There are doubts (and objections) about established views. All are simple. i'm a solitary amateurUniv was humanities course). This site was listed in not a few directories (in English. category "Physics > Relativity > Alternative") from Feb 2008. i am deeply thankful. Very sorry, my English is not good.


Proof ; Light Speed is Variable (To Observer) !!
Proof ; Light Speed is Variable (To Observer) !!
Aether or Absolute Rest Frame
A Puzzle of Light !!
Doppler Effect of Light
Aether or Absolute Rest Frame
Others (Related to SR)
Gravity & Inertial Force

Two stars are shining on the right and on the left. Two mirrors are set at a 45 degree angle (like letter V), and are reflecting star light down. Speed of two reflected lights is the same always. Therefore, when two mirrors move together to the right (or to the left), wavelength of two reflected lights changes. In other words, "density of waves" (number of waves per unit length of light path) of reflected light is changeable by mirror's motion. But how about incident light ? Density of waves is not changeable by mirror's motion !! In short, density of waves of reflected light and incident light is different generally. The theory of constancy of light speed will be impossible to explain this picture (situation). Note Formula c = f. light speed = frequency x wavelength.
  * In a book, i found a word "wavenumber" (number of waves per unit length [1m or 1cm] ; in a beam). Meaning is the same as above "density of waves". It's inverse number of wavelength. After this, it is written as "wavenumber". P.S. Wavenumber of visible light is between about 12,500/cm and 25,000/cm. P.S. Formerly, wavenumber (/cm) seems to be called "kayser". Such as 25,000K.
  * Wavelength of incident light In plural forums (including forums in English), there were opposing writings (not a few !! : to my post). They say, "Wavelength of incident light changes also". What ? Toward the star ? Toward the galaxy ? No ! Frankly speaking, out of the question ! Unimaginable ! Added on 11 Nov 06 (from mark *)P.S. Light wave is a transverse wave. So, compression wave (retrogrades [goes upstream] toward light source. against stream of light) cannot be formed. Moreover, change of wavenumber is unimaginable (caused by the mirror). P.S. On an adjacent light (passes beside the mirror), mirror's motion has no effect (on every part of light path). On incident light, it will be the same.P.S. Imagine circular waves of light that are emitted from a point source. These coming circular waves (and these wavelength) will not be disturbed by observer's motion. Then, light speed is variable (to observers). By the way, circular waves and constancy of light speed will be incompatible (impossible, at a glance). P.S. There is a light source. Its wavelength is particular value "a" only. Still, frequency will change continuously (to a moving observer).P.S. In outer space, speed of star light is constant. Therefore, wavelength is unchangeable also (once emitted from the source). P.S. In a forum, i asked back as follows. "When there is no observer, how about wavelength of coming light (Imagine star light) ?"
  * do. By observer's motion, wavelength of incident light doesn't vary. One of the reasons is that it's in territory of the past. The past cannot be changed. Vanished things cannot be changed. P.S. On an incident light seen from every observer, a formula c = f is valid (true). By observer's motion, term f and c vary and term doesn't vary.
  * do. In outer space, plane waves (vertical) of star light are coming from the side. Toward the star, two observers are moving at different speed. To the two, different terms will be f and c (in c = f). Added on 18 Aug 15 (from mark *)
  * do. Along a light path (source's frequency is constant), an observer is moving in different motions. This changing (of motion) is based on a random numbers. Is wavelength of coming light based on the same random numbers ? Added on 16 Aug 15 (from mark *)
  * do. Before an observer's eyes, a beam of star light (source's frequency is constant) is passing (supposed from the right to the left). On the light path, imagine two points (distance is 10 meters). If light speed is the same, frequency at two points is the same. So, wavelength is the same also. On the left, there is a second observer. A second observer's motion can't change this wavelength. Added on 27 Aug 13 (from mark *)P.S. Two light rays separated from the same source are emitted from a space ship. One ray is pointed at a star and the other ray is at the second space ship (approaching). To the second space ship, wavelength of coming light will be a given condition (unchangeable). P.S. An observer and a perfect black body are moving together. Wavelength of incident light will be unchangeable.P.S. Incident light (coming light) doesn't know its destination. Much less, an observer's motion.
  * Another simple picture In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming from just above. A mirror set at a 45 degree angle is reflecting star light. When the mirror moves to the right or the left, wavelength of reflected light varies. So, it is possible to equalize the wavelength of reflected light with wavelength of coming light. It means that speed of both lights is equalized.
  * Light is propagated in two ways (in vacuum) The speed of reflected light will be changed by mirror (from various and variable speed to constant speed c ; temporarily ; relative to the mirror). How far does this changed speed continue ? At least, it will continue to over the moon. And to this extent, emission theory (in other words, ballistic theory ; proposed by Ritz, Walter 1878-1909) will be valid (true) ; Noted later again ( Ritz). P.S. Mirror is a light source.
  * Phenomenon of light seems not to be symmetrical (reversible) in the time flow. Added on 16 Oct 10 (from mark *)P.S. However, it will be common in wave phenomena.
  * Note When frequency of a light source (it's in an inertial frame) is constant, frequency observed at optional two points on a light path (distance between two points is fixed) is the same always. The reason is that if it is not the same, waves existing between two points (wavenumber x distance) increases or decreases endlessly. It's impossible. In some books, this logic (a truism) is touched on. Similarly, frequency observed at two points before and after reflection (distances between the mirror are fixed) is the same also. Therefore, dense light must be slow, sparse light must be fast (just like in refraction).

    Attention (important) Books seem to say that propagation of light in air and in vacuum is the same (speed is somewhat different). It is "INEXPRESSIBLE" and "INDESCRIBABLE" misunderstanding (in air, air is a "frame" [reference frame] of propagation of light waves !! the same as sound waves !! so, the result of M-M experiment (done in air) is only natural !! explained later. extinction medium and light).P.S. : repeated In air, there is no problem about propagation of light waves. It's not worth taking up in this site.P.S. : Therefore, ..... Therefore, in this site, light waves are (supposed to be) propagated in vacuum (please read so : including on the earth : unless otherwise noted). At each passage (at each time), it is not noted.P.S. In vacuum of outer space (including on the moon's surface), almost all the passages will stand up (without any notes).P.S. In fact, in this site, phrases "in outer space", "on the moon's surface" are added (not a few). P.S. Other attentions In this site, frequency of a light source is constant, and a light source or a matter is in an inertial frame (unless otherwise noted).


A laser light (wavelength is constant) is reflected by a mirror and is retracing (turns back) its path. The light source and the mirror are supposed to be at a standstill in an inertial frame. An observer moves (at a constant speed) along this light path toward light source. He has a hollow tube. Two lights (coming light and reflected light) are passing through this tube. The number of waves (of this two lights) existing inside of this moving tube (wavenumber x tube's length) is the same (the same number) always. The reason is that the wavenumber of two lights is the same (speed relative to the mirror is the same). On the other hand, because of Doppler effect, frequency of two lights is different to observer. Therefore, speed of two lights is different also.P.S. Light speed = frequency x wavelength. And as mentioned already, wavelength and wavenumber is inverse number for each other.
  * And also the reason is that the number of waves existing in full length of light paths is the same.
  * Above result will be the same, when another laser light source (frequency is the same) is set as a substitute for mirror.
  * Invariant In books, i found a word "invariant" and a passage "The number of waves (the number of things) is an invariant".P.S. Relativity seems to say that length is not invariant. But this proof is independent of it.
    This PROOF is added on Mar 06.


How is spherical wave of star-light propagated ? It will be independent of the motion of the light source (like water wave : binary star is an example). So, the rest frame exists !!
  * Teaching of heaven Light wave of a planet (spherical wave ; sent from a point source) expands as sphere (it's true and perfect sphere, because light speed is constant in space). If it expands like matter, the sphere's geometrical center will leave (separate from) the orbit (how visible is it from afar ?).
  * do. Barnard's star is the fastest fixed star (it's moving on the celestial sphere). Ahead of the Barnard's star, there is a star and its planet. On this planet, suppose an intellectual creature. They say, "Speed of light of approaching Barnard's star is the same as that of adjacent galaxy (reason ; the value of stellar aberration is the same)". From this, we (supposition ; we see just from the side) must say that light sphere's expansion is independent of motion of the light source.
  * do. Aberration is caused only by motion of the earth. Motion of heavenly bodies has no effect. For example, binary star, rotating galaxy, and so on (position on the celestial sphere is all). Noted later again ( relativity of motion is false).
  * do. Phenomenon ; light-time correction (noted later. light-time correction). It's direct evidence.

Thus, the rest frame is real. We find that aether (aether frame : reference frame of aether) again. But it's very rare (explained later. mark ) !! No, dense enough (so, above phenomena are shown).

12 ADDITIONAL below are on light speed also. If you are a new visitor, skip over please.

ADDITIONAL (Two Light Paths and Light Speed)

Two light rays (adjacent) are coming from a star. One is coming to observer A (moving at high speed ; along the light path direction), the other is coming to observer B (moving at low speed ; along the light path direction). Wavelength of two lights is the same. And light speed will be different (therefore, frequency is different). Note light speed = frequency x wavelength. Added on 19 Dec 07
  * This is a version (more certain). In this version, the effect of time dilation (i don't know it's true or not) is offset (canceled). a version Observer C is added and C is midway between A and B. From viewpoint of C, A and B are receding symmetrically (along the light path direction). C receives data of frequency (of this star light) from A and B. To C (to view point of C), value of time dilation of A and B is the same. Added on 9 Jan 08 (from mark *)
  * A picture more visual is shown. Three observers C, A and B are on a horizontal line (A and B are receding from C). Plane waves of a star light are coming from the upper left (at a 45 degree angle). Added on 9 May 16 (from mark *)

ADDITIONAL (Doppler Effect and Light Speed ; Principle of Radar Trap)

An observer is emitting a laser light to approaching mirror, and is observing reflected light. And supposition is as follows ; speed of emitted light and reflected light is the same (to this observer). So, frequency of two lights is different and wavelength is different also (reason ; blue shift is visible). But, what combination is possible about mirror's inertial frame (about incident light and reflected light) ? Only this combination (frequency is the same [as already noted, it's unquestionable !]. wavelength is different and light speed is different also) will be possible.P.S. In air, the above will be surely true.
  * Too late !! But, i find that this ADDITIONAL will be principle of radar trap (or, speed trap ; a sort of Doppler radar unit ; used for speed limit enforcement) or radar speed gun (uses micro wave or laser light). Added on 4 Jul 07 (from mark *).
  * In a web site, the formula of radar trap is shown. There are that terms (c+v), (c-v). Added on 21 Jul 07 (from mark *).
  * A car is moving (at a constant speed) toward radar trap (working). At ahead of the car, imagine a fixed point F (1 meter from the car : on the path of both waves). The number of both waves that pass this point (per unit time) is the same. So, if light speed is the same, wavenumber (wavelength) is the same also. Therefore if light speed is the same (in inertial frame of radar trap), Doppler effect will not be observable. Added on 29 Jul 07 (from mark *). P.S. In air, it will be as follows. In inertial frame of radar trap (at a standstill in air ; and windless) ; Light speed is the same. Frequency is different and wavelength is different also. In inertial frame of moving car ; Frequency is the same. Wavelength is different and light speed is different also. P.S. In vacuum, it will be as follows (based on the emission theory). In inertial frame of radar trap ; Light speed is different. In inertial frame of moving reflector ; Light speed is different also.
     This ADDITIONAL is partially rewritten on 14 Apr 06.

ADDITIONAL (Standing Wave)

Standing wave (in other words, stationary wave) of light is formed by mirror (when incident light is coherent). Now, light is incident on a mirror at a 90 degree angle. So, if light speed is the same, standing wave seems to be observable at distant position also. Laser light is written that it keeps its coherency (ability of interference) within 2 or 3 km. How about direct star light ? It's formed intermittently ?

ADDITIONAL (Moving Tube and Light Speed)

There is a tube. In the middle of it, a plate glass is fitted (like a lens). On the right, a star shines, and star light is passing through this tube (from the right to the left). When this tube moves (at different constant speed) to the right (or the left), in the formula "light speed = frequency x wavelength", frequency and wavelength will change in the left part of this tube. Frequency and light speed will change in the right part of it (at tube's inertial frame). Added on 12 Oct 06 (from mark *). Explanation Aether is very rare. So, in the left part of the tube, the emission theory is valid (glass is a light source). Light speed is constant c (relative to the glass). In the right part of it, speed of light (that comes from far away [far more than planets]) is constant in aether. Tube moves at variable speed relative to aether. Therefore, light speed is variable also.

ADDITIONAL (Stellar Aberration and Light Speed)

Now, we are on the moon's surface. There are two stars. One star is at the upper left at just 45 degrees. The other star is at the upper right at just 45 degrees. On the ground, two telescopes are set, and these are pointed at two stars. The moon (ground) is moving to the right. Therefore, because of aberration, one telescope is erected somewhat. The other telescope is laid somewhat. Telescope's length is the same. So, when inlets (suppose that telescopes are hollow tubes [without lens]. light passes as rain-drops) are set at the same height from the ground, height of outlets is not the same. Lights (photon) that enter inlets at the same time, don't go out of the outlets at the same time (light speed is different). And lights reach ground at the same time.
  * One more illustration (seen from the aether frame) Inlets are line A, outlets are lines B and C, ground is line D. Four lines are horizontal. To these, two star lights come from 45 degrees above (it's premise, given condition). Two lights (two photons) that pass A at the same time will reach D at the same time.

ADDITIONAL (Prism and Light Speed)

From just above, a fine laser light is coming (frequency is constant). A triangular prism (set like pyramid) crosses (to the right ; at a constant speed) this vertical beam. Number of waves that enter both (right and left) faces of the prism will be different (reason ; it's possible to regard motion of pin-point of laser light [incident on the face of prism] as motion of an observer along the light path). Note light speed = frequency x wavelength. Added on 19 Nov 07
  * It's a digression. Above mention will not stand up about star light (plane waves ; come from just above). The reason is that the number of waves that reach optional two points on both faces of the prism (per unit time) is the same always. It's unrelated to the prism's uniform linear motion (both horizontal and vertical. so, diagonal also). Look at the points. Not faces but points. Added on 20 Feb 09 (from mark *)

ADDITIONAL (Photons and Light Speed)

Plane waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from just above. An observer is moving horizontally at different speed. Speed relative to the waves does not vary (c = f). But speed relative to photons or light ray will vary (both will be real existence). P.S.: generalization In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming from just above. An observer is at a standstill. Speed of light waves and photons (light ray) relative to the observer will not be the same (generally). About the speed of the two, nothing can be said without measurement. The speed of the two is variable by observer's motion (generally). By the way, speed of light waves and of photons (light ray) relative to the aether is the same.

ADDITIONAL (Photons and Light Speed)

Imagine photons that form spherical waves of light emitted from a point source. An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion toward the source. Some photons will move (relative to the observer) at the speed c. But it's instantaneous.
  * Imagine a light sphere (house size : emitted from a point source) and photons in this sphere. From viewpoint of a moving inertial frame, every photon will have the same motion component v. This picture will be an unmistakable picture as a counter evidence for constant c. Added on 23 Jan 15 (from mark *)
  * Let's regard "photon" as a classic real particle (in this site). To ensure images of behavior of light.

ADDITIONAL (Two Passenger Cars and Light Speed)

Plane waves of light are coming from upper right at 45 degrees angle. Two passenger cars are moving to the right. One is at high speed and the other is at low speed. On the roof of each car, there is a small hole (position is the same). Light waves pass this hole and reach the floor. Position of the spot light on the floor is not the same. This will show that light speed is not the same (to observers in the car).

ADDITIONAL (Drone and Light Speed)

A passenger car is moving. From a light source set at the center of the car, light rays are being sent to the front and the rear. Above this moving car, a drone is flying in irregular motion (then, drone lands on a hill). Speed of light will be explained only by Galilean transformation.

ADDITIONAL (A Passenger Car and Light Speed)

A passenger car is moving to the right. A light ray (frequency is constant) is sent from the source set on the rear wall and is reflected by the front wall and returns to the rear wall. Path forms angle bracket > (acute angle). There is an observer on the ground. In front of him, imagine a vertical line. The passenger car passes the line. Frequency of two light paths is different and wavelength is the same (number of waves is invariant). According to that formula: v = f, light speed is different. P.S. Above picture seems to show also that pictures on relativity of simultaneity or on Lorentz contraction (a moving passenger car is shown in books commonly) must be reexamined.

ADDITIONAL (Mirror and Light Speed)

In outer space, a mirror is reflecting a star ray. On incident ray and reflected ray each, a formula c =f is valid (seen from the mirror). In this two formulas, term f is the same (the same number) always. So, when is different (usually, it's different: by reflection), c must be different.


The earth is moving in space. Therefore, if previously mentioned view (light sphere's expansion is independent of motion of the light source) is true, everything on the earth will not be visible at its real position. Emitted position (where the light was emitted) remains (is fixed) in space, and light source is moving in space. Therefore, some gap (a sort of parallax) will occur to observer (and on optical surveying instruments, evident effect will occur also). It's logical inference. But this gap seems not to be observable. P.S. This problem is mentioned in some books (in Japanese).

This is a hypothesis. Its sayings are as follows. This gap exists actually (on the earth). But we don't see it. The reason is that this gap is offset (canceled) fully by that aberration (aberration will also exist about everything on the earth logically). Yes fully, because this gap and aberration each is composed of only earth's speed and light speed. And we see everything at the position that Einstein says (light sphere's expansion is dependent on motion of the light source. the reason is that there is no absolute or privileged frame in space). This gap and aberration both are hidden in everywhere around us (but how tricky !!).
  * In an encyclopedia, i found a word "planetary aberration". It is composed of two phenomena ; light-time correction (it's above "gap") and annual aberration. An illustration is shown. In it, the earth is passing an outer planet (in this situation, offset is partial). What !? It's unthinkable that such a phenomenon is peculiar only in the heaven. These two (namely planetary aberration) will exist and are hidden in everywhere around us. Thus, this hypothesis insists.P.S. Light-time correction is a phenomenon based on the absolute rest frame. So, common explanation (without rest frame) is knotty.
  * This hypothesis is based on a thought experiment as follows. In outer space, a space ship is moving in a uniform motion. Its speed and moving direction are the same as those of the solar system. This space ship has several wings on its sides, and at the end of each wing, a light source is shining (the length of wings is ten meters, a hundred million km and 4 hundred thousand km). To the position of an observer (he is in this space ship), these are situated at a 90 degree angle (as a structure). These all will be visible at the same position (at a 90 degree angle).
  * The same mechanism (full offset ; caused by solar system's linear motion) will exist about every heavenly body of the solar system. Secular aberration seems to be offset (so, orbit of planets doesn't warp also in appearance ?).
  * Conclusion Sorry, the above must be modified as follows. About earthly sights (and also, about nearby sights [anywhere of the universe]), Einstein (light sphere's expansion is dependent on motion of the light source. the same as matter) will be true. No, only Ritz will be true. Therefore, about the light sphere's expansion, there will be difference (in a law and reality) between within earth-moon scale and over planet-planet scale (on the surface of water, waves that move at different speed coexist. it will be the same in space. thus, aether is rare) . If it's true, the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is quite natural (in addition, mirrors and a half mirror each will work as light source. each will be a light source that follows [depends on] Ritz's emission theory). Added on 13 Sep 05 (from mark *).P.S. In short, by earthly light sources, rest frame cannot be found. Only by heavenly light sources, it can be found.P.S. If Michelson-Morley experiment is done in over planet-planet scale, what about the result ?
  * do. Therefore, apparent position of the sun and the moon will be settled by different mechanism. And the outcome is the same.P.S. Is laser beam returned from the moon always (from a corner cube set on the moon's surface : to the source's position : returned beam is widened to several km) ? If so, the emission theory seems to be true (in all direction).

If you are a new visitor, skip over following ADDITIONAL please.

ADDITIONAL (The Moon is Confusing)

Among all celestial bodies (except artificial bodies), annual aberration is not observable only for the moon. But why ? One answer is "offset" (mentioned already ; offset by light-time correction for the moon that is caused by orbital motion of the earth) and the other answer is the emission theory (valid in moon-earth scale). Probably, the latter will be true.
  * Distance between the moon and the earth is measured to meter level (with light beam). This will mean that emission theory is valid in moon-earth scale (if aether acts, error of dozens of km level will be measured).
  * Value of light-time correction for the moon is written to be 0.704 arcsec (corresponds to moon's speed in orbit). Is it true ? Two horizontal lines and a vertical line cross. At the upper intersection and lower intersection, space ships are situated. Regard the upper space ship as the moon and the lower one as the earth. Common view says that the upper space ship is moving horizontally (at 1.023 km/sec ; imagine a few seconds only). But it will be possible to say also that lower space ship is moving (because there is no rest frame). Now, along the lower line, two space ships are moving. One measured value 0.704 arcsec and the other 1.408 arcsec. What values are these ? Light-time correction is impossible to have two values. These values must be recognized not as light-time correction but as aberration like (aether doesn't act. so, it's "like").P.S. i found a word "velocity aberration".


In a space ship, an observer is observing a star. When this space ship moves (by gas jet ; at different constant speed ; along the light path direction), frequency of star light changes (change corresponds to gas jet). The following are reexaminations of Doppler effect of light (related to expansion of space is excluded).
  * Wavelength of incident light In the above, change of wavenumber (it will be inevitable outcome of the theory of constancy of light speed) of the light path (from observer to the star) will be out of the question (in the first and the second PROOF, mentioned already). P.S. Wavelength of coming light is unchangeable (by observer's motion). Other two (light speed and frequency) change. This most simple reality (c'=f') is rejected.
  * Cause and effect Doppler effect will be caused immediately by relative motion between observer and light waves. Not light source but light waves (not an action at a distance. never !!). Common view is impossible.P.S. And, light source is an existence of the past.
  * do. When Doppler effect is caused by the motion (relative to aether) of light source (it's far away [at least as far away as the planets]), wavenumber (of incident light) will be (had been) changed. On the other hand, when Doppler effect is caused by the motion of observer, wavenumber (of incident light) will not be changed (like moving train and railroad ties). Added on 26 Jan 06 (from mark *).
  * do. When distance between observer and light source is within earth-moon scale, Doppler effect will be caused by relative motion between both (strictly, between observer and light waves). And wavenumber (of incident light) will not be changed. Added on Dec 06 (from mark *).
  * do. Doppler effect of sound and light will be the same basically. The reason is that sound waves and light waves are propagated in medium (to light, aether is one of media. these media are "frames" [reference frames] of propagation !!) at constant speed (explained later. extinction medium and light). So, formula of light must be the same as formula of sound. Only in vacuum, and only in an instant (after emission from light source ; may be for a few second), Doppler effect of light will be unique (formula differs). Added on 9 Jun 09 (from mark *)
  * Distance between dark-lines In spectrum of a star light, there are two dark-lines (peculiar to atom or molecule). The distance between both will show the motion of this star (along the light path direction) relative to aether. Therefore, by frequency of a dark-line, motion of the earth relative to aether will be shown also. Added on 12 Feb 10 (from mark *)
  * do. Wavelength, namely distance between two dark-lines (peculiar to atom or molecule) isn't changed by observer's motion. So, every observer can know the motion of a star relative to aether.P.S. Arago experiment (1810) is on the light speed (whether light speed [of a star] is changed by orbital motion of the earth or not). After discovery of Doppler effect (1842), experiment based on this effect seems not to be done.
  * Wavelength of sun-light will expand and contract slightly once a year.
  * Difference of colors Common view says, colors of visible light are caused by the difference of wavelength. Really ? Frequency is also different. P.S. Into water and into air, light rays (emitted from the same source) are incident. So, in the two media, frequency is the same and wavelength isn't the same. How about color development of color films that are exposed in each medium ? P.S. If color is caused by difference of wavelength, observer's motion doesn't vary color.
  * See also "ADDITIONAL (Doppler Effect and Light Speed ; Principle of Radar Trap)"


About relativity of motion, there is a passage (in a book in Japanese) as follows. "An observer on the moving earth is able to say that he is at a standstill. It also gives a clear explanation for Doppler effect or aberration of star light (without inconsistency)". What !? Then, how about binary star ? Each star's orbital motion has no effect on the value of aberration. Motion (star's and earth's) is not relative. About Doppler effect, it's the same (as mentioned above).
  * Relativity of motion is false To explain annual aberration (a 365 day cycle) will be impossible. "Einstein-geocentric system" !! Added on 19 Feb 08 (from mark *).P.S. Countless stars do not move in orbital motion (in a 365 day cycle). The earth's side only moves (moves relative to aether).P.S. To begin with, about rotary motion, non- linear motion, etc, relativity of motion doesn't stand up (in dynamics also).
  * do. The value of all sorts of aberration depends only on (corresponds only and solely to) the motion (direction and speed) of the earth. Aether exists (without doubt).P.S. The value of annual aberration observed on each planet of the solar system is determined by the speed of orbital motion only. It's the speed relative to aether.
  * Aether is real Propagation of star light follows (depends on) aether frame (motion of the source is ignored). Emitted position (where the light was emitted) is fixed in the frame (coordinate) of aether (in every medium, it's the same. like water waves). Emitted position (where the light was emitted) is also fixed on the celestial sphere.
  * do. On a glass moving in water, aberration will occur also (in principle). Like the earth moving in aether.
  * Aether is measurable A space ship (mother ship) is at a standstill in outer space (non-gravitational). Close by the mother ship, plenty number of probes are standing by (at a standstill also). To each probe, a star is assigned (scatteringly on the celestial sphere). On each probe, telescope that is pointed at the assigned star is loaded. Now all probes begin uniformly accelerated motion toward the assigned stars at the same time. States of acceleration are the same (the same g). Because of aberration, star will disappear from the field of view of the telescope at certain point in time. These data (time) are sent to the mother ship. Then, the motion (direction and speed) of the space ship relative to aether (and also relative to the celestial sphere) will be disclosed. Added on 4 Feb 08 (from mark *). P. S.Later on, a few simpler versions are shown ( aether is measurable).

OTHERS (Related to SR)

In a book, i saw a name E.Mascart and his findings (any effect caused by the motion of the earth isn't detected on 7 optical phenomena [reflection by mirror and so on]). For these findings, he was awarded the prize of Paris academy of sciences in 1873. There will be many other phenomena and experiments that are related to Einstein's postulate (constancy of light speed to observer). However, many books are talking about M-M experiment only. An evil dream (to an amateur).P.S. Word "wavenumber" seems not to be in books on SRT. Can SRT explain Doppler effect by this word ?? There may be many other irrational matters.
  * Inference based on aether frame Allow me to show a hasty inference. The speed (relative to aether) of expansion of light sphere (its scale is over planet-planet) will probably be slower than c (if two kinds of light sphere's expansion [noted before] is true). Added on 25 Feb 07 (from mark *).
  * do. In outer space, a mirror is reflecting a ray of star light. The angle of incident light and reflected light will not be the same generally. The reason is that speed of incident light is variable. Added on 21 Jul 10 (from mark *) P.S. On the angle of refraction, it will be the same.P.S. It will be an effect of mirror's motion relative to aether.
  * do. Dark matter is aether ? Not dark but transparent.
  * Newton's bucket A tube is rotating like propeller. In the middle of the tube, a light source is lighted. When the rotational speed increases, light will be impossible to leave the tube. This will be the phenomenon "Newton's bucket" also (light version). Added on 24 Sep 07 (from mark *).P.S. Different side (aspect) of aether (shown with rotating light source) ?? If it is so, aether is not rare. Or, by different reason ?
  * Extinction i found a word "extinction" in a book Special Relativity by French, A.P. 1968. It's written as follows (original text ; quoted from "Google book" ; in 5-2). "Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of about 10-5cm of glass or 0.1mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source" (10-5cm is 0.0001mm). What ?? Is the light speed equalized in medium ? If it is so (from frequency or from wavelength, "memory" is not erased), what about Fizeau experiment ("Fizeau effect" or "light drag effect" [effect on speed] isn't partial !? Imagine an observer and a medium that move together) ?? Added on 24 Jan 09 (from mark *) P.S. In a forum (in English ;, i was shown a web-site below (there is a heading "Optical Extinction"). Light speed seems to be equalized (in a medium). i am grateful to cincirob.
  * do. Above passage says that 0.1mm of air is enough to extinction. It will be "everything" of Michelson-Morley experiment (done in air). Added on 24 Jan 09 (from mark *)
  * Medium and light In a book Theory of Relativity by Pauli, W 1958, it's written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). "Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions". Extinction will ensure it. Also it seems to be the "very and true explanation" for M-M experiment !! Note About vacuum, the emission theory. Added on 2 Feb 09 (from mark *) P.S. There is Einstein's passage the same as above Pauli's. Therefore, probably, he said that he didn't know M-M experiment (and he mutters, "popular explanation for M-M experiment is nonsense and I have no obligation to point out it").
  * do. In a forum, i wrote about M-M experiment as follows. "If air moves at the speed of 30km/sec relative to the apparatus, expected result will be found. But air was at a stand-still. Null result is only natural". In air, propagation of light waves depends on (follows) frame of air (the same as that of sound waves). But we still seem not to understand it.
  * do. Wind will be influential in radar trap (or, speed trap ; a sort of Doppler radar unit ; uses micro wave or laser light) or radar speed gun.
  * do. Aether will be a medium. For "extinction", thickness of several hundred thousand km may be. Added on 3 Feb 09 (from mark *)
  * do. Propagation of light follows aether frame, the emission theory and air's frame. In every case, to a moving observer, speed of light varies.
  * Fizeau experiment (with flowing water ; 1851) There is a pillar made of glass (section is square ; laid horizontally ; we see a long side). A light ray (emitted from a light source that is set at the upper face of the glass) is propagated in the glass like letter V (at a 30 degree angle ; reflected by a mirror ; from the left to the right). One pillar is moving to the right, the other pillar is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer (stands on the ground), how about the light speed (in the glass) ? Added on 28 Oct 09 (from mark *) P.S. On the moving glass, Galilean transformation stands up. And it will be the same on light also (in the glass). P.S. How about, when another light ray is retrograding (on the same path) ? P.S. In the above pillar, two laser lights (come from above) are crossing like letter X. The appearance of interference fringes (interference pattern) will be the same to all (including the one who is moving relative to the pillar).P.S. About standing wave (formed in the glass ; horizontally), it will be the same.
  * Mere appearance ; Galilean transformation again From the roof of a passenger car (railway carriage), light ray is emitted diagonally down (to the right at a 45 degree angle). One passenger car is moving to the right, the other passenger car is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer who stands on the ground, the length of two light rays is different. Added on 17 Apr 09 (from mark *) P.S. Einstein's theory seems to be invalid on diagonal light ray.
  * do. From the roof of a passenger car, several light rays are emitted down radially (at intervals of ten degrees). How does Einstein's theory explain this moving passenger car ? Added on 27 Apr 09 (from mark *)
  * do. From the roof of a passenger car, a light ray is emitted down vertically. The car is moving to the right. When the car is filled with water, diagonal of light ray is gentler (to an observer who stands on the ground). And the diagonal (depends only on c/n and v) will be mere appearance. It will be the same about air or vacuum too. Added on 17 Apr 09 (from mark *). P.S. Galilean transformation seems to be true about all.
  * do. On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. The roof is flat plate glass. From just above, light waves (plane waves) of a star are entering this roof horizontally. These plane waves reach floor horizontally too (it must be so geometrically). To an observer who stands on the moon's surface, the speed of waves (front of waves : in the moving passenger car) is unchangeable (reason : number of waves is invariant). Therefore, apparent speed of light ray is variable. Added on 3 Feb 10 (from mark *)
  * do. A disc is rotating. A light ray is passing by the disc. How does the theory of constancy of light speed explain (speed relative to the disc) ?
  * Aether is measurable On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. To the roof, waves of sun-light (plane waves) are coming horizontally. In the roof, there is a small hole. When the passenger car moves to the right (or to the left), a point of light projected on the floor will move. Added on 7 Sep 09 (from mark *) P.S. Moon's motion will have an effect (on the point of light) also. The angle of light ray (in the passenger car) will not be 90 degrees.
  * do. When frequency and wavelength of two star lights (coming from the opposite direction) are measured (in outer space : at the same time), observer's motion (relative to aether : in star's direction) will be clarified. And with plural stars, vector of the observer (relative to aether and to the celestial sphere) will be clarified. Added on 8 Dec 13 (from mark *)P.S. Light speed relative to aether frame will be clarified also.P.S. Speed of aether drift may be dozens of km/sec. Above measurement will not be easy. P.S. Or, to measure speed of star light directly (in outer space) is easier ?
  * do. On the moon's surface, there is an interferometer. It tracks a star automatically and it receives two rays of this star. One ray is entering directly and the other ray is coming through (has penetrated) a plate glass. This glass slides toward the star (along a guide rail that is a part of the interferometer). As the glass slides, interference fringe (of two waves) will change connectedly. If so, light speed (in the direction of the star) will be found. And if the same measurement is done (at the same time) on a star situated at the opposite position on the celestial sphere, all (in the direction of the stars) will be clarified. P.S. A light that penetrated the glass will follow the emission theory (speed is c). The other light will follow aether frame. Added on 25 Aug 14 (from mark *) P.S. Length of the guide rail will be enough in a few meters.
  * do. On the moon's surface, there is a pillar made of glass (section is square ; laid horizontally ; we see a long side). From the upper right and the upper left, light waves of two stars are coming (and suppose that wavenumber of both waves is the same). Now this pillar moves to the right or to the left (at different speed). Frequency and light speed of the incident lights (before incidence ; seen from view point of the inertial frame of the pillar) will be changeable. And in the glass, frequency and wavenumber (refraction angle also) will be changeable. These change will be effects of the motion of the glass relative to aether. Added on 12 Dec 09 (from mark *)P.S. In the above, angle of wave front (in the glass) will be changeable also. This will be the mechanism of aberration.
  * Review of aberration The angle of incident light (coming from outer space) is bent by upper atmosphere (of moving earth). This phenomenon (light drag effect) is concluded there (in that place). So, the result of Airy experiment (aberration with a telescope filled with water ; 1871) is natural. Analogy with rain-drop is unsuitable. Added on 4 Feb 09 (from mark *) P.S. By extinction, angle of wave front is bent immediately. P.S. This "dragging" will not be partial (reason ; the value of aberration depends on the light speed and the speed of the earth's motion).
  * do. In outer space, the object lens of telescope will "drag" (as a moving medium) the ray (path) of star light. So, aberration will occur. In outer space, aberration will occur about hollow tube also (photons pass through like rain drops). Added on 18 Feb 09 (from mark *) P.S. The value of the former will be larger (we find Airy's telescope !), and the value of the latter will be nearly usual.
  * do. On the moon's surface, there is a pillar made of glass (section is square ; laid horizontally ; we see a long side). Light waves of a star (plane waves) are entering the upper face horizontally. These plane waves reach bottom face horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). This pillar is moving from the right to the left because of the motion of the moon. Now, imagine light rays. In the glass, these light rays must be bent (from view point of the aether frame). Reason is as follows. From view point of inertial frame of glass, light rays are at a 90 degree angle to the wave front always (reason ; if it's not 90 degrees, speed of both in medium differs. it's impossible). In short, "dragging" (effect on direction) by a moving medium occurs and it will not be partial. Added on 30 Jan 09 (from mark *) P.S. There will be three kinds of motion of medium. Relative to light source, to other media, and to aether.
  * Secular aberration If some angle (not 90 degrees) of light ray (to the plane waves) is detected in outer space (on a star light), it will be an effect of observer's motion relative to aether. Added on 6 Feb 09 (from mark *).P.S. And by elimination of known aberrations, secular aberration (in this star's direction) will emerge.
  * do. In a web-site (in Japanese), i found value 13.4 seconds of arc (it's value of secular aberration) !! We have measured aether already ?
  * Light clock A light clock is working in a moving train. Light path of light clock is illustrated vertically (in books). But this light clock leans somewhat to the right (or to the left). So, to an observer who stands on the ground, zigzag of the light path (saw-tooth like) warps. Two kinds of dilation ? And if two clocks work, and if these lean differs ? Added on 25 Jun 07 (from mark *).
  * do. This is a new-type light clock. A windmill is rotating. At the end and at close to the center of a blade, light sources are fixed and flash once per 100 rotations of the windmill. Time dilation will not be observable.P.S. How about a sensor that is rotating (the windmill does not rotate) relatively ?
  * Time dilation Two fiber-optic cables are laid between the north pole and the equator. A laser beam (frequency is constant) emitted from the equator is reflected at the north pole and is coming back. Frequency at the three points (and every optional point of the cable) is the same. Relative motion or difference of gravity will not cause time dilation. Added on 19 Jan 14 (from mark *)
  * do. There is a swimming pool. Two swimmers started from facing walls (at the same time) and are passing each other. The speed is the same. Plane waves of a star light are coming from just above. Where is the time dilation ?P.S. It's the same when one is accelerating or decelerating.
  * do. Two light sources (frequency is the same) are shining. To an observer, both are visible adjacent. One is at a standstill. The other is moving in a regular reciprocating motion (approaches and recedes ; relative to the observer). Number of waves that this observer receives per unit time (supposition ; per 100 reciprocating motions) will be the same. In short, phenomenon time dilation is unthinkable. P.S. Another version (effects caused by acceleration and deceleration are excluded) is possible (passes a baton to a light source that comes from opposite direction at the same speed [frequency is the same]. and it's repeated). Added on 7 Oct 10 (from mark *)P.S. Now, many space ships are moving in the Brawnian motion like. Time dilation seems to be unimaginable.P.S. ; A simpler version of "jumbo jet experiment" 1971 At a spot N near the north pole, there are some atomic clocks. Now, half of these are moved to a spot E near the equator. And after enough time, the other half are moved also to the spot E. It will be simpler than "the jumbo jet plane experiment" (but i have never heard that difference of latitude causes time dilation.P.S. Relative motion is said to cause time dilation. Now, at the north pole and at the equator, there are atomic clocks. How is time dilation found ?
  * do. There are three passenger cars A, B and C. A is standing. B is moving to the right , C is to the left. Speed of B, C is the same. So, value of time dilation is the same (if it's true). Then, how about time dilation seen from B or C ? In books, motion shown seems to be between the two only.
  * do. In Japan, they are crying, GPS ! GPS ! And are silent about radar trap or speed gun (if light speed is constant, radar trap doesn't work).P.S. Time adjustment on atomic clocks on the ground (latitude and altitude differs) seems to be no need (except a leap second). Then, who (what organization) adjusts clocks loaded on GPS satellites (orbits differ) ? And, how is adjustment done ?
  * Relativistic mass increase A book says that mass is not invariant. But it's unthinkable that effect caused by collision of two masses depends on observer.
  * Particle accelerator In a colliding-beam accelerator, relative speed of two particles is below c ?? And, energy (generated by collision) shows the mass increase of a particle ??P.S. In accelerator, upper limit of particle's speed is c (light speed). And it will be the speed relative to accelerator (the emission theory will be valid to particles also).
  * Lorentz contraction A passenger car is moving. Two light rays are sent from a source (frequency is constant) set on the floor and are reflected by mirrors set on the roof and are coming back to the source (the light path forms oblong letter V). Number of waves that stays on the path is the same to an observer stands on the ground (because it's an invariant). This picture will support the emission theory. Not only Lorentz contraction, but also constancy of light speed and relativity of simultaneity will be denied.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. Between mirrors set on the rear wall and the front wall, a light ray nearly horizontal is drawing an acute zigzag. How does an observer on the ground explain ? Added on 3 Feb 16 (from mark *) P.S. Pay attention to the number of waves. Speed will be nearly c + v and c - v.
  * do. The main point shown by Michelson - Morley experiment (done in vacuum) will be that light follows light source's motion. A picture of a moving passenger car is incompatible with this. How about when the equipment is loaded in the passenger car ? To an observer stands on the ground, light speed will have the motion component of the passenger car : v. P.S. In the moving passenger carpropagation of light follows only one rule (of physics : seems to follow the emission theory). And the rest all will be Galilean transformation (mere calculation). If so, bye, Lorentz contraction !
  * do. On Lorentz contraction and on a light clock each, there is a picture of light ray in a moving passenger car. Now, replace light rays with circular waves. Two pictures (seen from the ground) seem to be incompatible.
  * do. Imagine a picture of a moving passenger car (frequency of the light source is constant). The number of waves existing in the emitted light and reflected light is an invariant. To an observer stands on the ground, how is it visible ? The picture shown in books will not stand up. Possible explanation will be the emission theory.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. From the roof, two laser lights are emitted diagonally and cross at near the floor, and interference fringes are formed. Waves of lights are based on two different random numbers and interference fringes are varying continuously. These interference fringes (pattern only once) will be the same also to an observer on the ground. A picture on Lorentz contraction (of a moving passenger car) will not stand up.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. At the fixed point, from a window, a flash is sent to the left at 90 degrees. Regard the flash as a photon. Ahead of the photon, a wall stands on the ground and on the wall, a vertical line is drawn. This line is situated at just 90 degrees. The photon will hit on the point that is out of the line a little (to the moving direction of the passenger car ; because there is no rest frame). But, what does it mean ? Imagine light sphere that is formed in the passenger car and photons in this sphere. From viewpoint of an observer on the ground, every photon will have the same motion component v (to the moving direction of the passenger car).
  * do. A light ray (frequency is constant) is passing through a tube (at a standstill). There are two observers who are moving relative to the tube in different uniform motion. Number of waves existing in the tube is the same to two observers (it's an invariant). If tube's length is not the same because of Lorentz contraction, light speed must not be the same also to two observers.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. In the car, a light path forms an equilateral hexagon. Along the path, light (frequency is constant) is going around clockwise (only one round). If Lorentz contraction is true, speed of light cannot be constant.
  * do. A passenger car is standing. At the left inner wall of the car, a light source is shining. Marathon runners are passing by to the right and to the left (relative to the car). Galilean transformation will be all. P.S. How about when runners are moving in irregular motions ?
  * do. Circular waves of light are emitted from a point source. On this plane, an observer is moving (at a uniform speed) along a straight line that grazes the source. Is Lorentz contraction (1892) possible to explain this common and simple picture ?
  * do. See also ADDITIONAL (A Passenger Car and Light Speed)
  * do. The same two disks are rotating (axis is common) to the opposite direction. On the edge of each disk, 360 divisions are marked. Lorentz contraction is unthinkable.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. From the rear wall to the front wall, a light ray is being sent. Light path is one way. Can the formula of Lorentz contraction explain ? And how about when the ray slants somewhat ? P.S. Both ways of light path (on contraction of a passenger car) can be explained. But, one way cannot be ? If so, wrong foot would be started off.
  * do. Is the picture of a moving passenger car valid ? It will be founded on Michelson-Morley experiment. On that vacant experiment. I say, the result of experiment done in air is only natural. The result done in vacuum seems to be deified without examinations. So, the picture of a moving passenger car will be invalid accordingly (every possible light path can be explained ? the emission theory can explain).
  * do. Coupled two passenger cars are moving in a tunnel. From the center of the outer wall of each car, a light ray is being sent to the rear at 45 degrees (like swept-back wing). This light ray is reflected by a mirror set on the wall of the tunnel and returns to the car. Returned two points will not show Lorentz contraction. By the way, light path (and the outer wall of the car) forms a triangle and two triangles are congruence.
  * do. Plane waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from the upper left (at a 45 degree angle). A bar (horizontal) is moving to the left. The number of waves that hits the front end and the rear end of the bar (per unit time) is the same number always. It is unrelated to the speed and speed varying of the bar. So, the number of waves that stays between both ends is invariable. Lorenz contraction is unthinkable.P.S. And the number of waves that stays between both ends is invariant. To every observer, it is the same number.
  * do. Two tubes are standing side bay side (length is the same). Light rays emitted from the same source (frequency is constant) are passing thorough two tubes. Number of waves existing inside of two tubes is the same. Each tube is accompanied by an observer. Then, two tubes (and the observers) move toward the opposite direction along the light paths. To the observer, front end and rear end of the tube are the same time (simultaneous) always. So, number of waves existing inside of the tube is unchanging. Lorentz contraction will be impossible (if wavelength is unchangeable). P.S.: Addition Two tubes are passing each other (along the each light path). There is the third observer and to his position, motion of two tubes is visible to be symmetrical. To this observer, number of waves existing inside of two tubes is the same number. So, to observers accompanied by tubes, it is the same number also. Lorentz contraction will be impossible (if wavelength is unchangeable).
  * do. In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming. And a part of waves are passing through a tube (tube is at a standstill). It is said that to an observer moving relative to the tube, Lorentz contraction occurs on the tube. When there are a hundred observers (direction of motion is not x direction only), a hundred kinds of contraction ?
  * do.: some other questions Does only muon contracts space ? How about other elementary particles or other particles ? / If space itself contracts, how about constancy of light speed ? Imagine spherical waves of light. / As many motions, as many contraction ? How about in an accelerated motion ? The whole universe contracts (as an action at a distance) ? It seems not to be physics. / The best disproof will be MM experiment (done in vacuum). And aberration will guarantee absolute space. / Lorentz contraction is said to be contraction of space. Then, suppose that there are plural space ships. How about when relative motions between these ships and an observer differ ? / On formula of Lorentz contraction, a question occurs. In a picture of a moving passenger car, position of an observer (on the ground) is not determined. Incomprehensible ! / Without light, does Lorentz contraction stand up ? How is it explained ?
  * Relativity of simultaneity From just above, plane waves of light are coming horizontally. At the front edge and rear edge each on the roof of a moving passenger car (railway carriage), a sensor and a light source are set. In response to a special change of plane waves, the two flash. Two flashes will be simultaneous also to an observer stands on the ground (no ! there is no need to bring up sensor and light source).P.S. A passenger car is moving in a tunnel. The whole of outer side wall of this car is made of luminous plate and is sending plane waves of light. Plane waves will reach side wall of the tunnel as plane.
  * do. A passenger car is moving. To an observer stands on the ground, it is said that there is a time delay (time dilation) in the car. And also it is said, at the front and the rear end of the car, simultaneity is relative. Are the two compatible ? P.S. Books show a picture of a passenger car. In it, two light rays are sent horizontally (from the center of the car). Now, two rays are slanted at 5 degrees upward (like letter V). The points on the walls where two rays hit are different to two observers (in the car and stands on the ground) ? P.S. In a moving passenger car, planetarium is projected. Position of stars will be the same also to an observer stands on the ground. Light sphere will follow passenger car's motion. P.S. A passenger car is standing. At the center of the car, a tiny sensor is set. From the same height of the front and the rear inner walls each, a photon is sent downward at a 5 degree (at the same time). Only when arrival of two photons is at the same time, the sensor responds and light flashes. Now, the other passenger car is passing by. From this passenger car also, flashlight will be visible. Pictures on relativity of simultaneity (on a moving passenger car) will not stand up. P.S. A light ray (wavelength is constant) is passing thorough a tube. Number of waves existing inside of the tubes is invariant. So, to a moving observer, it is the same number also. Namely, number of waves going in and out (per unit time) is the same. The front end and rear end of the tube will be simultaneous. P.S. Many books show a passenger car. In it, a light source is set at the center and is sending light rays to the front and the rear. Now, this setting is altered partly. There are two light sources. The two are set apart the same distance from the center (outward) horizontally. This picture will be incompatible with popular picture.
  * do. : Newton's absolute time An equilateral triangle is at a standstill in an inertial frame. Suppose that apexes are C, A, B and at C, a light source is shining. By the above, simultaneity of A, B will be guaranteed. So, simultaneity between every point of this frame will be guaranteed also. But, how about between different inertial frames ? In the above, suppose that an equilateral triangle is enlarging at a constant speed (apexes C, A, B each is in an inertial frame). By this, simultaneity of A, B will be guaranteed (also, between A, B, there will be no time dilation). So, simultaneity between optional two inertial frames will be guaranteed also.P.S. In the equilateral triangle (shown above), number of waves that stays in two light paths is the same (to every observer), because it's an invariant. So, every paired two waves that leave C at the same time reach A, B at the same time (to moving observers also).P.S. Difference of the distance between the observer and A, B is other problem.P.S. Imagine that at apexes A, B, C each (of the equilateral triangle shown above), a light source is shining (frequency is the same and constant). Simultaneity of A, B, C will not be relative.P.S. Is it possible to state the following ? Sorry, I can not say it with certainty.: It is supposed that every point on the surface of a light sphere is simultaneous (to a moving observer also). A light sphere is possible to occupy optional position in space. So, optional two points in space are simultaneous at optional point in time.P.S. How fine Newton's findings are !


Not a few mentions (of this section) seem not to be sure (differently from previous sections). If there are errors or invalid, irrelevant, wordy mentions, forgive, please.
  * Speed of gravity In Encyclopaedia Britannica 1969, there is a passage as follows (in item "Gravitation" ; original text). "If the action of gravitation were not absolutely instantaneous"(omission)"All experiments and observations were, however, consistent with the law, from the short distances employed in laboratory experiments to the long ranges used in interplanetary calculations". It says, action will be instantaneous.
  * do. There is a space ship. It is at a standstill in aether. Therefore every aberration (secular aberration also) doesn't occur on loaded telescope. The sun (distance between the space ship is 1.5 hundred million km) is passing at the speed of 20 km/sec (imagine letter T). Because of "light-time correction", apparent position of the sun is the position where the sun was 8 minutes odd before. Therefore if gravity comes at infinite speed, "emitted position" is different. But difference is slight. Nearly a 0.005 degree angle (apparent diameter of the sun is about a 0.5 degree angle). Can we distinguish it ?P.S. From the earth, this measurement will be possible logically. The reason is that the motion of the earth relative to aether is measurable. Added on 7 Jan 11 (from mark *) P.S. Suppose that speed of propagation of gravity is the same as light speed (and propagation depends on (follows) aether frame). If it is so, it's conceivable that because of the motion of the earth, direction of gravity (at the earth's surface) deviates from the center of gravity of the earth (and rotation of the earth will have an effect also). And strength of gravity will also change.
  * do. The whole of the solar system is in a uniform linear motion. However, on the sun's gravity, phenomenon like "light-time correction" seems not to exist (if it exists, effect on the orbit of planets will accumulate).
  * Seeliger's paradox If there is a minimum limit (like quantum) in gravity, this paradox will not stand up.
  * Is accelerated motion relative ? Causes of accelerated motions are apparent usually. If an accelerated motion is relative, what about this cause (its position, its role) ? Added on 7 Mar 11 (from mark *).P.S. For example, elevator, building and motor.P.S. Equivalence principle seems to be inconsistent with momentum, the law of inertia, the law of causality (causal relationship) and so on.P.S. Momentum (potential energy also) of an elevator cabin in free fall is changing. Change of momentum cannot be relative.
  * do. Some books on relativity say that accelerated motion is not relative.P.S. "Accelerated motion is not relative". It's a subheading of a book (in Japanese).
  * Equivalence principle This is a hypothesis. "Inertial force is caused by the motion (excludes uniform linear motion) of bodies relative to the aether frame". On the other hand, gravity acts regardless of the motion of bodies (this will be a fact). P.S. Gravity and inertial force occur and act independently (usually different in direction, in strength). Both are different effects of different physical causes. Added on 1 Mar 11 (from mark *)P.S. In Cavendish experiment, only gravity will occur. In rotating disk, only inertial force will occur.P.S. Can all of gravity be explained with inertial force ? Can all of inertial force be explained with gravity ?P.S. The origin of gravity and inertia (inertial resistance) is not known yet. However, both seem not to be equivalent.
  * do. On the ground, a disk is rotating vertically. At a point of the disk, gravity will be offset fully by acceleration instantaneously (if the conditions are enough). But this doesn't mean vanishing of gravity. P.S. Weight of disk will not be changed by rotation.
  * do. At the roof and the floor of an elevator cabin, strength of gravity differs slightly. This situation cannot be replaced with acceleration. Added on 26 Dec 13 (from mark *)P.S. In 1994, a comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was broken into pieces before falling to Jupiter. This will be caused by only gravity.
  * do. By accelerated motion, no change of gravity will be caused. Added on 14 Mar 11 (from mark *)P.S. In non-gravitational field, a space ship (mother ship) is floating. Now, two probes separate from the mother ship and begin accelerated motion in the same direction (at 2g and 1g. by gas jet). No gravitational field will be caused on the mother ship (and it will be the same on every local field).
  * do. There is a small space ship (regard this as an elevator cabin). In this space ship, a crew man is standing and he is feeling 1g. Now he starts a jet engine (jetted out downward ; power is weak). If 1g is caused by gravity, the space ship doesn't move (reason ; power is weak). But if 1g is caused by an accelerated motion (by gas jet), 1g will be increased. How does the equivalence principle explain ? Added on 9 Mar 11 (from mark *)
  * do. There is a small space ship (regard this as an elevator cabin) in free fall. A crew man doesn't feel gravity. But if this space ship is in non-gravitational field and moves in an accelerated motion (by 1g ; by gas jet), he feels "gravity" 1g. In spite of the same accelerated motion (momentum is changing) !! How does the equivalence principle explain ?P.S. On the ground, gravity acts onto the floor. In an accelerated space ship, acceleration acts from the floor. Added on 13 Mar 11 (from mark *).P.S. A small space ship is in an accelerated motion (upward ; non-uniformly accelerated motion). A body is hung by an elastic string from the ceiling. Motion of the body will not be the same as the motion caused by the change of gravity (if two bodies are hung by each string [length is different], it will be more apparent. ; about gaseous body, apparent also). It's the same at beginning of a uniformly accelerated motion.P.S. On slanting rails (at a 45 degree angle), an elevator cabin is in "free fall" (without friction). And 60, 70, 80, 90 degrees. There will be no mystery.P.S. On the ground, there are slanting rails (45 degrees). On this rails, an elevator cabin was accelerated upward at 1g and then at 2g (along the rails). How does equivalence principle explain the resultant force (caused by inertial force and gravity) ?P.S. On non-uniformly accelerated motion, does general relativity say anything ?
  * do. On a point mass, inertial force acts only in one direction always (it's fictitious force). Gravity isn't so. Equivalence principle will be wrong.
  * do. In space, gravity spreads. On the other hand, on space, a rotating disk will have no effect. In space, no field will be formed by inertial force.
  * Mach's bucket A thought experiment Mach's bucket will be invalid. The reason is that it doesn't stand up about plural rotating bodies. Added on 11 Jul 10 (from mark *).P.S. A hundred disks are rotating at the same (and a constant) speed. Now one of these increases the speed (by man act). Effect will be limited to this disk only (as action-reaction).P.S. Asteroid Toutatis is rotating (cycle is 5.41 days and 7.35 days) on two axes. It's difficult to imagine Mach's bucket.P.S. On an axis, there are three disks A, B and C. A is rotating clockwise, B is rotating counterclockwise and C is at a standstill. How does "Mach's bucket" say ?P.S. About revolution (on ellipse orbits) of planets, how does "Mach's bucket" say ?P.S. From viewpoint of kinetic energy also, rotary motion will be absolute.P.S. Action at a distance (instantaneous) is major premise of Mach's bucket. So, it will contradict relativity.P.S. Imagine propagations of star lights (in space). Mach's bucket will be a fantasy or a fairy tale (at most an episode).
  * do. Aether frame will be the stage of all motions (and distinguishes accelerated motion from non-accelerated motion). Not only stage of light. And may be the stage of gravity.
  * Rotary motion and equivalence principle In a space station, strength of gravity and centrifugal force (acts on each of the atoms) differs generally. Equivalence principle will be wrong. Added on 16 Mar 11 (from mark *)P.S. ; 27 Mar 11 Imagine gravity and centrifugal force that act on every point of a blade of windmill (also imagine change of rotational speed). To the two, different explanations will be required.P.S. There is a space elevator. Strength of gravity and centrifugal force (act at each point of the elevator) is different.
  * Free fall and a light ray An elevator cabin is at a standstill (is floating) in non-gravitational field. In the side wall (suppose it's the left wall), there are three small holes. Rays of Sirius (a star of the first magnitude) are passing through the holes horizontally. Then, on the right wall, three points of light are projected (don't move). Now, free fall of this elevator cabin starts (downward). Points of light will move upward (however, relativity says these don't move).
  * Bending of light Books show an elevator cabin in free fall and explain bending of light. Now, two elevator cabins are falling before an observer's eyes (light comes from the outside). Falling speed of the two is different, because starting points of falling is different. All will be problem of geometry.P.S. 9 Apr 15 Books also show an elevator cabin accelerating upward. Now, two elevator cabins are ascending before an observer's eyes (light comes from the outside). Ascending speed of the two is different, because starting points of accelerating is different. All will be problem of geometry.P.S. In non-gravitational field, an elevator cabin is accelerating upward at 1g. This cabin is frame only. Two light rays are coming horizontally. One is passing through the inside of the frame and the other is passing by the outside of the frame. Two light rays each will not be bent by the frame. P.S. In some books, light ray (horizontal) is coming from the outside of the elevator cabin. In some books, light source is set on the inner wall of the cabin. In the former, motion of the cabin will have no effect on light ray (imagine a cabin without side walls). In the latter (if the emission theory is true), behavior of light ray will be easy to imagine.
  * do. Fixed stars are visible as a point (principally). It seems to be negative about bending of light (by gravity).
  * Gravitational redshift In many books, a thought experiment (an elevator cabin is accelerating upward ; uniformly ; in non-gravitational field) is shown. And it's written that frequency of light source (set on the roof) and frequency observed at the floor is different. Is it true ? A star light (coming from just above) is passing a hole in the roof and is incident on the floor. Frequency (at the roof and at the floor) will be the same.P.S. Books say, difference of frequency is dependent on the distance between both (roof and floor). Disproof ; On the roof, there are two light sources (frequency is the same). At the midpoint of one light path, imagine a relay point. Frequency at the relay point is the same as the frequency of the other light path (at the midpoint). And it will be possible to regard this relay point as a new light source (and it's possible to move relay point toward the floor limitlessly).P.S. For 10 seconds, an elevator cabin accelerated upward (after this time, shifted to a uniform motion). Number of waves of light that appears and vanishes during this time will be the same (time lag is revised). So, frequency (at the roof and at the floor) will be the same.
  * do. Imagine a unit time u second (the time needed for a light wave to reach the floor). In this accelerated cabin, one light source is switched on. And after 99u second, the other light source (frequency is the same) is switched on. At the moment (the latter light reaches floor), number of waves existing in both light paths will be the same. Phenomenon : difference of frequency is unthinkable.
  * do. Several books (e.g. Einstein's Legacy by J Schwinger) say, Frequency of a light source that is at a standstill in a different gravitational field and frequency that an observer receives is the same. But it's not the same as frequency that the same source at hand (of the observer) emits" (gist). Right or wrong will be proved easily by interference of this two lights (by earthly experiment).
  * do. This problem (on an elevator cabin accelerating upward) must be considered under Ritz's emission theory. As the light source (set on the roof) recedes, speed of waves (relative to the cabin) will increase. And wavelength becomes longer. Though, in the cabin, state (number of waves also) will be unchanging (reason ; acceleration is uniform).P.S. When acceleration is not uniform, frequency is not the same.P.S. In an elevator cabin in free fall, it will be the same (light source is set on the floor).P.S. How about when a light source in free fall is observed from above ? Light speed will become slower, wavelength will become longer and frequency will decrease. When it's observed from below, all will be opposite.
  * Accelerated frame and light speed Is light speed constant also to an accelerated observer ? i have no memory of such a heading in books. Added on 8 Mar 14 (from mark *) P.S. How about the speed of bent light in an elevator cabin (accelerating upward) ? P.S. To an accelerating observer, frequency of coming light changes usually. To an observer stays in a gravitational field, it doesn't change usually.
  * Sagnac effect Two will be shown. One is that on the light emitted from an accelerating source (including in a linear motion), there will be an effect by the rest frame (even in earthly scale). And the other is that Mach's bucket is invalid.P.S. Sagnac effect will show the following. That is, a light (imagine a photon) follows an inertial motion of the source, and does not follow an accelerated motion of it (regarded as an inertial motion).
  * Time dilation In books, it's written that Harvard experiment (done at Jefferson tower of Harvard University : height is 22.6 meter : 1960) proved time dilation. The following is a different version of this experiment. Now, a mirror is set at the top of the tower. From the ground (point G), a light ray (frequency is constant) is emitted to the mirror, and reflected light is observed. Emitted light and reflected light at point G will be the same (in frequency). Where is the time dilation ?P.S. It will be the same in principle on a space elevator or a stationary satellite.
  * do. Time dilation in a gravitational field is said to not be appearance. According to the equivalence principle, it will be the same about an accelerated frame. But, imagine a rotating disk. Rotational speed (r.p.m.) at every point of the disk is the same. Where is time dilation ?P.S. A disk is rotating horizontally. From just above, plane waves of light are coming. Number of waves incident on every point of the disk is the same. Where is time dilation ?P.S. From non-gravitational field to gravitational field, a light ray is emitted. When two waves (from the start of emission, n+1th and n+2th [in these turn]) are emitted, the second light ray (frequency is the same) is emitted. Behavior of four waves (two are the front waves of second ray) in gravitational field will be the same. Phenomenon time dilation will be impossible.
  * Twin paradox One is in a gravitational field. The other is in an accelerated frame (g is supposed to be the same). How does relativity say ?P.S. Imagine three atomic clocks. Problem U-turn will not exist.
  * D'Alembert's principle When a body is accelerated by force 1 mg, inertial force is -1 mg (D'Alembert's principle). By the above, the action and effect of gravity (one of external forces) in free fall will be explained (zero-weight).
  * Gravitational mass and inertial mass ; a monolog A body (mass is m) is in free fall. Gravity is g. Now this falling body is pulled by a string from below at force F(mg). Falling will be the same as caused by gravity 2g. Gravitational mass and inertial mass will be the same. P.S. Newton's second law (F = ma) will be valid on gravity also. And this formula will be valid not only on a falling body but also on a body on the ground (it will be the origin of a free fall). So, in falling and on the ground, the value F and a (g) each will be the same (state of motion of a body has no effect on value F, g). Then, m is the same. Thus, gravitational mass and inertial mass will be the same.P.S. Change of a, g, v, and r seems not to affect the value m. If so, mass will be the one and only.P.S. Who has proposed gravitational mass and inertial mass ? P.S ; 22 Jul 14. There are the same two bodies. If gravity that acts on one body is mg, it is 2mg in two bodies. Similarly, if inertial resistance of one body is x, it is 2x in two bodies (under the same acceleration). Is it different from Eotvos experiment ?

Nakayama, Hisashi (Yokohama, Japan)
Appreciation : Thank you for your visiting. And i am deeply thankful to all shown below (random order). Yahoo (geocities) : Forums (that admitted my posts) : A site : Persons who wrote gentle reply in forums : RationalWiki : Administrator CCC ( for his precious help : Google Directory (for about three years, this my site had been listed. directory disappeared in Jul 2011) : Not a few directories (in these, this site is still listed).
  All of this site came from Kubota,Takashi's writings. i saw 2 books of his own, 4 joint work books (6 books were published from 1993 to 1997) and his web-site. Shown below is his web-page (written in English).
  * Pending questions The direction of aberration (occurs in refracting telescope ; in the air) seems to be opposite (to the direction of rain-drop illustration) ?? Added on Mar 09 (from mark *)P.S. ; Direction of aberration From the upper left, a ray of star light is entering upper atmosphere. The earth (imagine the air and the ground) is supposed to move to the right. As a result, at the upper atmosphere, the ray of star light will be bent to the right slightly (but sharply and fully : ignore refraction). It's light drag effect. To a telescope set on the ground, direction of aberration seems to be opposite to rain-drop illustration. And it will be the same about refracting telescope moves in outer space.P.S. ; Light speed We must say that our consideration on light speed is irrelevant (extinction is overlooked !!). Except Ritz's emission theory, is explanation impossible ?P.S. ; Motion of photons Now, photons are emitted from a rotating light source (rotating at high speed). If the emission theory is true, in vacuum, speed of photons will be various (relative to the source ; some photons exceed c ; for a few seconds).P.S. : Pythagorean theorem Pythagorean theorem explains a light ray vertical. But Pythagorean theorem cannot explain a light ray non - vertical. How does relativity explain ? P.S. : Pythagorean theorem A particle is moving in Brownian motion. A light ray is coming vertically from the above. Pythagorean theorem cannot be used. It cannot be used also on a particle moves in spiral motion.P.S. : Michelson-Morley experiment : 23 Dec 14 Relativity says that the rest frame does not exist. Then, what does value v (in Michelson-Morley experiment) mean ?
  * This site is formed by unremitting additions. And a few parts that must be rewrote are left (as it is).
  * My English is not good. If there are passages difficult to grasp, i ask to see Japanese page (below).
  * Last modified on 9 May 2016. i am tired a little. i want to leave further studies (including reexamination of this site) to young persons.
  * Feel free to link or cite. Former title was MYSTERY OF LIGHT. Key word wavenumber, extinction, aether or ether, rest aether, aether frame, absolute rest frame, absolute space, light sphere, planetary aberration, light-time correction, radar trap, radar speed gun, Ritz's emission theory, invariant, velocity aberration.

GeoCities Japan

/ ߥ˥ƥ / ٥˥塼 / E-List / ѹ
ե᡼󥻥󥿡 / / إ / ɥ饤