Member

We try to speculate upon and explore the logic which guided Einstein into declaring his two postulates, as well as speculate and explore what those postulates mean, individually. This is a speculative paper, and it presumes that the reader has already read the relevant passages by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Berkeley, and Poincare (Appendices one through five, respectively), my paper titled ?A Brief Overview of SRT?, and Einstein's book, ?Relativity.? The appendices provide information related to the justification of Einstein's first postulate, The Principle of Relativity.

Introduction to Einstein's two postulates (Postulate 1 and Postulate 2), other the one hand, and Einstein's five modifications (space transformation, time transformation, relativity of simultaneity, and mass energy equivalence), on the other.

It is examined how Einstein's Train Thought Experiment leads to fallacies, in spite of ones interpretation of this thought experiment. This paper presumes that the reader has read my other paper ?A Brief Overview of SRT? as well as ?Relativity?, by Einstein. This is especially important because the ideas proposed in this paper are of a very speculative nature, and one should know the theory before one begins to speculate with regards to the interpretations of the theory. The appendix presents a brief outline of the argument of this paper.

It is examined how the six theoretical models for light isotropy (three ballistic, two ether, and SRT) stand up to the original Michelson Morley Experiment and to original Bradley (Airy not considered) Stellar Aberration. This paper presumes that the reader has read my other paper ?A brief Overview of SRT?. The models are categorized according to the convention which the author has chosen. This paper is not quite as speculative as some of my other papers, such as ?Problems with Einstein's Train Thought Experiments?, ?Einstein's Two Postulates?, ?Problems with the All Pervading Ether Hypothesis?, or ?Propagation Geometry and Propagation Character-Two Issues or One Issue.?

Examines the logical inconsistencies in the All Pervading Ether Hypothesis. Specifically, the all pervading Ether hypothesis is created to uphold the notion that (1)wave implies medium, at the expense of dismissing (2) apparent experimental evidence to the contrary (electromagnetic waves travel through empty space). However, (1) arises from a macroscopic view of waves, whereas (2) is experimentally found down to the atomic level. In order to uphold the notion that macroscopic phenomenon is the result of microscopic phenomenon (and not vice versa), it is proposed that we uphold (2), at the expense of abandoning (1). This paper presumes that the reader has already read my paper on ?A Brief Overview of SRT? and another paper ?Light Isotropy-Theory and Experiment?. A wholly contained argument on why The All Pervading Ether Hypothesis is untenable is provided in Appendix 1. The last sentence in the appendix outlines the argument. Appendix 2 draws a distinction between the type of ether discussed in this paper and the type of ether discussed in another one of my papers ?Propagation Geometry and Propagation Character-Two issues or One Issue?.

This paper presumes that the reader has read the first five chapters, especially chapters 1, 4 and 5. In Chapter 4 it was found that four theories of light isotropy remained standing (without reconciliation) after consideration of Stellar Aberration and the Michelson Morley Experiment. This paper is about considering these remaining theories of light isotropy in the face of increasing experimental evidence. This paper takes an especially close look at the Ritzian molecule to molecule ballistic theory, and the three following experiments: deSitter, Airy, and Fizeau.

This paper summarizes some of the more important ideas touched on in the previous paper, and proposes a three-component description for the total velocity of light, namely, the velocity of light relative to the source, the velocity of the source relative to the medium, and the velocity of the medium relative to our frame of reference.

Einstein has two theories of relativity- The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) and The General Theory of Relativity (GRT). Each theory is based on an assumption about light which follows from the mutual employment of two postulates. This assumption states that light, when it travels through empty space, travels at the constant velocity of c with respect to the reference systems (or observers) identified in the first postulate.

Einstein's second postulate remains the same in each theory but the first postulate is generalized from SRT to GRT via his "Principle of Equivalence". Einstein's second postulate is called The Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light. In SRT, the first postulate is called The Special Principle of Relativity (SPR). In GRT, the first postulate is called The General Principle of Relativity (GPR).

Einstein introduces his second postulate as a new law of optics. The second postulate says that light travels at the constant velocity of c, when it travels through empty space. The first postulate identifies the reference systems within which the laws of optics (and therefore Einstein's second postulate) can claim validity...

There are two questions dealing with light: 1) what does it travel isotropic to? (answers: ballistic theory; ether theory) and 2) what is its character? (answers: corpuscle; wave). Currently the scientific community automatically links the ballistic theory with the corpuscular hypothesis and the ether theory the wave hypothesis. These associations stem from analogy to mechanical situations. This paper considers the justification of relying on mechanical situations to carry over associations to the electrodynamic context. This paper presumes the reader has already read my papers on ?A Brief Overview of SRT? and ?Light Isotropy: Theory and Experiment?.

I believe that Einstein?s Theory of Relativity is entirely invalid. The purpose of the papers is to look critically at Einstein?s Theory of Relativity, primarily his Special Theory of Relativity. In what follows, I will very briefly define Einstein?s Theory of Relativity, and then discuss related topics in greater detail. The purpose is to identify a common ground or reference for further discussion, and to outline the content of more detailed papers which are (or will be) linked. But first, let us briefly look at two things. One is the fact that the theory proposes some things which violate common sense. The other is the fact that observers and reference frames play a very fundamental role in this theory.

This article aka "Einstein's Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell".

Einstein has two theories of relativity- The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) and The General Theory of Relativity (GRT). Each theory is based on an assumption about light which follows from the mutual employment of two postulates. This assumption states that light, when it travels through empty space, travels at the constant velocity of c with respect to the reference systems (or observers) identified in the first postulate. Einstein?s second postulate remains the same in each theory but the first postulate is generalized from SRT to GRT via his "Principle of Equivalence". Einstein?s second postulate is called The Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light. In SRT, the first postulate is called The Special Principle of Relativity (SPR). In GRT, the first postulate is called The General Principle of Relativity (GPR). Einstein introduces his second postulate as a new law of optics. The second postulate says that light travels at the constant velocity of c, when it travels through empty space. The first postulate identifies the reference systems within which the laws of optics (and therefore Einstein?s second postulate) can claim validity.

This article aka "Einstein?s First Postulate"

A lot of people misinterpret that the Michelson Morley experiment represents strong evidence in favor of Einstein?s Theory of Relativity. It is true that the Michelson Morley experiment agrees with relativity theory, but it in no way represents strong evidence for the theory. There are several theories which attempt to interpret with respect to what light travels when it travels through empty space. The results of the Michelson Morley experiment only disagree with one of these theories-the stationary ether theory. Therefore, the Michelson Morley experiment has much more to do with disqualifying the stationary ether theory than it does with confirming Einstein?s.

The reason why the Michelson Morley experiment is so popularized probably has more to do with the fact that it was this experiment which caused Lorentz and Fitzgerald (who believed in the stationary ether theory) to propose their "hypothesis of contraction" (i.e. to rescue the stationary ether theory from the results of the MM experiment). This "hypothesis of contraction" is equivalent mathematically to Einstein?s transformations. It therefore serves, not only as an indication that the stationary ether theory was wrong, but also as an introduction to the origin of the mathematical transformation equations that Einstein uses in his theory of relativity. This is probably why the MM experiment receives so much attention in literature about relativity theory.

This paper is about the isotropic (same in all directions) velocity of light when it travels through empty space. With respect to what does light travel isotropic to, when it travels through empty space? Einstein?s theory of relativity assumes that it always travels isotropic to the observer. The ballistic theory assumes that it travels isotropic to some source of the light. The ether theory assumes that it travels isotropic to some ether.

Prior to Einstein, a meter was defined to pertain to all observers. Worded differently, prior to Einstein, a meter was defined to be the same for all observers. But in Einstein?s space transformation, he is proposing that a meter for one observer not correspond with a meter for another observer. Einstein cannot make this proposal without first defining a meter for S and then for S?. In other words, Einstein must redefine meters per each observer, rather than per all observer (like it was defined before him).

To this purpose, Einstein says that increments of space and time (such as a meter or second) and events in space and time can only be defined for an observer by measuring devices. The measuring devices he mentions in his relativity paper of 1905 are "rigid rods" and "synchronized clocks". According to Einstein, the clocks have to be synchronized for an observer in order to be good clocks for that observer. And according to Einstein, the clocks have to be synchronized by light signals. Einstein finds that the clocks can only be synchronized for an observer as long as the rods and clocks are placed at rest to the observer. Therefore, increments of space and time and events in space and time can only be properly defined for an observer by certain measuring devices placed at rest to the observer.