The simplicity of the Relativity in the core

The simplicity of the Relativity in the core

Genemuiden, The Netherlands, 24.4.2018


As a result of the latest messages on Landfall’s publishing board,  I discussed with my brother the steam-engine-whistle-experiment. He had several questions and remarks and brought as a point of attention that the phase differences or frequency differences will represent something of an impulse. The impulse for an observer will not always be the same, although the speed is the same. And the question comes up whether the signal is indeed observed earlier per frequency or phase. We discussed this topic extensively, and thanks to his input I came to the following explanation concerning simultaneity. But in order to do this in such a way that any interested reader may tag along, also the earlier news items are briefly included. For backgrounds and further considerations we naturally refer to the book “Light in sight”.


1. The experiment of Michelson and Morley

All modern physics starts with the experiment of Michelson and Morley. What does that experiment mean: it measures between two fixed points on earth, what the speed of the earth is in relation to the ether, by means of determining the phase difference of white light. Whatever can be said about that, our point of interest for now is that two fixed points (in each other’s relative rest) are used to measure the movement through the medium.


2. Applying to the train thought-experiment of Albert Einstein

We take this experiment and we carry it out on a train. Strikingly, we do not need an observer next to the train to validate the experiment. With our immediate second surprise: what are our measurement points in the air, in order to measure the speed?


3. The wave character of light – an unreliable outcome

Now, on the train, between two fixed points, it becomes suddenly essential how we consider the character of light. Because we only have the light signal to measure what is the movement of the medium. That is where we get stuck. Because light officially is deemed to have a dual character: sometimes it behaves like a wave, and sometimes like a particle. In case light reacts like a particle, it will bridge distances without bells and whistles. Being a particle, it can be influenced by all sorts of influences, with direct implications for relative motion in different systems. That sounds rather difficult, but we can leave it there. Because light may as well act like a wave. And this is where all meaningful scientific observations come to an end. Because theoretically, light may perform both effects.


4. The wave character of sound

In order to be able to proceed in a meaningfull way, we now replace the light with sound, and the aether with air. Very simple, with the aim to investigate what the light would do if it were to behave like a wave. And as a replacement model we are taking a steam engine whistle with an observer on the back of the train. A complete valid model; at least for the case that light behaves like a wave.


5. The measurement points of a wave

Now that we have switched to sound, we return to our measurement markers. What exactly in the medium indicates where the medium is? Now that we work with the concept of a wave, we have to count with the construction elements of the wave: particles being under a certain amount of pressure. A wave exists, so to speak, by the grace of a medium. That medium has certain characteristics, caused by the particles that remain under the same pressure. And what appears: however high the extra movement of specific particles, the transfer speed remains the same. But if that is the case, how would we be able to determine the underlying particle effects with the wave transfer speed? The measured wave speed becomes meaningless. Because it does not describe the speed of the underlying particles, But only the resultant wave.


6. Understanding a wave

In a wave we can imagine that a particle is moving very quickly because the particle is being bumped, and then afterwards moving back into its own collision speed. But what nature shows us, is that the particles are slowed down by the pressure of the medium, in order to be catapulted forward again. We won’t explain that into detail. For now, we simply assume that this is what nature shows us. So, let us assume that nature indeed shows that an increased speed is slowing down, in such a way that in the end the transfer speed comes back to the same result. With meanwhile a measurable element, in which the original speed is presented. Then, nature immediately gives us a fantastic experimental example: a flute that moves forward gets a higher tone and a lower tone backwards. But the speed of the sound remains nevertheless all the same. From this, it is simply follows that velocity in the case of a wave, can not be seen separately from the tone of sound, or colour of light, or wave frequency in general. And that brings us back to our topic: if we want to stick a measurement point into the medium, we will have to start recording the frequency.


7. Michelson and Morley on the train

Our steam engine flute experiment brings up the necessity of always taking into account the frequency. Is it clear where we stand now in theoretical perspective? The flute whistles backwards, the frequency decreases with respect to the medium, the sound moves with the speed of the medium until it reaches the observer on the back of the train. This observer is receiving that sound with the speed of sound against his ears. But be aware: the observer himself moves and brings his own speed with him. This is its own one-time frequency at the vibration level of the particles. And what have we seen now: the speed of sound is found to be the same. So, the Michelson and Morley test, performed on a train, also produces a zero-result for noise.


8. The Train experiment of Einstein – Simultaneity

That’s all brilliant, but nevertheless only meant as an introduction to arrive at simultaneity. So let us think experimentally that an observer is standing next to the train. Or even better, to make it realistic; let us take a thousand observers who all stand next to each other, along the railway, each with a sound frequency meter. The train passes by and the steam whistle whistles, and just at the moment that the observer on the train hears the sound, we ask who of the observers next to the train also heard something. It turns out that all observers next to the train hear the same lower frequency, just exactly till the observer next to the observer on the train. We find simultaneity. Fortunately we worked with frequency meters, otherwise we would have had breaking scientific world news. But it turns out that it all makes sense together, in an actually very logical way. The overall speed is indeed unchanged, but meanwhile the extra relative speed is being represented by a frequency difference. I predict that the higher frequency and the lower frequency indicate exactly the same time. Even at vibration particle level. Because in my opinion, it is not about pressure and waves, but about relativity.


9. The dual character of a wave movement

Scientifically, it appears relevant that a wave leads in general to equal velocities for velocity meters, with a necessity to also qualify frequency meters as a velocity meter. In other words: all experiments that only take into account the locomotion speed, are disqualified retrospectively. As well as all experiments are to be disiqualified that only have been calculated with frequency differences. Of course, it is possible that those experiments were carried out correctly, because it just did not matter at that time for that specific experiment. As much as it is possible that those experiments completely failed to achieve their goals, because it did matter. And so, we have to conclude that speed can manifest itself in two ways, and therefore that each wave speed has a “dual character”. And we that term we only introduce, to indicate that this dual character clearly has nothing to do with light per se.


10. What is light?

This is the moment for a simple question: what exactly made us believe that light has to be a particle? Based at what experiment exactly? With what kind of reasoning? Are we already getting to understand the real character of light? Okay; maybe we jumped into conclusions too fast, with our efforts to make this article self-explaining. But for the readers of ‘Light in sight’, the questions of today, will become the answers by tomorrow.


11. It’s all about the Relativity Simplicity ..

Now, along with these  insights concerning waves, we gain in depth understanding of relativity. But what a trouble we went trough to get there, and what an incredible detour we made! Looking back, we totally comprehend the principles of a wave, and all related things appear easier than ever before. It’s about time to explain the prediction we presented hereabove: each medium has its own frequency. Then, logic tells us, as well as the laws of nature do: each medium has a frequency of its own rest. This medium rest, is easy to determine: when the frequency downwards is equal to the frequency upwards, then there is rest in relation to the medium. Well, then the simplicity is this: every other measured frequency is essentially nothing more than the unanimous motion expressed in the rest frequency. The stunning truth is that this is in fact nothing more than the simplicity of a sinusoid line, drawn on the side of a train.


12. And so we persist.. 

We can not deny that every opinion may bring also another disputable insight. We can not deny that every insight in principle is nothing but a personal subjective perspective, that can turn out to be different in reality. The presented ideas most likely will somehow suffer from the narrowing effects of a tunnel vision. But in spite of the undoubtedly shortcomings, the profit can be seen that all approached physicists stay completely silence in all respects. I am not asking to study the whole book. I am just asking a meaningful reaction. Do the highly educated scientists really want to wait until I offer a thousand euro for the first student who is able to proof the book ‘Light in sight’ wrong? Don’t the defenders of the classic thinking deserve a proper reasoning? Doesn’t even the fact that no scientist ever has been able to properly reason and explain the relativity theory, force her defenders to consider all reasonable doubt worth considering? Proper reasoning is one of the pillars of the truth and the nature of ’empirical science’. In fact, it is the very notion of ‘empirical science’ hat demands that at least an effort is made to bring this topic into the spot-lights, in order to clarify the nature and reality of it.