   BASIC DOUBTS ON RELATIVITY
 There are doubts (and objections) about established views. All are simple. i'm a solitary amateur(Univ was humanities course). This site was listed in plural directories (in English. category "Physics > Relativity > Alternative") from Feb 2008. i am deeply thankful. Very sorry, my English is not good.    CONTENTS Proof ; Light Speed is Variable (To Observer) !! Proof ; Light Speed is Variable (To Observer) !! Aether or Absolute Rest Frame Additional A Puzzle of Light !! Additional Doppler Effect of Light Aether or Absolute Rest Frame Others (Related to SR) Gravity & Inertial Force PROOF ; LIGHT SPEED IS VARIABLE (To Observer) !!üÖüÖüÖüÖüÖ   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 varies. In other words, "density of waves" (number of waves existing per unit length of light path) of reflected light is variable by mirror's motion. But how about incident light ? Density of waves is not variable 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). üsNoteüt Formula c = f ā╔. light speed = frequency x wavelength.  * üyWavenumber : Kayserüz 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". üsP.S.üt Wavenumber of visible light is between about 12,500/cm and 25,000/cm. üsP.S.üt Formerly, wavenumber (/cm) seems to be called "Kayser" (K). Such as 25,000K.   * üyWavelength of incident light üF a given conditionüz In to plural forums (including forums in English), objections were posted (not a few !! : to my post). They say, "Wavelength of incident light varies also". What ? Toward the star ? Toward the galaxy ? No ! Frankly speaking, out of the question ! outrageous ! Impossible ! Added on 11 Nov 06 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt Light wave is a transverse wave. So, compression wave (retrogrades [goes upstream] toward light source. against stream of light) cannot be formed. Moreover, varying of wavenumber (caused by the mirror) is unimaginable. üsP.S.üt 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 varies (to observers). üsP.S.üt There is a light source. Its wavelength is particular value "a" only. Still, frequency will vary (to a moving observer).üsP.S.üt In outer space, speed of star light is constant. So, wavelength is invariable (once emitted from the source). Therefore, to a moving observer, in c = f ā╔, f and c vary. üsP.S.üt In a forum, i asked back as follows. "When there is no observer, how about wavelength of coming light ?"   * üydo.üz By observer's motion, wavelength of incident light is invariable. One of the reasons is that it's in territory of the past. The past cannot be changed. Vanished things cannot be changed. üsP.S.üt By observer's motion, term f and c vary and term ā╔ is invariable. üsP.S.üt If the speed of waves is slower (e.g. sound waves, water surface waves), to imagine the above will be easy.   * üydo.üz 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 ā╔). Added on 18 Aug 15 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt A disk is rotating horizontally. Plane waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from diagonally above. In the formula : c = f ā╔, to a point p on the disk, f and c will vary.   * üydo.üz Along a light path (source's frequency is constant), an observer is moving in different motions. This varying (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 *)  * üydo.üz Before an observer's eyes, a beam of star light (source's frequency is constant) is passing (from the right to the left). On the light path, imagine two points (distance is 10 meters). As the light speed is constant, frequency at two fixed points is the same. So, wavelength is the same also. On the left, there is the second observer. The second observer's motion can't vary this wavelength. Added on 27 Aug 13 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt 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 (invariable). üsP.S.üt An observer and a perfect black body are moving together. Wavelength of incident light will be invariable.üsP.S.üt Incident light (coming light) doesn't know its destination. Much less, an observer's motion.   * üyA pictureüz In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming from the right. 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.   * üyLight is propagated in two ways (in vacuum)üz The speed of reflected light relative to the mirror will be varied to constant speed c. How far does this varied speed continue ? Probably it will continue to over the moon (in time, for a few seconds). Up to this extent, the emission theory (in other words, ballistic theory ; proposed by Ritz, Walter 1878-1909) will be valid (true) ; Noted later again (ü╦ Ritz). üsP.S.üt Mirror is a light source. üsP.S.üt This view will explain everything.  * üyTime's arrowüz Phenomenon of light seems not to be symmetrical (reversible) in the time flow. Added on 16 Oct 10 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt However, it will be common in wave phenomena.  * üyFrequency : from booksüz 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 is fixed) is the same. The reason is that if it is not the same, waves existing between two fixed 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 fixed points before and after reflection (distances from the mirror are fixed) is the same also. Therefore, dense light must be slow, sparse light must be fast (just like in refraction). üsP.S.üt When the state between two points is invariable, the above stands up.    üyAttention (important) : extinction, medium and lightüz Books seem to say that propagation of light in air and in vacuum is the same (speed is somewhat different). "INEXPRESSIBLE" and "INDESCRIBABLE" (in air, air is a "frame" [reference frame] of propagation of light waves !! the same as sound waves !! so, the result of Michelson-Morley experiment (done in air) is only natural !! explained later. ü╦ extinction ü╦ medium and light) !! üsP.S. : repeatedüt In air, there is no problem about propagation of light waves. üsP.S. : Therefore, .....üt Therefore, in this site, light waves are propagated in vacuum (it is precondition : please read so : including on the earth : unless otherwise noted). At each passage (at each time), it is not noted. üsP.S.üt In fact, there are not a few reconfirmations such as "in outer space", "on the moon's surface". üsP.S. Other attentionsüt In this site, it is regarded that frequency of a light source is constant, and a light source, a matter or an observer is in an inertial frame (unless otherwise noted).    üyAttention (important) : light speed : reexaminationüz 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. But speed relative to photons or light ray will vary (both will be real existence). üsP.S.üt With the formula : light speed = f ā╔, speed of waves can be shown. However, speed of photon and light ray will not be shown. üsP.S.: in generalüt In outer space, plane waves of a star light are coming. An observer is at a standstill. Speed of light waves and photons (light ray) relative to the observer will not be the same (in general). By the way, speed of light waves and of photons (light ray) relative to the aether frame will be the same (as a physical constant : not c, maybe).üsP.S.üt In this site, please regard speed of light as speed of light waves (unless otherwise noted). PROOF ; LIGHT SPEED IS VARIABLE (To Observer) !! üÖüÖüÖüÖ A laser beam (wavelength is constant) is reflected by a mirror and is retracing (turns back) its path. The light source and the mirror are 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 (emitted 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). The reason is that the wavenumber of two lights is the same (because light 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.üsP.S.üt Light speed = frequency x wavelength. And as mentioned already, wavelength and wavenumber is inverse number for each other.   * And also, 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.  * üyThe number of waves is invariant (important)üz In books, i found a word "invariant" and a passage "The number of waves (the number of things) is an invariant".üsP.S.üt Relativity seems to say that length is not invariant. This proof is independent of it.     This PROOF is added on Mar 06. AETHER OR ABSOLUTE REST FRAME üÖüÖüÖüÖ How is spherical wave of star-light propagated ? Propagation will be independent of the motion of the light source. Motion will be ignored (like water surface wave : binary star is an example). So, the rest frame exists !!   * üyTeaching of heaven : light sphereüz Light wave of a planet (spherical wave ; sent from a point source) expands as sphere (it forms a 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 ?).   * üydo.üz 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, there is 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.  * üyTeaching of heaven : aberrationüz Every kind of aberration is caused only by motion of the earth (qualitatively, quantitatively). 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 (ü╦ relativity of motion is false).  * üyTeaching of heaven : light-time correctionüz Phenomenon ; light-time correction (noted later. ü╦ light-time correction). It's direct evidence. Thus, the existence of the rest frame is evident. We find that aether (aether frame : reference frame of aether) again. But it's very rare (partially, entrusted to emission theory. ü╦ mark ü¤) !! No, dense enough (so, above phenomena are shown). 18 ADDITIONAL below are on light speed also. If you are a new visitor, skip over please. ADDITIONAL (Two Light Paths and Light Speed) üÖüÖ 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). üsNoteüt 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). üsa versionüt 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 symmetrically 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) üÖüÖ 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. Partially rewritten on 14 Apr 06.üsP.S.üt In air (windless and the observer is at a standstill), the above will be surely true.   * üyRadar trap or speed trapüzü@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 *).   * üydo.üz 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 *).   * üyReally simple !üz 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 *). üsP.S.üt 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. üsP.S.üt 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. ADDITIONAL (Moving Tube and Light Speed) üÖüÖ 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 vary in the left part of this tube. Frequency and light speed will vary in the right part of it (at tube's inertial frame). Added on 12 Oct 06 (from mark *). üsExplanationüt 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) üÖüÖ 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. üsP.S.üt When speed of moon's surface varies, slant of telescopes varies also.  * üyOne more illustration (seen from the aether frame)üz 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.  * In aberration (a few kinds are), there seems to be a hidden forbidden value. It is light speed relative to the earth. However, to calculate it from measured values seems to be possible easily. ADDITIONAL (Photons and Light Speed) üÖüÖ 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. Is the speed of every photons (to the observer) constant c ? Impossible, will be.   * 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 classical real particle (in this site). To ensure images of behavior of light. ADDITIONAL (Prism and Light Speed) üÖüÖ 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). üsNoteüt 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 (Standing Wave) üÖüÖ 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 (Two Passenger Cars and Light Speed) üÖüÖ On the moon's surface, 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) üÖüÖ 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 (Plane Waves of Light and Light Speed) üÖüÖ Plane waves of light are coming (in outer space) from north, south, east and west directions. An observer is moving (at different speed) to the south-southwest direction. How does constancy of light speed explain ? üsP.S.üt Plane waves of light are coming from opposite directions. How about relative speed ? Is it meaningless question ? If so, by what reason ? ADDITIONAL (Emission Theory and Light Speed) üÖüÖ Imagine spherical waves of light (or light sphere) that are sent from two point sources moving in relative motion. Except the emission theory, what explanation is possible ? üsP.S.üt Two circular waves that are crossing on a plane (in two dimensions) will be the same also. üsP.S.üt On a plane (imagine two dimensions), a point light source is shinning. Imagine circular waves and many semicircular waves (secondary wave) of Huygens principle. In vacuum, the light source is moving in a uniform linear motion. This picture seems to support the emission theory. How does relativity explain semicircular waves ? ADDITIONAL (Basically, the Same as Sound Waves) üÖüÖ The wavelength of sound waves is determined by frequency of its source, motion of the source and the sound speed. Wavelength cannot be varied by observer's motion. On the other hand, frequency varies by observer's motion. Therefore, speed of sound waves (to the observer) varies also. Basically, light waves will be the same. ADDITIONAL (Accelerated Motion and Light Speed) üÖüÖ The speed of propagation of light is uniform basically. An observer is moving in an accelerated motion toward a light source. To this observer, speed of the light will not be constant. üsP.S.üt No book seems to touch on an observer moving in an accelerated motion (to light waves). ADDITIONAL (Medium and Light Speed) üÖüÖ A pillar made of glass (section is square) is placed horizontally (we are seeing from the side). A streak of light is passing through the pillar horizontally. It is said that in the pillar, absorption and re-emission of photons are repeated by particles and after re-emission, speed of photons is c. Now, relative to the pillar, an observer is moving horizontally. To this observer, this c will be c + v or cü|v. üsP.S.üt In particles and in vacuum each, speed of photons (to the observer) will have the motion component v. Galilean transformation is almighty. ADDITIONAL (Coming Light and Light Speed) üÖüÖ In outer space, an intermittent light ray is coming. Observer's motion (relative to the light source : at different speed) will not cause varying of all of the coming light ray. üsP.S.üt On everything of a light ray before incoming (on wavelength, amplitude, waveform, etc and on these varying), observer's motion has no effect. So, in the formula c = f ā╔, f and c vary. ADDITIONAL (Circular Waves and Light Speed) üÖüÖ On a plane, two light sources (distance is d) are sending circular waves. Frequency is the same. From one source to the other source, an observer moves in a uniform linear motion. In the formulas c = f ā╔ of the two circular waves (to the observer), ā╔ is the same and f is not the same. ADDITIONAL (A Passenger Car and Light Speed) üÖüÖ 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 ā╔, light speed is different. üsP.S.üt Above picture seems to show also that pictures on relativity of simultaneity or on Lorentz contraction (a moving passenger car is shown in books) must be reexamined. ADDITIONAL (Mirror and Light Speed) üÖüÖ In outer space, a mirror is reflecting a star ray. On incident ray and reflected ray each, a formula c =f ā╔ is valid (seen from the mirror). In this two formulas, term f is the same (the same number) always. So, when ā╔ is different (usually, it's different: by reflection), c must be different. A PUZZLE OF LIGHT !! üÖüÖüÖüÖüÖ This site is formed by unremitting additions, etc. And sorry, a few parts of this A PUZZLE OF LIGHT !! that must be rewritten are left (transition of understandings are shown). 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 (night and day). 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. üsP.S.üt This problem is mentioned in some books (in Japanese). * üyOne answer to the above : a hypothesisüz 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 also exists 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 !!).  * üyPlanetary aberrationüz 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 !? Tricky also !! 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.üsP.S.üt Light-time correction is a phenomenon based on the absolute rest frame. So, common explanation (without rest frame) is knotty.   * üyThis hypothesis cannot be all negative, maybeüz The same mechanism (full offset ; caused by solar system's linear motion) will exist about every heavenly body of the solar system (on sights seen from the earth). Secular aberration seems to be offset (so, orbit of planets doesn't warp in appearance ?).   * üyConclusion (fortunately, arrived onto)üz 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, Ritz, he 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) ü¤. If it's true, the result of M-M 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 *).üsP.S.üt In short, by earthly light sources, rest frame cannot be found. Only by heavenly light sources, it can be found.üsP.S.üt If M-M experiment is done in over planet-planet scale, what about the result ?   * üyThe sun and the moonüz Therefore, apparent position of the sun and the moon will be settled by different mechanism. And the outcome is the same.üsP.S.üt 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.   * üyEmission theory and aether frameüz In outer space, photons that are sent from a light source will follow the emission theory for a few seconds. After that, photons will follow aether frame. All will be explained.üsP.S.üt When the source moves in an accelerated motion, photons will follow vector at the moment of emission (such as on rotary motion). üsP.S.üt On a uniform linear motion of a body, space is tolerant and non-interference. If the emission theory is true, the above will be the same on photons. However, for a few seconds (after the emission). For a few seconds, photons are treated as bodies.   * üydo. üz A tube stands vertically and at the bottom, a light source is shinning. Now, this tube moves horizontally at different uniform speed. Light will pass through the tube upward always. However, when the motions are accelerated motions, it will not be guaranteed. Also, when the tube rotates like a propeller and a light source is set in the middle of a rotating tube, it will not be guaranteed like the above. üsP.S.üt In three pictures shown above, motion of a photon will be the same as motion of a body (in a uniform linear motion). Motion of body and photon (in three pictures) will be the same basically.   * üya pictureüz Following picture will be true and explanation should be based on above. 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 three wings, 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), light sources are situated at a 90 degree angle (as a structure). These all will be visible at the same position (at a 90 degree angle). If you are a new visitor, skip over following ADDITIONAL please. ADDITIONAL (The Moon Confusing üIüI) üÖüÖ 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.   * üyThe moon and the emission theory üz Distance between the moon and the earth is measured to meter level (with light beam). This will mean that the emission theory is valid in moon-earth scale (if aether acts, error of dozens of km level will be measured).   * üyLight-time correction for the moon ?üz ü@Value of light-time correction for the moon is written to be 0.704 arcsec (corresponds to moon's speed in its 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").üsP.S.üt i found a word "velocity aberration". DOPPLER EFFECT OF LIGHT üÖüÖüÖ 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 varies (varying corresponds to gas jet). The following are reexaminations of Doppler effect of light (related to expansion of space is excluded).  * üyWavelength of incident light : a given conditionüz In the above, varying of wavenumber of the light path (from observer to the star) will be out of the question (in the first and the second PROOF, mentioned already). üsP.S.üt Wavelength of coming light is invariable (by observer's motion). Other two (light speed and frequency) vary. This most simple reality (c'=f' ā╔ ) is rejected.   * üyCause and effect : Really simple !üz Doppler effect will be caused immediately by relative motion between observer and light waves. Not light source but light waves (an action at a distance is unthinkable). Common view is impossible.üsP.S.üt And, light source is an existence of the past.  * üyCause and effect : varying of wavenumberüz When Doppler effect is caused by the motion (relative to aether) of light source (it is far away more than the planets), wavenumber (of incident light) will be (had been) varied. On the other hand, when Doppler effect is caused by the motion of observer, wavenumber (of incident light) will not be varied (like moving train and railroad ties). Added on 26 Jan 06 (from mark *).  * üyCause and effect : varying of wavenumberüz 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 varied. Added on Dec 06 (from mark *).   * üyCause and effect : sound wave is basicüz Doppler effect of sound and light will be the same generally. 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. ü╦ extinction ü╦ 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 seconds), Doppler effect of light will be unique (formula differs). Added on 9 Jun 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt In air, Doppler effect of sound and light is the same.   * üyDistance between bright-linesüz In spectrum of a star light, there are two bright-lines (peculiar to atom). The distance between both will show the motion of this star (along the light path direction) relative to aether. Therefore, by frequency of a bright-line, motion of the earth relative to aether will be shown. Added on 12 Feb 10 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz Wavelength, namely distance between two bright-lines (peculiar to atom) isn't varied by observer's motion. So, every observer can know the motion of a star relative to aether.üsP.S.üt Arago experiment (1810) is on the light speed (whether light speed [of a star] is varied by orbital motion of the earth or not). After discovery of Doppler effect (1842), similar experiment seems not to be done.   * Wavelength of sun-light will expand and contract slightly once a year.   * üyDifference of colorsüz Common view says, colors of visible light are caused by the difference of wavelength. Really ? Frequency is also different. üsP.S.üt Into water and into air, the same laser light rays (a single color) are incident. 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 ? üsP.S.üt If color is caused by difference of wavelength, observer's motion doesn't vary color. üsP.S.üt Now, there are two mediums (e.g. glass and ice) and two spectrums are projected. If the line spectrums are visible at the same positions, colors seem to be caused by difference of frequency. Atomic spectrum has peculiar frequency.   * See also "ADDITIONAL (Doppler Effect and Light Speed ; Principle of Radar Trap)" AETHER OR ABSOLUTE REST FRAME üÖüÖ 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 as mentioned above.  * üyRelativity of motion is falseüz To explain annual aberration (a 365 day cycle) will be impossible. "Einstein-geocentric system" !! Added on 19 Feb 08 (from mark *).üsP.S.üt Countless stars do not move in orbital motion (in a 365 day cycle). The earth only moves (moves relative to aether).   * üyAether is realüz 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 surface waves). Mediums are frames of propagation. Emitted position (where the light was emitted) is also fixed on the celestial sphere.   * üydo.üz The value of all sorts of aberration depends only on (corresponds only and solely to) the motion (direction and speed : vector) of the earth. Aether exists (without doubt).üsP.S.üt The value of annual aberration observed on each planet of the solar system (a table is shown in a book) is determined by the speed of orbital motion. This speed is (a part of) vector relative to aether.   * üydo.üz Numerical value of aberration will show that propagation of light follows aether frame and air frame.   * üydo.üz On a glass moving in water, aberration will occur also (in principle). Like the earth moving in aether.   * üyAether is real : Not only stage of lightüz Aether frame will be the stage of all motions (distinguishes accelerated motion from non-accelerated motion). Two states of motion are different things in physics (not a problem of observation).ü@  * üyAether is real : Not only stage of lightüz A website (in Japanese) says "uniform speed frame" and "non-uniform speed frame" (accelerated frame). To each, the absolute rest frame will be premise.   * üyNewton's bucketüz 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 *).üsP.S.üt Another face (aspect) of aether (shown with rotating light source) ?? If it is so, aether is not rare. üsP.S.üt Acceleration, non-acceleration (of bodies and of photons) are distinguished rigidly !?   * üyAether is measurableüz 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. Acceleration are 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 *). üsP. S.ütLater on, a few simpler versions are shown (ü╦ aether is measurable).   * üyThe speed of light relative to aetherüz 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 *) üsP.S.üt Light speed relative to aether will be slower than c. However it will not be far apart (see the value of annual aberration).   * üySecular Aberrationüz Bradley found annual aberration onā┴ star of the Draco : Eltanin. In books, picture of the ellipse is shown. However, this ellipse must be warped because of secular aberration (not only on Eltanin). With this warp, motion of the solar system relative to aether frame must be clarified. üsP.S.üt Common view says that secular aberration is unknowable because the real position of fixed stars is unknowable. But it is wrong. When the position on the celestial sphere is the same, secular aberration is the same (like annual aberration. the real position has no relation). Added on 29 Dec 18 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt When an observer is stationary relative to aether frame, position of fixed stars on celestial sphere is real position (in a meaning). And the value of secular aberration is zero. By the way, in planetary aberration, real position is other things.   * üyThe angle of incident light and reflected lightüz 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 *) üsP.S.üt On the angle of refraction, it will be the same.üsP.S.üt It will be an effect of mirror's and medium's motion relative to aether.   * üyInferenceüz Dark matter is aether ? Not dark but transparent. OTHERS (Related to SR) üÖüÖüÖüÖüÖ 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).üsP.S.üt 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.  * üyExtinctionüz 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 *) üsP.S.üt In a forum (in English ; anti-relativity.com), 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. http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html   * üyExtinction : Michelson-Morley experiment (done in air) is nonsense üz Above passage says that 0.1mm of air is enough to extinction. It will be "everything" of M-M experiment (done in air). Added on 24 Jan 09 (from mark *)  * üyMedium and lightüz 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 !! üsNoteüt About vacuum, the emission theory. Added on 2 Feb 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt 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, "M-M experiment (done in air) is nonsense and I have no obligation to talk about it").   * üydo.üz In a forum, i wrote about M-M experiment as follows. "If air moves at the speed of 30km/sec relative to the equipment, 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.   * üydo.üz 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.   * üydo.üz Aether will be a medium. For "extinction", thickness of several hundred thousand km may be. Added on 3 Feb 09 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz Propagation of light follows aether frame, the emission theory and air's frame. In every case, to a moving observer, speed of light varies.   * üyFizeau experiment (with flowing water ; 1851)üz A pillar made of glass (section is square) is placed horizontally (we are seeing from the 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 *) üsP.S.üt On the moving glass, Galilean transformation stands up. And it will be the same on light also (in the glass). üsP.S.üt How about, when another light ray is retrograding (on the same path) ? üsP.S.üt 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).üsP.S.üt About standing wave (formed in the glass ; horizontally), it will be the same.  * üySpeed of light exceeds c : Galilean transformation again : common sense is trueüz From the roof of a passenger car (railway carriage), light ray is emitted diagonally downward (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 stands on the ground, the length of two light rays is different. Added on 17 Apr 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt Einstein's theory seems to be invalid on diagonal light ray.   * üydo.üz From the roof of a passenger car, several light rays are emitted down radially (at intervals of ten degrees). How is this moving passenger car explained ? Added on 27 Apr 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.ütTo an observer stands on the ground, spot lights on the floor of the moving car will be symmetrical also. A picture (and explanation) on light clock will be wrong. Galilean transformation will be true. üsP.S.üt Number of waves existing in light paths is an invariant.   * üydo.üz 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). 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 *). üsP.S.üt Galilean transformation seems to be true about all.  * üydo.üz 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 (in the moving passenger car) is invariable (reason : number of waves is invariant). Therefore, apparent speed of light ray is variable. Added on 3 Feb 10 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz 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) ?   * üydo.üz In outer space, plane waves of light are coming from two different directions. An observer is moving in a complicated curved motion. How does SRT explain ?   * üydo.üz To a swinging stick, light speed varies. Like sound waves, water surface waves.  * üyAether is measurableüz 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 *) üsP.S.üt 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.   * üydo.üz 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. So, 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 *)üsP.S.üt Sum of the speed of the two lights will be constant. So, light speed relative to aether frame will be clarified also üsP.S.üt Value c (officially fixed) is calculated from values f and ā╔. The range of error is ü} 1.2 m/sec. How about the effect of gravity ? üsP.S.üt How about the effect of gravity on speed of lights emitted upward or downward (on the ground) ? üsP.S.üt Light speed is measured by K.M Evenson and others (1973). Light source is laser (man-made source). The emission theory seems to be valid.   * üydo.üz On the moon's surface, there is an interferometer. It tracks a star automatically and receives two rays of this star. One ray is entering directly and the other ray is passing through (penetrates) a plate glass. This glass slides toward the star (along a guide rail that is fixed on the interferometer). As the glass slides, interference fringe (of two waves) will vary 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. üsP.S.üt A light that penetrated the glass will follow the emission theory (speed is c). The other light follows aether frame. Added on 25 Aug 14 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt Length of the guide rail will be enough in a few meters.  * üydo.üz On the moon's surface, a pillar made of glass (section is square) is placed horizontally (we are seeing from the 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 variable. And in the glass, frequency and wavenumber (refraction angle also) will be variable. These varying will be effects of the motion of the glass relative to aether. Added on 12 Dec 09 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt In the above, angle of wave front (in the glass) will be variable also. This will be the mechanism of aberration.  * üyReexamination of aberrationüz 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 (with a telescope filled with water ; 1871) is natural. Analogy with rain-drop is unsuitable. Added on 4 Feb 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt By extinction, angle of wave front is bent immediately. üsP.S.üt This "dragging" will not be partial (reason ; the value of aberration depends on the light speed and the speed of the earth's motion).  * üydo.üz 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 on hollow tube also (photons pass through like rain drops). Added on 18 Feb 09 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt The value of the former will be larger (we find Airy's telescope !), and the value of the latter will be nearly usual.  * üydo.üz 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 *) üsP.S. ; Direction of aberrationüt From the upper left, a ray of star light is entering upper atmosphere. The earth (imagine the air and the ground) is moving 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.   * üydo.üz On the moon's surface, a pillar made of glass (section is square) is placed horizontally (we are seeing from the 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 *) üsP.S.üt There will be three kinds of motion of medium. Relative to light source, to other media, and to aether.   * üySecular aberrationüz 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 *).üsP.S.üt By elimination of known aberrations, secular aberration (in this star's direction) will emerge.  * üydo.üz 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 ?  * üyLight clocküz 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 *).  * üydo.üz 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 set and flash once per 100 rotations of the windmill. Time dilation will not be observable.üsP.S.üt How about a sensor that is rotating (the windmill does not rotate) relatively ?  * üyTime dilationüz 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 above 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 *)  * üydo.üz 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 ?   * üydo.üz In outer space, plane waves of light are coming from just above. In front of an observer, a space ship is moving to the right. Time dilation will not stand up (number of waves that hits the two is the same).   * üydo.üz 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. üsP.S.üt 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 *)üsP.S.üt Now, many space ships are moving in the Brownian motion like. Time dilation seems to be unimaginable.üsP.S. ; A simpler version of "jumbo jet experiment" 1971üt 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).üsP.S.üt 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 ?   * üydo.üz A disk is rotating. To an observer, how about time dilation of each point on the surface of the disk ? üsP.S.üt A disk is rotating horizontally. From just above, plane waves of light are coming. Number of waves falling on every point of the disk is the same. Where is time dilation ?  * üydo.üz 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). üsP.S.üt Who (what organization) adjusts clocks loaded on GPS satellites (orbits differ) ? None seems to claim that we do. üsP.S.üt Time adjustment on atomic clocks on the ground (latitude and altitude differs) seems to be needless (except a leap second).   * üydo.üz Two observers are leaving in the opposite direction (at a constant speed : on a straight line). Light is being sent from a light source of each observer (frequency is the same). Phenomenon each observer sees is the same, and time dilation will be impossible. üsP.S.üt Two observers are leaving in the opposite direction (at a constant speed : on a straight line). Light is being sent from a light source of each observer (frequency is the same), and is being reflected by a mirror of the facing observer and is returning. Phenomenon each observer sees is the same, and time dilation will be impossible.  * üyRelativistic mass increaseüz A book says that mass is not invariant. But it's unthinkable that effect caused by collision of two masses depends on observer.  * üyParticle acceleratorüz 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 ??üsP.S.üt 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).  * üyLight rays in a moving passenger car (additional)üz Many books show a passenger car. In it, a light source is set at the center or at the rear wall. But, how about on the other settings (e.g. Plural light sources)ü@? üsP.S.üt 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) ? üsP.S.üt In a moving passenger car, planetarium is projected. Position of stars will be the same also to an observer stands on the ground. Spherical waves will follow passenger car's motion. üsP.S.üt A passenger car is standing. From the same height of the front and the rear inner walls each, a light ray is being sent downward at a 5 degree. At the center of the car, a tiny sensor is set. The sensor responds to two rays and the third light source is lighting. Now, the other passenger car is passing by. From this passenger car, the third light will be visible also.   * üyLorentz contractionüz 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 stretched letter V). Number of waves existing on the path is the same to an observer stands on the ground (because it's an invariant). Not only Lorentz contraction, but also constancy of light speed and relativity of simultaneity will be denied.  * üydo.üz Plane waves of light (wavelength is constant) are coming from the upper right (at a 45 degree angle). A bar (horizontal) is moving at various speed to the right. The number of waves that hits the front end and the rear end of the bar (per unit time) is the same always. So, the number of waves existing between both ends is invariable. Lorentz contraction is unthinkable. üsP.S.üt A moving bar is accompanied by an observer. To this observer, length of the bar is not contracted. However, number of waves existing between both ends is invariant. To every observer, it is the same. üsP.S.üt Light is a standard of length. üsP.S.üt How about when two bars form like letter L ? Number of waves hits optional two points is the same.  * üydo.üz In a moving passenger car, M-M experiment is being done. Variation of interference fringes is not seen. And it will be the same to an observer stands on the ground. It is said that to the observer on the ground, moving passenger car contracts (Lorentz contraction). If so, speed of light cannot be constant !? Added on 27 Oct 16 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz 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.   * üydo.üz In a moving passenger car, a light ray is being sent and on the ground, there is an observer. In a picture on a light clock, the light ray follows passenger car's motion. In a picture on relativity of simultaneity (also in a picture on Lorentz contraction), it doesn't (by spherical waves, more clear, will be).   * üydo.üz An equipment of M-M experiment is working (in vacuum). Suppose that there is an invariable difference 100.25 in the number of waves existing on the light paths (diverged by half mirror). There is an observer moving relative to the equipment. To the observer, the number of waves is invariable also (it is an invariant). Therefore, if light speed (to the observer) is constant, Lorentz contraction must be denied.   * üydo.üz In the formula of Lorentz contraction, terms (c+v), (c-v) seem to be hidden. Variable light speed (to an observer) seems to be premise.   * üydo.üz A space ship loading equipment of MM-X is moving in a uniform linear motion. The second space ship loading equipment of MM-X also is following after at half speed. Is contraction of space in two ways ? üsP.S.ütIn outer space, eight space ships loading equipment of MM-X start moving in eight directions (radially on a plane). Is contraction of space in eight ways ?   * üydo.üz The main point shown by M-M experiment (done in vacuum) will be that light follows light source's motion. 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.   * üyLorentz contraction (additional)üz 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. Constancy of light speed and Lorentz contraction will be incompatible. Added on 3 Feb 16 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt Pay attention to the number of waves.   * üydo.üz 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 two lights each is based on random numbers and interference fringes are varying continuously. These interference fringes 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.   * üydo.üz A passenger car is moving. At the fixed point p, 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 from p. The photon will hit the point that is out of the line a little (to the moving direction of the passenger car). 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).   * üydo.üz 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, light speed must not be the same also to two observers.   * üydo.üz 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.   * üydo.üz See also ADDITIONAL (A Passenger Car and Light Speed)   * üydo.üz 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.  * üydo.üz 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. Light path forms a letter V and two letters V are congruence.  * üyLorentz contraction (some other questions)üz Does only muon contracts space ? How about other elementary particles or other particles ? / If space contracts, how about constancy of light speed ? / M-M experiment (done in vacuum) will be one of the disproofs.  * üyRelativity of simultaneityüz From just above, plane waves of light are coming horizontally. A passenger car is moving. At the front edge and rear edge each on the roof of the passenger car, a sensor and a light source are set. In response to a changing of plane waves, the two flash. Two flashes will be simultaneous also to an observer stands on the ground (no ! it will be evident only with plane waves and the roof). üsP.S.üt 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.   * üydo.üz 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 ? üsP.S.üt A light ray (wavelength is constant) is passing thorough a tube. Number of waves existing inside of the tubes is invariant. To a moving observer, the number of waves is the same also. Namely, the front end and rear end of the tube will be simultaneous to every observer (frequency is the same).   * üydo.üz There is an equilateral hexagonal light path formed with a light source and five mirrors. Light emitted from the light source (frequency is constant) is traveling around (only one round). To a moving observer, frequency at each apex is the same also.   * üydo.üz A picture of a moving passenger car on relativity of simultaneity (in the car, from the center to the front and the rear, lights are sent) will stand up when moving is in a uniform acceleration. However, observers in the car and stands on the ground will see the same picture.   * üyNewton's absolute timeüz An equilateral triangle is at a standstill in an inertial frame. 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 inertial 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 (each apex 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. üsP.S.üt Therefore, sayings on relativity of simultaneity do not stand up. üsP.S.üt In the equilateral triangle (shown above), number of waves existing 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). üsP.S.üt 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.üsP.S.üt How fine Newton's findings are ! GRAVITY & INERTIAL FORCE üÖüÖüÖ Not a few mentions (of this section) seem not to be sure (differently from previous sections). It seems that there will be errors or invalid, irrelevant, wordy, unarranged mentions, and repetitions. Sorry for my inadequacy.   * üySpeed of gravityüz 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.   * üydo.üz 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 is passing at a speed of 20 km/sec (imagine letter T : distance between the space ship is 1.5 hundred million km : 1 AU). 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 ?üsP.S.üt 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 *) üsP.S.üt Suppose that speed of gravity is the same as light speed (and propagation ignores the motion of the source). If it is so, it's conceivable that direction of gravity (at the earth's surface) may shake relative to the perpendicular line. And strength of gravity may vary.   * üydo.üz The whole of the solar system is moving 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).   * üySeeliger's paradoxüz If there is a minimum limit (like quantum) in gravity, this paradox will not stand up.   * üyInertial force is a real forceüz 1) In outer space, a body is pushed through a spring and the body is accelerated (on a straight line). A force ma that pushes buck the spring (inertial force) will be a real force. 2) In a body accelerated, internal force will occur. It will be the same in rotary motion, orbital motion and in falling (including free fall). All will be explicable quantitatively (there is a word : stress distribution). Internal force will be a real force. 3) Centrifugal force will be a real force. 4) On a body accelerated (horizontally) in a stationary fluid (an inertial frame), inertial force will occur. It will be real forces. üsP.S.üt In the above picture with a spring, pushed spring shows only one value (physical quantity). To every observer. Inertial force is a real force. Also, value of centrifugal force can be shown with a spring. On the other hand, Coriolis force is a simple appearance of a locus. üsP.S.üt Force will be the same to everyone (qualitatively, quantitatively). Force all will be an invariant. Inertial force also. Coriolis force is not a force. üsP.S.üt In an accelerating passenger car, a string that hung a body from the roof snapped. To every observer. Inertial force is not fictitious force.   * üydo.üz A passenger car is moving in an accelerated motion. On the floor of the car, a body is placed and is connected with a string to the front wall (floor is no friction). Now, the acceleration increases and the string snaps. The value of the tension that acted on the string will be the same to every observer. The formula F = ma will stand up to every observer. Inertial force is not fictitious. üsP.S.üt Common view says that to an observer in the passenger car, inertial force is fictitious force. Obstinate beliefs in unreasonable pictures, formulas and so on.  * üydo.üz On a body, there will be states in which inertial force emerges (to every observer) and inertial force does not emerge (to every observer). Allow me to repeat that fictitious force cannot snap the string.   * üydo.üz Inertial force should be understood as reaction (in the law of action and reaction). Namely, it is not a fictitious force. üsP.S.üt However, naming "action and reaction" seems to be subjective (in the strict sense). Now, two bodies collided. Formula will be ma = F = m'a'. F will be a fictitious external force.   * üydo.üz A web site says, Newton himself does not state that inertial force is a fictitious force (an outline). To Newton, it will be out of the questions. üsP.S.üt About inertial force, there are web-sites (in Japanese) that say, it is real force.   * üydo.üz From the roof of a passenger car, a body is hung. The passenger car increases acceleration to the right and the string hanging the body now shows 45 degrees angle. It means that gravity and inertial force are equalized. Inertial force is a real force (also the potential energy varies).   * üydo.üz On the floor of a passenger car, the same five bodies form a line. Between the right wall and the first body, and between five bodies are joined with strings. Now, the passenger car starts a uniform accelerated motion to the right. Friction of the floor is supposed to be zero and mass of strings to be zero. Tension of the first string will be 5ma and the last string will be 1ma (when acceleration is double, 10ma and 2ma). It will be the same to every observer. Inertial force is a real force.   * üydo.üz Between two bodies, a spring is set and shows expansion and contraction. It is evident that force is acting on the spring (e.g. the scales). Internal power or power of statics will be power also. F = ma will not be all-round. Now, a force F is acting on a body. Formula F = ma will be F = ma + f (case ma is zero and case f is zero).   * üydo.üz This is a consideration to acceleration on a straight line. When external forces acting on a body do not balance, the body accelerates. However, it seems to be possible to say also that with inertial force (caused by acceleration), balance is still kept. Namely, inertial force will not be fictitious force.   * üyExternal force will be secondary roleüz The leading roles of this problem will be acceleration (and non-acceleration) and inertial force. External force will be secondary role (imagine e.g. rotary motion, balanced forces). On a body, there are states of acceleration and non- acceleration (the third state does not exist). üsP.S.üt Acceleration and non- acceleration are different states in physics. Inertial force is not fictitious force.   * üyAccelerated motion and aether frameüz In outer space, a body is pushed through a spring. Inertial force from the accelerated body (on a straight line) is ma. Action and reaction are the same (F = ma) and the two are real forces. üsP.S.üt Inertial forces will be caused by an accelerated motion of a body relative to aether. Bodies are existence in aether. So, there will be no exception qualitative and quantitative (regardless of the cause of acceleration). On light sources on the ground, aether cannot be seen. But everywhere, aether (its existence) can be seen as inertial forces. üsP.S.üt Acceleration, non-acceleration will be distinguished by aether frame (absolute rest frame). It seems that only aether frame can do it (and it is measured ceaselessly). üsP.S. : Aether resistance üt Differently from air resistance, resistance is to accelerated motion only. Uniform linear motions are free pass. üsP.S.üt In a formula F = ma, if F is an invariant (m will be so also), term a will be an invariant also. Aether frame will be a real existence. And, inertial force ma will be an invariant. It is not a fictitious force.   * üyIs accelerated motion relative ?üz 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 *).üsP.S.üt For example, a local train, motor and buildings. üsP.S.üt Equivalence principle seems to be inconsistent with momentum, the law of inertia, the law of causality (causal relationship), the law of gravity, accelerated motion and so on.üsP.S.üt Momentum (potential energy also) of an elevator cabin in free fall is varying. Varying of momentum cannot be relative.  * üydo.üz Some books on relativity say that accelerated motion is not relative.üsP.S.üt "Accelerated motion is not relative". It's a subheading of a book (in Japanese). üsP.S.ütü@Acceleration is indicated by accelerometer. Acceleration cannot be relative.   * üydo.üz On a plane (no friction), three bodies (mass is the same) line up. With strings, bodies on right and left are connected to the body at center. Now, tension mg acts on two strings. The tension of the right and the left is real force. üsP.S.üt Inertial force is not seen in the body at center (internal force differs). Relativity of acceleration will not stand up.   * üydo.üz When charged particles are accelerated (or decelerated), it emits electro-magnetic waves. Acceleration is not relative. However, todayües books do not touch on relativity of acceleration (in web, there are dozens of sites including ügrelativity of acceleration").   * üyFree Fall : A hypothesisüz The following saying will explain naturally all (tidal phenomenon, etc) of an elevator cabin in free fall. No limitation or condition will be needed. If it is accepted as a hypothesis, I am obliged. ügGravity and inertial force are different things and one does not affect the action of the other directly. In every infinite small area (atom level) also, each follows each principleüh. Added on 2 Jan éP9 (from mark *)   * üyComposition of the vector : Free fallüz Vector of gravity and inertial force is possible to compose. It seems to show that the two are inviolable and non-interference each other (it will be the same on two vectors of gravity). It will be the same also on vector of gravity and inertial force that act at an optional point of an elevator cabin in free fall. Added on 11 Jan 19 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz On a plain, imagine two gravity sources and dense circular waves (gravity). On every point of plain, vector of two gravity acts as a resultant force and there is a point where the resultant force disappears. In next picture, gravity source is one. Huge elevator cabin is in free fall. Fortunately, this elevator is empty (vacuum). So, on every point of the structure, resultant force of gravity and inertial force does not disappear. Added on 21 Jan 19 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz In outer space, an elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Gravity source is a binary star. Equivalence principle should be forgotten.   * üydo.üz Letüfs start from accelerated motion. Many substances (solids, fluids, etc) are moving in various accelerated motion. According to this motion, inertial force occurs. Imagine water of a current. Involvement between inertial force and gravity will be on resultant force only.üsP.S.ütAcceleration is not relative and inertial force is not fictitious. The two are corresponding qualitatively and quantitatively. Added on 27 Jan 19 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz Let's imagine an atom (a heavy element : mass is m). Inertial force acting on this atom is ma and a is variable. Gravity acting on this atom is mg and g is variable. Varying of the former follows only the state of motion of the atom. Varying of the latter has no relation to the state of motion of the atom. Vector of ma and mg is possible to be offset in appearance and the resultant force disappears. However, it seems not to be a noteworthy event in physics. üsP.S.üt Apparent offset of vectors at a point is seen also about gravity and ordinary forces.   * üydo.üz Situation setting of free fall requests the existence of inertial force and gravity. Newton's two laws each guarantees. It is possible that if an elevator is supposed to be a cubic substance, resultant force of the two forces disappears. But it is like a number 777. It will not be the subject of argument.   * üydo.üz There is a picture of a parallelogram of forces. Among three vectors, which is real and which is fictitious ? The picture itself does not tell. But in free fall, vectors of inertial force and gravity are real. Resultant force is mere result. There will be no room for argument. üsP.S.üt Free fall of an elevator will be (one of the) problems of resultant force (composition of forces). All will be explicable as a problem of resultant force.   * üyEquivalence principleüz The followings will be possible to state (so, equivalence principle will not stand up). (1) A vector of an inertial force (measurable) is equivalent only to a vector of an accelerated motion. Qualitatively, quantitatively. None can have an effect (direct) on this. Gravity cannot also. (2) Action of gravity is depending only on the position of bodies. When the position is the same, the same g (unrelated to the motion of bodies). Namely, inertial force and gravity are noninterference mutually. (3) The formulas are different. The formulas also show, the two forces are noninterference mutually. Equivalence principle ignores formulas. (4) Free fall is explicable (to any question) only by basic principles (without any limitation). (5) In free fall, acting external force is gravity only (at infinite small area also). So, formula F = ma can be written as ma = mg. Vanishing of the two forces is appearance. Not 0 = 0. According to each principle, two forces are acting (at every infinite small area also. continuously). (6) Probably, at everywhere of space, the above are the same. No exception. (7) Gravity comes from many directions. Center of gravity is fictitious. The direction of inertial force is different principally. (8) When the vector of inertial force continue, change of the circumstances is inevitable. Gravity is not so. (9) By an accelerated motion, momentum varies. (10) See also üyRotary motion and equivalence principleüz shown latter.   * üydo.üz There are two pictures. In each picture, vector of two forces (f = füf) acting on a point are drawn. Direction of vectors is opposite (right and left). In one picture, forces are gravity and gravity. In the other picture, gravity and inertial force. Two pictures will not be the same (an infinite small area will be also).Added on 10 Feb 19 (from mark *)   * üydo.üz From a point, two bodies begin the same accelerated motion to the opposite direction (on a plane. Gravity comes from below). To begin with, inertial force and gravity will be different things. Equivalence principle will not be requested.   * üydo.üz An elevator is in free fall. Gravity and inertial force acting on each point (on each particles) of the cabin is nearly the same, but both take certain exact value (not 0 : calculable). üg0 vs 0üg and üga vs b (nearly a)üh will not be the same.   * üydo.üz Free fall (a question) : On free fall of an elevator cabin, infinite small area only seems to be the problem. And it seems to mean that the problem itself does not stand up. It seems not to be convincing. By the way, inertial force acts on every area (and on every m) of the cabin equally (as F = ma).   * üydo.üz An elevator cabin is hung by a crane. At the side of it, the second elevator cabin is passing in free fall. Passing speed is measured. The value is different from the value that was measured when the moon was just above. üsP.S.üt If there is a picture that draws a starting point of falling and center of the gravity (center of the gravity source), existence of gravity will be self-evident. Blindfold (as a serious premise. goes beyond a stage of a thought experiment) is unreasonable. It will not be physics (infinite small area will be blindfold also).   * üydo.üz An elevator cabin is hung by a crane. At the side of it, two elevator cabins pass in free fall. Passing speed is measured. The passing speed differs because height of starting point of the two differs. Gravity of the earth is acting on the two (on an infinite small area also).   * üydo.üz There is a large structure. On it, rails are lied. The structure slants (to the left) at a 10 and a 20 degree angle. At the right end, there is a sled and on the rails, the sled slides down to the left. The rails are no friction. Forces act on the sliding sled are gravity, normal reaction and inertial force. Each value is specific and calculable. It will be the same on a 80 degree angle. So, the writings on a 90 degree angle written in books must be revised.üsP.S.üt Value of gravity will be unrelated to angle.üsP.S.üt The structure is the same to the above. The sled is at the left end and is pulled from the upper right with a string extended along the rails. Tension is 1.2 mg. Forces act on the accelerating sled are gravity, normal reaction, tension and inertial force. Each value is specific and calculable. It will be the same on a 80 degree angle. So, the writings on a 90 degree angle written in books must be revised.   * üydo.üz On a plane (no friction), a body mass m is pulled to the south by a string (tension is mg). An observer moving to the east in a uniform motion will see the locus as parabola. Similarly this observer will see free fall as parabola. Gravity is not erased in free fall. üsP.S.üt A body (mass is m) begins free fall. At the same time, force mg acts to the right. The locus of the body will be a straight line heads to the lower right 45 degrees. Gravity is not erased in free fall.   * üydo.üz On a plane (no friction), a body mass m is pulled to the south by a string (tension is mg). An observer moving to the east in a uniform motion will see the locus as parabola. Similarly this observer will see free fall as the same parabola. The same force the same parabolic locus. Namely, inertial mass will be the same to gravitational mass !? No, in the first place, mass is mass (in above picture, the same inertial resistance to the same force) !?  * üydo.üz There are two pictures of a small rocket. One is at a standstill on the ground and the other is accelerating upward vertically (in outer space). As shown above, accelerated rocket is possible to draw parabola (seen from an inertial frame). It is impossible on a rocket on the ground. üsP.S.üt In gravitational field of the earth (regard as an inertial frame), a small rocket is in accelerated motions in various directions and at various g. Equivalence principle will be wrong.   * üydo.üz Falling of body that draws parabola starts. At an optional point on the parabola, the same parabola can be drawn (seen from a new inertial frame. the optional point above is the starting point of this new frame). It shows that action of gravity is unrelated to the motion of body. In free fall also.   * üydo.üz An elevator cabin is hung by a crane. Tension of the rope will be F = mg - ma (a = 0). In free fall, "a" will be the same to "g" (a = g). Gravity will not vanish. Added on 20 Jan 17 (from mark *)ü@  * üydo.üz In Cavendish experiment, only gravity will occur. In rotating disk, only inertial force will occur. üsP.S.üt Gravity and inertial force occur and act independently (usually different in direction, in strength). Both are different effects caused by different physical causes. üsP.S.üt Can all of gravity be explained with inertial force ? Can all of inertial force be explained with gravity ?ü@üsP.S.üt The origin of gravity and inertia (inertial resistance) is not known yet. Equivalence principle is faithless.   * üydo.üz In outer space, there is an elevator cabin. A ray of Sirius (a star of the first magnitude) is passing through a small hole on the left wall and on the right wall, a light spot is projected. When the cabin is floating in non-gravitational field, the light spot does not move. But in free fall, the light spot moves. üsP.S.üt When the above cabin is moving in an accelerated motion (upward), the light spot moves. But when it stays on the surface of the moon, the light spot does not move (by gravity g).   * üydo.üz A frame that is accelerating relative to an inertial frame is not inertial frame. An elevator cabin in free fall is not also.   * üydo.üz Aether frame will be the stage of all motions of bodies (and accelerated motion is distinguished from non-accelerated motion). Not only stage of light.üsP.S.üt Inertial frame will be a frame that is not accelerated (at a standstill or in uniform linear motion) relative to aether frame. Not only light, but also acceleration / non acceleration will follow aether frame. üsP.S.üt Uniform linear motions (inertial frame) all are under the same treatment (in dynamics).   * üydo.üz About existence of luminiferous aether, there is no room for doubts. And it will probably be absolute rest frame (of dynamics). If so, free fall can be shown quantitatively (as an acceleration). Equivalence principle will not stand up.   * üyEquivalence principle (conclusion)üz üsGravityüt When a position of bodies (in a gravitational field) is the same, gravity acts as the same g. It is independent of the motion of bodies. In free fall also. üsInertial forceüt Inertial force is caused by acceleration (including deceleration) of bodies. At everywhere of space, a homogeneous mesh of net is spread and all follows. There is no exception (qualitative, quantitative). Heaven's net is sure. Yes, the same acceleration brings the same inertial force and for it, gravity is noninterference, does not act (directly) at all. In free fall also. Kingdoms inviolable. üsP.S.üt When acting forces are not balanced, a body accelerates. üsP.S.üt Acceleration caused by gravity follows this principle also. Entirely. Acceleration is acceleration. In free fall also. There is no special treatment.   * üydo.üz On a plane (no friction), a body moves in some accelerated motions (accompanied by inertial force). There is no calling for equivalence principle. Next, the plane slants at a 20 degrees. The same accelerated motions are done. Reasonable explanation will be given not by equivalence principle but by simple calculation.   * üyOur sense is testedüz Now, we have aether frame, inertial frame, accelerated frame, inertial force and etc in our hand. How to organize these ? Our sense is tested.   * üyTrial of definition of inertial forceüz It is a force of resistance by aether that acts on a body in an accelerated motion relative to aether frame. Also, it is called as inertial resistance. It is a real force depending on the accelerated motion (varying of vector). This force is caused inevitably and nothing can affect directly (gravity also). In a uniform accelerated linear motion, it is ma (in free fall, mg). üsP.S.üt Inertial force corresponds to accelerated motion only (qualitatively and quantitatively). Regardless of the cause of accelerated motion (corresponding only to geometrical expression of acceleration). üsP.S.üt Inertial force, accelerated motion and varying of momentum three are inseparable (qualitatively and quantitatively : interdependence : trinity). ü@   * üydo.üz On a face of vertical wall, 36 the same bodies start accelerated motions (from a point : radially at intervals of ten degrees : at 2g). Accelerated motions are forced (artificially) and gravity does not affect. Inertial forces will be the same. üsP.S.üt How about when the wall is slanted at 45 degrees ? How about when horizontal ? üsP.S.üt Resultant force of inertial force and gravity is calculable.   * üydo.üz There are a passenger car accelerating horizontally on the ground and an elevator cabin accelerating upward in non-gravitational field. Between the two, what difference is there ?   * üyTrial of definition of inertial frame and accelerated frameüz Inertial frame: Frame where inertial force is not seen. It can be called also to be non accelerated frame. Accelerated frame: Frame where inertial force is seen. üsP.S.üt Frames at a standstill or a uniform linear motion (relative to aether frame) will be a result or a consequence. Also, ügaction of forceüh written in encyclopedia seems to cause confusions (e.g. rotating motion, plural balancing forces, etc). üsP.S.üt By inertial force (a real force), it will be possible to define inertial frame and accelerated frame without external force. This direct definition is acceptable qualitatively and quantitatively.   * üyEquivalence principle (additional)üz At the roof and the floor of an elevator cabin, strength of gravity differs slightly. In inertial force, this difference will be impossible. Added on 26 Dec 13 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt In 1994, a comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was broken into pieces before falling to Jupiter. üsP.S. : coffee break üt The same two bodies pyramidal are in free fall. One's base is below and the other's base is upper. Falling speed will differ.   * üydo.üz The same three bodies start free fall to an asteroid below. At starting position of falling, three bodies form a line vertically and each is connected with a string (length is 10 meters). As time passed, tension of strings increases. This tension is calculable. üsP.S.üt On every small area, inertial force is acting equally.   * üydo.üz An elevator cabin is forced (due to human) accelerated motions downward (at various uniform accelerations. e.g. 0.8 g, 1.5 g). The forces acting on every point (atom) inside will be explained by inertial force and gravity (without exception). üsP.S.üt An elevator cabin that was hung with a rope is now falling in free fall. Tension of the rope is 0mg. Well, it is possible to control this tension. Tension is controlled to be 0.2mg, 0.4mg, 0.6mg and 0.8mg. In all, the same gravity g will be acting.   * üydo.üz Two bodies at a standstill start free fall from each starting point. Height of the two differs. On the ground, falling speed (momentum also) is measured. Free fall seems not to be inertial frame.   * üydo.üz Here is an amusement park. On a rotating disk, plural tea cups are rotating also. Equivalence principle seems to be useless. üsP.S.üt Vector of inertial force and gravity are inviolable and non-interference each other. However, a resultant force of the two is calculable.   * üydo.üz By accelerated motion, no varying of gravity will be caused. Added on 14 Mar 11 (from mark *)üsP.S.üt 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).   * üydo.üz 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 the space ship stands on the ground, 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 *)ü@  * üydo.üz There are two pictures of a small rocket. One is at a standstill on the ground and the other is accelerating upward vertically (in outer space). On the floor of each, acceleration 1g is acting. Now, an engine (the second engine) of each rocket starts. Propulsive force by jet downward is 1.2mg. Acceleration acting on the floor will be 1.2g in the first rocket and 2.2g in the second rocket. Gravity and inertial force will not be equivalent.   * üydo.üz 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), a crew man feels "gravity" 1g. In spite of the same accelerated motion (momentum is varying) !! üsP.S.üt 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 *).üsP.S.üt A small space ship is in an accelerated motion (upward ; various non-uniformly accelerated motions). 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 varying 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 (this is a problem of varying of stress distribution). üsP.S.üt Gravity acting on a roller coaster will be independent of the motion of the roller coaster. üsP.S.üt On non-uniformly accelerated motion, does general relativity say anything ?   * üydo.üz On the ground, g is acting. On the other side of the earth, it is the same. These two positions are not in accelerated motions. Equivalence principle does not stand up. üsP.S. : 24 Mar 17üt From the opposite direction of a gravity source, two bodies are falling in free fall. It is impossible to say that the two are in an inertial frame. Equivalence principle does not stand up.   * üydo.üz On the ground, an elevator cabin is accelerated with a rope to the left. Tension of the rope is 1.2mg. The second elevator cabin is accelerated upward with a rope. Tension is the same 1.2mg. In each cabin, the same 1.2g is measured also. But, length of rope that was winded onto a reel will be different (within the same time).   * üydo.üz In a space ship windowless, acceleration 1 g is acting on the floor. The crew can vary the direction of the space ship (direction of center line relative to the celestial sphere). The crew will be able to know whether 1 g is caused by gravity or by jet of the space ship.   * üydo.üz There are three elevator cabins on the ground. On each, tension of ropes 1g, 2g and 3g act upward. After certain time, the position from the ground will be 0d, 1d, and 2d. The explanation will be possible only by gravity. By the way, position of a falling body (in free fall) is shown by formula 1/2gtt. üsP.S.üt Plural bodies are being pulled up from the ground. Acceleration is 2g, 3g, and 4g. How does equivalence principle explain ?   * üydo.üz Some books deny relativity of accelerated motions. Some books seem not to deny. The latter will mean the denial of inertial frames. But it is not stated. Like a bat in Aesop's Fables. üsP.S.üt Assertion of free fall is denial of inertial frame (local area will not be a refuge). It is incompatible at all. üsP.S.üt When forces act on a body is gravity only (supposed from one direction only), the body will do an accelerated motion. Free fall will be an accelerated motion.   * üydo.üz In Wikipedia (in Japanese), the equivalence principle is written as follows. ügIn the infinite small area, acceleration of motion and of gravity cannot be distinguished". However, in general, vector of the two (the two are calculable) will be different (different things and unrelated : qualitatively and quantitatively). Even in the infinite small area, it will be so (in general). Why is that a principle ? üsP.S. : 25 Mar 18üt The infinite small area (in an elevator cabin) !? Inertial force and gravity act on every atom. Exception will be impossible. üsP.S.üt But composition of vector is possible. We see a resultant force also. üsP.S.ütü@Does principle of gravity and inertial force differ according to the size of area ? Why infinite small area is dealt with specially ? üsP.S.ütü@ The influence of voice of each infinite small area of an elevator cabin in free fall must be equal. üsP.S.ütü@Why this problem is limited to infinite small area ? But no book seems to explain. üsP.S.ütü@ An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Some books say windowless and some books say an infinite small area. On the two each, reason seems not to be explained. üsP.S.üt The infinite small area ? However, on quantitative continuity between other area, nothing seems to be explained. By the way, on every area, inertial force will be acting equally. Without exception. On infinite small area also. üsP.S.üt How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?   * üydo.üzü@Why we must put a blindfold ?Reason is not shown. Rather, plural observers must be welcomed (in an elevator cabin, wise artificial intelligence : AI).   * üydo.üz Only the distance from the gravity source has an effect on gravity. So, assertion on free fall is wrong.  * üydo.üz A comet will be in free fall. Namely, gravity of the sun is acting continuously on comet moving on the locus (on infinite small area also). üsP.S.üt Not only a comet, but also the moon, a stone and an elevator cabin will be the same.   * üydo.üz An elevator cabin is moving on the moon's orbit in an orbital motion (the same as the moon). On every small area of the cabin, gravity of the earth is acting. Equivalence principle is unimaginable.   * üydo.üz On a plane, plural bodies are moving in uniform linear motions (inertial motions). It is possible to suppose that one of these bodies is at a standstill and is possible to rewrite motions of other bodies. But it will be Herculean (or nonsense) on plural bodies moving in accelerated motions. Relativity of accelerated motions will be impossible.   * üydo.üz Gravity and inertial force acting on a moving roller coaster are unrelated. An elevator cabin in free fall will be the same. There will be no meaning (worthy of special mention) in physics (weightlessness is an abortive flower).  * üydo.üz On the ground, an elevator cabin is moving to the right in a uniform accelerated motion. A body hung from the roof leans somewhat to the left. This angle is explicable quantitatively. Equivalence principle is useless.   * üydo.üz Two glass tubes are standing vertically (adjoining). Inside of one is vacuum and inside of the other is rare air. The same bodies are falling. One is falling in free fall and the other is at a terminal speed. The two are adjoining (continuous) phenomena that follow the same gravity.   * üydo.üz There are three pictures of falling elevator cabin (A, B and C). The density of air in the falling space is high in A, middle in B, and sparse in C. The elevator cabins are falling at terminal speed. To calculate the acceleration on each floor will be possible with hydromechanics. Common premise of calculation will be gravity 1g. üsP.S.ütü@Gravity g is the value unrelated to air.   * üydo.üz A free fall. A solar eclipse is associated. A big fuss.  * üydo.üz In acceleration measured by triaxial accelerometer (if it is on the ground), gravitational acceleration is included always. Free fall will not be exception. There is an accelerometer named absolute gravity accelerometer.   * üydo.üz On acceleration, the same phenomenon (qualitatively, quantitatively) is seen everywhere of space (in dairy life also). In space, there will be one and only physical frame. Acceleration seems to be based only on this frame. Relativity of acceleration will be impossible. Acceleration is absolute. üsP.S.ütü@Gyroscope with laser and with inertia seem to work the same. The two will be based on aether also. üsP.S.ütü@This frame seems not to move to celestial sphere.   * üydo.üz In space, gravity spreads. On the other hand, on space, a rotating disk will have no effect. Inertial force is an attribute of bodies. So, in space, no field will be formed.   * üyThe existence of the rest frameüz Inertial force will be caused by an accelerated motion relative to the rest frame. And this rest frame (shown by dynamics) and the frame shown by light (luminiferous aether : measurable) will probably be the same frame. üsP.S.ütü@Whether the inertial force occurs or not is depending on the state of body's motion (stationary : uniform linear motion or accelerated motion). This will show the existence of one and only rest frame. Because all inertial frames (except the absolute rest frame) are only ephemeral (and fiction). üsP.S.ütü@ Star light shows existence of one and only rest frame (measurable : explained previously). It is impossible by dynamics ?  * üydo.üz Everywhere of space, the same accelerated motion will cause the same inertial force (probably it is an invariant). This impresses the existence of a mesh of absolute rest frame (homogeneous, invariable and end is unknown). To replace it with inertial frame seems to be impossible.  * üydo.üz Newton's bucket stands up quantitatively. Also on accelerated motion in general, there will be a relationship between the geometrical expression and the inertial force quantitatively. The sole rest frame must be accepted.   * üydo.üz Two bodies each is moving in different uniform linear motion. It is possible to suppose either of the two is stationary. And then, optional motion of optional body can be shown. However, it does not deny one and only rest frame.   * üydo.üz A uniform linear motion and an accelerated motion. Are these motions relative to what ? Inertial frames are dispersed in space, passing phenomenon and vector is various. The absolute rest frame is omnipresent, invariable and homogeneous (flat). And the latter will be a real physical existence. üsP.S.ütü@Vector of an inertial force can be shown uniquely. Vector of a uniform linear motion cannot be shown uniquely. We do not see the fact that is showing.   * üydo.üz There are innumerable accelerated frames. As the basis (reference frame : not fictitious) of it, not innumerable inertial frames but one and only rest frame seems to be convincing. üsP.S.ütü@Is an inertial frame dependent on many other inertial frames ? But, interdependence seems not to stand up. Supposition of the rest frame will be more natural than supposition of interdependence.   * üydo.üz There is a picture. Optional two points (every point also) in an inertial frame will move in the same uniform linear motion (or stationary) relative to the frame (mesh) of the rest frame (to these, the rest frame does not interfere. Momentum does not vary also). All inertial frames seem to be based on the absolute rest frame.   * üydo.üz Suppose innumerable inertial frames. But why these do not rotate ? If it is the absolute rest frame, non-rotating is acceptable. Because, it is absolute. üsP.S.ütü@Every inertial frame is not rotating. Every inertial frame will not be rotating relative to the absolute rest frame.  * üydo.üz A frame not accelerated to an inertial frame is an inertial frame. However, between two optional inertial frames, there will be no physical relations. Every inertial frame will be existence connected (based on) directly to the absolute rest frame. Every accelerated frame will be the same. Without the absolute rest frame, physics will not stand up. üsP.S.ütü@Like cabins can be regarded as above frames. üsP.S.ütü@All sorts of aberration show the one and only luminiferous aether. And we will be able to show (probably) quantitatively that frame of luminiferous aether is an inertial frame (with inertial force).   * üyWhat is a uniform linear motion ?üz ü@Definition of inertial frame will be possible by zero inertial force (without external force). And inertial force will be depending on varying of vector relative to the absolute rest frame.   * üydo.üz ügA uniform linear motionüh seems to be rootless. ügA uniform linear motion relative to the absolute rest frameüh is not rootless.   * üydo.üz On descriptions of every motion, standard (frame) will be indispensable. Well, what is the standard of uniform linear motion ? Inertial frame will not be the standard of the inertial frame. Uniform linear motion will be a motion relative to the absolute rest frame (someday, all will be clarified quantitatively). üsP.S.üt Another key is inertial force (not fictitious force). In stationary state or in uniform linear motion relative to the absolute rest frame, inertial force is not seen. In the other motions, inertial force is seen.   * üyAbsolute rest frameüz Inertial force will be corresponding on geometrical expression of accelerated motion relative to a standard (frame). This standard must not be plural. This standard must be sole (because this standard must be a physical existence). This standard will be absolute rest frame.  * üydo.üz Inertial force (not fictitious force) is caused by accelerated motion. However, what distinguish accelerated motion as it ? It will be distinguished by either inertial frame or absolute rest frame. By the way, all sort of aberrations show the existence of luminiferous aether. This luminiferous aether will be as well as absolute rest frame (probably). Inertial frame will be fictitious frame.   * üyRest frame (as aether)üz Aether is said to be forsaken because of M-M experiment. But all of M-M experiment (done in air) is nonsense (shown previously). Apart from it, existence of aether is undoubted. In aberration and so on.  * üydo.üz Aether frame will be a field omnipresent, invariable, homogeneous (flat) and one and only (homogeneous isotropic). Aether frame will be an inertial frame. Even if, it is regarded as absolute rest frame, there will be no contradiction. No, an evidence of absolute rest frame must be shown some day (many evidences are known already ?).   * üydo.üz Every body shows inertial force as a numerical value (including zero) depending on its state of motion. The standard of the state of motion will be other bodies or space (unknown are excepted). However, response is without delay and is exact perfectly. Standard will be space (if the choice between the two is forced). üsP.S.üt Vector of accelerated motion and vector of inertial force (of bodies) are corresponding always and perfectly (including vector zero). What is this based on ? It must be based on one and only reference frame (absolute rest frame).   * üyMach's bucketüz 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 *).üsP.S.üt 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).üsP.S.üt Asteroid Toutatis is rotating (cycle is 5.41 days and 7.35 days) on two axes. To imagine Mach's bucket is impossible.üsP.S.üt There are three disks A, B and C. A is rotating clockwise, B is rotating counterclockwise and C is at a standstill. "Mach's bucket" will fall silent. üsP.S.üt From viewpoint of momentum, kinetic energy also, rotary motion will be absolute.üsP.S.üt Action at a distance (instantaneous) is major premise of Mach's bucket. üsP.S.üt Imagine propagations of star lights (in space). Mach's bucket will be a fantasy or a fairy tale (at most an episode).   * üyluminiferous aether and the celestial sphereüz The frame of luminiferous aether will not rotate relative to the celestial sphere. Loci of photons or bodies (in a uniform linear motion, viz, an inertial force zero) will not rotate relative to the celestial sphere also. Relative angle of these loci will be invariable.   * üyRotary motion and equivalence principleüz Imagine gravity and inertial force that act on every point of a blade of windmill (also rotational speed is varying with wind). To the two, different explanations will be necessary. Added on 27 Mar 11 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt Let's examine equivalence principle with a windmill (rotational speed is enough). It is possible to examine the problem from various angle (elevator in free fall is not a good example). üsP.S.üt Windmill is rotating vertically and diagonally. Imagine the circle coordinate (origin is the center of the blades) and fixed plural positions on the coordinate. The value of inertial force and gravity that act on blades (act on points passing above positions) are calculable. Gravity is acting on every position equally. üsP.S.üt In a space station, strength of gravity and inertial force (centrifugal force) differs generally (acts on each of the particles). Equivalence principle will be meaningless. üsP.S.üt There is a space elevator. Strength of gravity and inertial force (act at each point of the cable) is different.   * üydo.üz On the ground (inertial frame), a large disk is rotating horizontally. Centrifugal force (inertial force) is the same in all direction. The second disk is rotating vertically. Centrifugal force (inertial force) will be the same in all direction also. Gravity and inertial force each will be noninterference. üsP.S.üt The same two large disks are rotating vertically at the same speed. One is on the ground and the other is on a tall tower. Centrifugal force of the two will be the same. Gravity and inertial force each will be noninterference.   * üydo.üz A large disk is rotating vertically. At the edge of the disk, centrifugal force (inertial force) is 3g. And gravity is 1g. Acceleration acts on the each point of the disk depends on inertial force and gravity (calculable). Gravity 1g acts on every point.   * üydo.üz Accelerated motion (inertial force occurs inevitably) must be considered firstly to be qualitatively and as a microscopic varying of a vector. Rotary motion will not be special.   * üyBending of lightüz 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.üsP.S. 9 Apr 15üt 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 (the two are at ig) is different. All will be problem of geometry.üsP.S.üt 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. üsP.S.üt 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 (the cabin is frame only). In the latter (if the emission theory is true), behavior of light ray will be easy to imagine.   * üydo.üz A passenger car is moving to the right in a uniform accelerated motion. From the roof, a photon is sent downward. In this car, the photon will draw a parabola. This will be a mere problem of geometry.   * üydo.üz Fixed stars are visible as a point (in principle). It seems to be negative about bending of light (by gravity).  * üyBending of light : solar eclipse & Eddingtonüz The moon is passing in front of stars (in the night sky). To observe the effect of gravity (on the position of stars), this situation seems to be more suitable than solar eclipse (reason : no surrounding gas etc),. But no book seems to refer to the moon. üsP.S.üt The value of bending of light at the rim of the sun is said to be 1.75 arc sec. The ratio of surface gravity of the sun and the moon is 28.02 üF 0.165. So bending of light that must be observed on the moon (at the rim of the moon) is 0.0103 arc sec. It is said that the annual parallax of fixed stars is measured with an accuracy of 1 / 1,000 arc sec.   * üyGravitational redshiftüz In many books, a picture (an elevator cabin 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. It will be impossible. A star light (coming from just above) is passing a hole in the roof and is hitting the floor. Frequency (at the roof and at the floor) will be the same.üsP.S.ütü@Number of waves existing between the roof and the floor is constant (does not increase or decrease). üsP.S.üt Books say, difference of frequency is dependent on the distance between both (roof and floor). Disproof is easy. 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 remove relay point anywhere).üsP.S.üt For 10 seconds, an elevator cabin accelerated upward (after this time, returns to the former 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.   * üydo.üz Several books (e.g. Einstein's Legacy by J Schwinger) say, ügFrequency 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). True or not will be proved easily by interference of this two lights (by experiment on the earth). üsP.S.üt A light path forms a long oblong. From an apex of the oblong, light (frequency is constant) is being sent and returns (only a round : clockwise). Short two light paths (horizontal ; facing) are in different gravitational field. Frequency at four apexes is the same.   * üydo.üz Imagine a unit time u seconds (the time needed for a light wave to reach the floor). In this accelerated cabin, one light source is switched on. And after 99u seconds, 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.   * üydo.üz Let's consider this problem (on an elevator cabin accelerating uniformly upward) under the 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 invariable (reason ; acceleration is uniform).üsP.S.üt In an elevator cabin in free fall, it will be the same (light source is set on the floor).üsP.S.üt 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. üsP.S.üt It will be the same also in acceleration in horizontal direction.   * üyTime dilationüz 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 ? üsP.S. : gravitational redshiftüt It is said that in gravitational field, wavelength of light increases. If it is true, light speed must increase.  * üydo.üz 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 ?   * üydo.üz Accuracy of atomic clock or optical lattice clock is written to be one second per 30 million years or per 30 billion years, etc. Effect of the gravity is not stated. On the other hand, on an atomic clock loaded on GPS satellite, effect of gravity is said widely (with specific value : per a day). Are the two compatible ? Added on 14 Dec 18 (from mark *)   * üyTwin paradoxüz One is in a gravitational field. The other is in an accelerated frame (g is the same). How does relativity say ?üsP.S.üt Imagine three atomic clocks. Problem U-turn will not exist.   * üyAccelerated frame and light speedüz Is light speed constant also to an accelerated observer ? i have no memory of such a writing in books. Added on 8 Mar 14 (from mark *) üsP.S.üt How about the speed of bent light in an elevator cabin (accelerating upward) ? üsP.S.üt To an accelerating observer, frequency of coming light varies usually. To an observer in a gravitational field, it doesn't vary usually.   * üySagnac effectüz Two things will be shown. One is that on the light emitted from an accelerating source, there will be an effect by the rest frame. And the other is that Mach's bucket is invalid.üsP.S.üt Sagnac effect will show the following. That is, an accelerated motion of the light source is regarded as a uniform linear motion.   * üySagnac effect : inferenceüz A pillar made of glass (section is square) is placed horizontally (we are seeing from the side). Two laser beams (sent from the sources set at right and left end of upper face) are crossing like letter X and interference fringes are visible. When this pillar moves to the right in an accelerated motion, interference fringes will vary. It will be the same on this pillar upright in free fall.   * üydo.üz Laser lights emitted from the roof and the floor of an elevator cabin are crossing (like a letter X) and interference fringes is shown. In the elevator cabin on the ground and in free fall, interference fringes will be different.   * üyD'Alembert's principleüz When a body is accelerated by force 1 mg, inertial force is -1 mg (D'Alembert's principle). In free fall also.   * üyGravitational mass and inertial mass ; a monologüz 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 stationary 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. Then, m is the same. Thus, gravitational mass and inertial mass will be the same. üsP.S.üt Who has proposed üggravitational massüh and üg inertial massüh ?   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 www.crank.net/einstein.html : Persons who wrote gentle reply in forums : RationalWiki : Administrator CCC (anti-relativity.com) for his precious help : Google Directory (for about three years, this my site had been listed. directory vanished in Jul 2011) : Not a few directories in English (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 title of top page (In it, English page is shown). "īEōcōoÄié╠āgābāvāyü[āW āAāCāōāVāģā^āCāōé╠æŖæ╬É½ŚØś_ ", "www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kubota-takashi/ein-kubota.html"   * üyPending questionsüz We must say that our consideration on light speed is irrelevant. Except the emission theory, is explanation impossible ?üsP.S. ; Motion of photonsüt Now, photons are emitted from a rotating light source. 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). üsP.S. ; Motion of photonsüt In the emission theory (in vacuum, valid for a few seconds), all motion of the source will be regarded as straight motion. Photons will succeed vector of the emitted point (there is a word üginstantaneous velocityüh). üsP.S. ; Motion of photonsüt On the motion of photons, perhaps there will be no effect by gravity. üsP.S. : Pythagorean theoremüt Pythagorean theorem explains a light ray vertical. But it cannot explain a light ray non - vertical. How does relativity explain ? üsP.S. : Pythagorean theoremüt 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. üsP.S. : A sort of aberration ?üt From a star, light rays are being sent radially. After a few seconds, radial light rays will be bent by aether drift. As a result, to nearby observers, parallax (a sort of aberration) is caused ? On planets of the solar system, is it observable ? üsP.S ; Eotvos experimentüt 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 ? üsP.S.üt Books on physics seem to be unreliable. And my understandings of this site depend on these books (no other choice). In addition, my inadequacy. üsP.S.üt I tried to reduce the pages of this site. But sorry, the trial seems not to be successful.   * My English is not good. If there are passages difficult to grasp, i ask to see Japanese page (below).   http://lifeafterdeath.vip/lig.html   * Last modified on 10 Feb 2019. i am tired a little. i want to leave further studies (including reexamination of this site) to young persons. üsP.S.üt Many web-sites existed in the past disappear and we cannot see. This my site will be also.  * Feel free to link or cite. Former title was MYSTERY OF LIGHT. üsKey wordüt 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, the emission theory, invariant, velocity aberration. 