-luminal speed luminosities are frequently observed in astronomy. Yet, the myth remains that an object?s speed is limited to c. It?s quite clear that Minkowski?s space-time concepts contradict E-LT basis in light wave equations, if one only looks. Space-time is easily rejected yet it remains as truth in text books. SRT basis on constant velocity and constant c constrain its use to rectilinear motion. Yet, SRT and its erroneous space-time concepts formed the basis of general relativity (GRT) and the subsequent Big Bang concepts. Both have questionable validity. All such contradictory assumptions and their consequences could have been avoided by good assumptions control.

The ?two-frame light travel problem? is best seen by considering spherical waves from a moving source as seen by an observer Q on that ?moving? frame and by an observer P on a ?stationary? frame. When those two simultaneous views are precisely plotted on a sin-gle graph, it?s clear that each part of a wave must be at two locations at the same instant as described in more detail in this paper. That?s true whether relativistic or non-relativistic equations are used -- as long as aether is not assumed. Such wave discontinuities are impossible in a logical world and are contrary to an enormous amount of Doppler data which would certainly reveal those discontinuities if they existed. The discontinuities disappear if we return to Doppler?s original [1842] equations which were based on presence of an ?aether?. Unfortunately, Doppler was counseled to drop his longitudinal light wave views soon after 1842 and the discontinuities without an ether have remained unseen since then. Texts, c.f., Hansch, do use Doppler?s 1842 light equations for sound waves in air but shift to relativity?s equations for optical Doppler which ignore the light wave discontinuities. Attempts by Ritz are discussed but do not eliminate discontinuities in all conditions. If confirmed by additional experiments, this finding is yet another reason to reject relativity?s concepts and should be of interest in electrodynamics and astronomy. One such use might be to help explain the excess red-shift occasionally seen in astronomy. When coupled with the refutation of relativity?s presumed limits of speed to c , as discussed in a companion paper, light waves from a super-luminal light emitter would arrive at an observer at constant c but in reverse order with seemingly increased wavelengths.

This paper is aka "Doppler?s 1842 Aether-based Concepts Provide the Only Known Solution to the Two-Frame Light Travel Problem, and Possibly Other Concerns in Astronomy"

Some concepts in physics advance in bursts of inspiration; others advance by slow evolution of thought.  Concepts of aether, relativity and cosmology seem to advance by some of each.  To measure current beliefs, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is conducting a survey of scientist's opinions in a few areas where recent experiments shed new light on old theories.  Three examples are:

1. light photons are now seen to have finite rest mass which contradicts prior assumptions of zero photon rest mass and relativity's presumed infinite mass at light speed
2. important aspects of special relativity are found to be based on assumptions conflicting with their derivation assumptions
3. Big Bang assumptions require initial expansion at thousands of times light speed which contradicts Einstein's original special relativity concepts.

Have such observations altered scientist's opinions about modern physics?  The design and early survey responses by NPA members are summarized herein.  Over 80% of those answering the questions agreed that:

1. the above flaws raise serious questions about relativity and its space-time concepts
2. neither special nor general relativity have ever been experimentally confirmed beyond reasonable doubt
3. 'Big Bang' concepts can also be seriously questioned.

The next steps will be to extend this survey to the larger scientific community and see if their opinions are similar to those by a majority of NPA members.  If they agree that there are valid questions, then perhaps it's time to seek general consensus for bypassing relativity and seeking new solutions to the unsolved problems in modern physics as now suggested by NASA.

There have been numerous observations of stellar emitters at speeds much greater than c.  Those objects include 'luminosities' ejected from super novae and stellar radio-frequency sources passing each other.  Schemes purported to show that super-luminal speeds of such objects comply with relativity are unconvincing, and it seems likely that such super-luminal speeds are indeed present in astronomy.  Constancy of measured light speed near measuring equipment continues to be verified.  But when away from such measuring equipment, the case is made for constancy of light speeds relative to the 'medium' described in Christian Doppler's original (1842) concepts.  Using those concepts, the resulting Doppler effects are described for various values and orientations of observer and source speeds.  Two intriguing features are  a)  the reversal of the order of light wave reception, and  b)  Doppler red shifts, rather than blue-shifts, from approaching emitters at super-luminal speeds.  If correct, there would be a predominance of red-shifts at super-luminal speeds.  That might be another possible reason for the excessive red-shifts observed in astronomy.  Experiments to study Doppler effects at simulated super-luminal emitter speeds seem feasible, relatively inexpensive and are described in a related reference.  These experiments might identify a future way to search and confirm or reject the presence of superlunimal speeds in space and the expected reserved wave arrival sequence.  Also, they might provide information useful in confirming or rejecting Doppler's 1842 concepts of a 'medium' in which light speeds are constant.

There can be little doubt that important assumptions, such as symmetry of length and time variations, shift inappropriately in special relativity (SRT). Such shifts have been obscured by inadequate controls and notation, yet are so important that they likely invalidate both SRT and general relativity (GRT). Six examples are described here showing the extensive nature of assumption shifts and the resultant conflicts. It is true that some particular equations and results are properly tied to their specific subsets of assumptions and therefore valid. Overall, however, self-conflicting results are often commingled in derivations and usage. That produces conclusions which are clearly inappropriate. But authors, having learned of their need, continue to resist introducing the needed assumption controls. Perhaps such practicalities seem too mundane to be seriously considered in this field.

1) The simplest known experimental evidence is that proper lengths on earth do not reduce to zero when viewed by passing photons at light speed c -- yet that's shown to be required by special relativity (SRT). 2) It is now agreed by at least one establishment physicist (Mermin) that the Michelson-Morley (M-M) tests were inconclusive; yet the presumed null M-M results were an underlying impetus for the acceptance of special relativity (SRT). Also, the recently discovered frequency "locking" of contra-flowing light beams raise questions about M-M test efficacy. 3) Forces such as gravity are known to influence path and speed of light beams which contradicts SRT's second principle of light-speed constancy. In such curved paths, Coriollis and Foucault pendulum effects illustrate that there is a privileged frame in GRT which contradicts SRT's first principle. 4) Observed speeds in astronomy commonly exceed light-speed contradicting SRT. 5) When precise notation is used, it is seen that light speeds vary on a 'moving' frame as measured on the 'stationary' frame. That contradicts current understanding of SR1"s second principle.

Einstein's special relativity (SRT) was based on assumptions of: a) kinematics, b) rectilinear motion at constant velocity v, c) constancy of light speed (his 2"<1 principle), d) compliance with Lorentz's transformation, and 3) satisfaction of experimental data of Michelson-Morley and of Doppler and electrodynamic effects. Kinematics presume no influence of forces such as gravity. Rectilinear motion and constant v preclude rotation or acceleration of any kind. Such an environment (no forces or accelerations from those forces) is found nowhere in our universe; so SRT is no applicable anywhere in our universe. Experimental results (such as Sagnac effects, mass increases and muon life times) are beyond SRT boundaries and hence inapplicable to SRT. Most remaining assumptions above are self-contradictory when viewed with precise notation and also inapplicable.

Five assumptions have been found to shift inappropriately in texts on special relativity (SRT). For example, one such assumption is the use of light to relate lengths and times in ways described in Ein-stein's Second Principle (light-speed constancy). Yet this, and other related assumptions of intervals and symmetry of length and time variations, are dropped and re-assumed at will, producing incompatible results. If light-use and all orientations of c and v are assumed, contraction is required in some orientations and dilation in others. That is contradicted by assumptions of linearity. Linearity presumes a single root for SRT equations, and so is contradicted by the dual roots required by Einstein's Lorentz transformation (E-LT) and optical Doppler equations. Relationships of SRT equations are discussed further in Ref. [2].

Examples of censorship and suppression are widespread in academia. Great progress has come from tolerance in earth sciences; but harsh intolerance rules in social sciences, vs. natural-environmental influences, and in physics, vs. rationality and objectivity: both involve disdain for common sense. Links between skeptics' groups and establishment science. The situations in Russia and Germany. Discussion on how to cope with the intolerance.

Conflicts resulting from the shifting assumptions in special relativity (SRT) are discussed in a companion paper. When one of these assumptions -- that of light-use relating length and time -- is held constant, previously unrecognized relationships are seen. One of these is that SRT and Doppler equations are identical when light-use is assumed. A generalized expression for both SRT and Doppler is developed which is comprised of three ratios. Solutions of that expression are tested using existing SRT equations in those ratios. All result in serious conflicts. Since light-use is required within the context of Einstein's Second Principle and optical Doppler and Michelson-Morley tests, SRT appears seriously flawed.

A comparison is made of the classical and the relativistic theories of the Doppler effect, with emphasis on the classical and semi-classical sections of Einstein's 1905 paper. One of us (NM) finds that the form and results of special relativity and Doppler equations are sensitive to shifts in assumptions and produce significantly different results -- even reversal of Doppler effects. But, with one set of [2nd principle related] assumptions held constant, a single equation is produced which describes both the special relativity and the Doppler effects in terms of commonly used factors. Other assumptions will likely produce different relationships.

A re-deduction (by FM) of Einstein's Doppler formula from first principles, however, seems to help straighten out contradictions. This requires utmost care in the understanding of relativistic methodology and its diverse ?scenarios" and interpretations (at least three of these are noted). A transient time or initial asymmetric effect, however, persists, which can be demonstrated experimentally, in principle. This favors the classical formula over the relativistic one.

Shifting assumptions and imprecise notation have permitted special relativity (SRT) to reach numerous conflicting interpretations!. When the assumptions of the 2nd principle and light-wave use are held constant and adequate notation is used, two 'building block' factors emerge which are useful in clarifying the relationships between SR T and its Doppler equations. Analyzing and checking such results is lengthy, especially in the SRT environment of shifting assumptions, so this is a progress report on those analyses with some early results and their interpretation. Much additional work remains, even for the one set of assumptions most compatible with Doppler and other light-related tests. In the end, incompatibility of results with Doppler and Michelson-Morley tests described in ref. [1] remains -- though perhaps seen a bit more clearly now.

Assumptions which shift inappropriately in special relativity theory (SRT) are discussed in a previous paper. This document provides examples of conflicts within SRT which resulted from those shifts: (a) Conflicting provisions for orientations of velocity v and c; (b) Contradictory interpretations and relationships of x,x',t,t'; (c) Inappropriate assumption of linearity; (d) Incompatible resulting SRT equations.

The status of six commonly-shifted assumptions is illustrated in small tables accompanying descriptions of the conflicts. In ordinary circumstances, each of the resulting conflicts would be sufficient to reject SRT and its presumed space-time-mass relationships as understood today.

Many papers which perceive some problem with special relativity theory (SRT) address proposed solutions without working through all details of that problem. Constraints of extant experimental data can be overlooked because, to the author's knowledge, the needed test data has not been assembled in a structured way which is useful for testing proposed corrections. Furthermore, problems tend to hide behind many "faces" and require systematic analysis to uncover their 'root" causes. When surface problems of SRT are studied in-depth, its well-known paradoxes and illogical conclusions are found to arise from a surprising lack of rigor in use and control of assumptions which is masked in turn by inadequate notation. Digging deeper, numerous self-conflicting solutions have resulted, all of which fail to satisfy extant test data. Digging still deeper, we complete the cycle and return to the unfilled need for clearer understanding of the underlying test results, particularly those related to constancy of light speed. That was the initial problem of SRT and may eventually prove to be the 'root' problem. A few aspects of light -speed constancy concerns are reviewed in this paper.

Until the problems of SRT are understood, what is most needed now is NOT better proposed solutions but the thorough investigation, cataloging and analysis of those problems. That's an enormous task, and well deserving of attention by the scientists already at work in this field who, unfortunately may have been part of an establishment which seeks to avoid rather than address the problems.

Munch Corp. #88A