Relativity and Cosmology

   

Intrinsic Absolute Motion Paradigm and Apparent Source Theory Distinction Between Translational and Rotational Motions

Authors: Henok Tadesse

One of the most confusing problems in physics is whether there is fundamental distinction between translational and rotational motions. The conventional view seems to be that there is no distinction. It is suggested in this paper that the failure to make this distinction is deeply rooted in 'ether thinking' because according to ether theory there is no distinction. Despite all claims that modern physics has got rid of the ether, physicists, including Albert Einstein, have never been able to truly escape the ether 'trap'. It is proposed in this paper that translational motion and rotational motion are fundamentally different and should be treated differently. It was years of struggle to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac effect within the same theoretical framework that finally led to this conclusion. There are two possible interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX): the 'null' interpretation and the non-null interpretation. From the point of view of stationary ether theory, the MMX result is essentially null because the observed fringe shift is much smaller than the expected value. On the contrary, the MMX result is non-null from the perspective of relativity theories, mainly the classical emission theory and the Special Relativity Theory (SRT ) because there was always a small but significant fringe shift observed, as in the Miller experiments. Therefore, the MMX disproves not only the ether theory, but also the emission theory and SRT. A correct theory of the speed of light, therefore, should account not only for the 'null' interpretation, but also for the non-null interpretation. To this date there is no such known, accepted theory of light. A new theory called Apparent Source Theory (AST ) I have already proposed has resolved this century old puzzle, even though not yet known to the majority of the scientific community. AST predicts the small fringe shifts observed in MM experiments. In this paper it will be shown that AST predicts a maximum fringe shift of about 0.013 fringes for the 1881 Michelson experiment. Michelson measured a maximum fringe shift of about 0.018 fringes ! The discrepancy may be reduced if more details of the dimensions of the apparatus are obtained. AST successfully resolved the enigmatic contradiction between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac effect. No known existing theory of light has truly achieved this. For years, I chose to treat the Sagnac effect basically as a translational motion. However, with this approach I could not develop a complete and convincing explanation of the Sagnac effect, leading to the conclusion that rotational motion must be distinct from translational motion, implying distinction between translational AST and rotational AST. On the other hand, Apparent Source Theory was found to be in conflict with stellar aberration, a simple analysis I overlooked for years. These apparent contradictions may be resolved by resorting to a new paradigm: Intrinsic Absolute Motion ( IAM ). The ether doesn't exist, as disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but absolute motion does exist, as proved by the Silvertooth and other experiments. Absolute motion without the ether could be conceived only if absolute (translational and rotational) motion is intrinsic to physical entities. The application of AST to electrostatics also hinted at the need for the IAM paradigm. Mercury perihelion advance anomaly also hinted at the distinction between rotational and translational motions. Distinction between translational and rotational motions implies intrinsic nature of absolute motion. Therefore, Intrinsic Absolute Motion paradigm completes Apparent Source Theory. IAM paradigm makes distinction between equal velocities and same velocity of two bodies.

Comments: 22 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-08-27 04:37:40

Unique-IP document downloads: 13 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus