Submissions | Add Your Comments | Physics Site Links | Home Page

Email: Ali A. Faraj
  Ali A. Faraj

 

A. A. Faraj, Feb. 20, 2006:
I agree with Turanyanin, these are good but still under-publicized ideas.

Dragan N. Turanyanin, Feb 19,2006: Email: turanyanin@yahoo.com
A. A. Faraj on Tsolkas' Perihelion Advance Idea

In final, that is the real classical meaning of the two-body problem with the "reduce" mass of the system. Basically the same (but in details) could be found in the fine article "On Newton's Paradoxes" by C. Santagata, Journal of Theoretics, Extensive Papers, 2002. A very similar approach has J. A. Rybczyk, Inertia and Gravity, Millennium Relativity.

An advance understanding of the gravity (and related) phenomena goes much further: Vector gravitodynamics on the surface but non-linear wave space-gravity at the roots of Nature ( see D. Turanyanin, On Interaction of Mot. Masses, Journal of Theoretics, 1983/2004 and Wave Gravity, GSJ, 2005). The gravito-Lorentz equation in different ways shows itself as very useful (Tajmar and Matos, T. de Mess). In this author proposal, such an equation but with hi-gamma factor for the momentum, is quite fundamental for the right quantitative calculations in the celestial mechanics (and the related area of the flying objects - NASA Pioneers, Gravity Probe B etc.)

A. A. Faraj, Feb. 18, 2006: Remarks on C. A. Tsolkas’ (http://www.wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas3.htm):

In this highly original article, the idea of revolving solar center of mass is put forward as an explanation of the long-standing anomaly of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance. In spite of all the publicity, the anomalous perihelion rotation of Mercury is still an unsolved problem. And to all those who blindly trust conventional wisdom, one can justifiably say that the Einsteinian explanation of the Mercury Anomaly is absolutely ridiculous and has no chance at all of being correct.

Examined closely, this new idea of revolving sun is undoubtedly the correct explanation of the Perihelion Anomaly. One only needs to take into account the revolving sun around the gravitational center of the sun and Jupiter to see at once this brilliant idea is the right one.

Now as it is often the case in astronomy and physical science in general, there are plenty of correct qualitative ideas that, upon detailed calculations, fail miserably to give the right numerical magnitude. For instance, one may try to use the rotation of the Solar System around the center of the Milky Way to explain away the Mercury Anomaly. But, upon detailed computations, one can obtain no more than 0.5 seconds of arc per century. Moreover, the Perihelion Advance of Mercury is never measured either with respect to the local standard of rest or with respect to distant galaxies. The value of this anomaly is obtained solely from the data analysis of Mercury’s transits, which occur only in May and November.

The quantitative failure of the correct qualitative ideas is repeated so often in exact sciences that one is psychologically conditioned not to take seriously any idea unless exact numerical calculations are worked out and given in detail.

Of course, this sort of Pavlov conditioning works also the other way around. That is to say, one can fool scientists and force them to accept absurd qualitative ideas by merely doing lengthy and fantastically precise calculations. That is exactly what Albert Einstein had done in this case. I cannot pretend I have done the detailed calculations regarding Tsolkas’ idea. But from casual inspection of the published works of Laplace, Lagrange, Le Verier, and Newcomb on the Perturbation theory in celestial mechanics, I can with certainty estimate that the detailed quantitative treatment, in this case, will take about 100 regular pages of uninterrupted calculations.

Can the author of the above paper do it? He certainly has the stamina and the motivation to carry out this horrendous sort of calculations and to clinch once and for all the evidence.

Brief Comments on Dr Sfarti’s Paper,   ( The Sagnac Effect ):

 

I’ve read this paper twice and found it for the most part satisfactory, at least from conventional perspective.

Nonetheless, the author, near the end of his paper, appears quite indignant at what he called “claims”  and ‘seminal tenet for making them against STR, and in the process makes an erroneous assertion worth noting.

 

Dr Sfarti believes (c + v) and (c – v) have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of STR, and chastises the critics for it.

 

But (c + v) and (c – v) are precisely the definition of relative light velocity with respect to observers whose velocity vectors are parallel to that of the incident light.

 

The moving observers measure the quantities (c + v) and (c – v), and conclude that, in the two cases, velocity of light relative to them is (c + v) and (c – v),  respectively.

 

The official version of STR denies this in principle and declares that the velocity of light relative to any observer, whether in motion or not, must be equal to c. That is what the Postulate of Constancy is all about.

 

At the same time, STR in practice does what the Good Old Ether Theory is doing all along, and uses, without proper justification, the quantities (c + v) and (c – v) in its calculations of Sagnac effect, Doppler effect, …etc..

 

Therefore, it must be concluded that STR is not a consistent theory, whether its supporters agree with this conclusion or not.

A. Sfarti, May 28, 2005:
A.A.Faraj writes: "But (c + v) and (c – v) are precisely the definition of relative light velocity with respect to observers whose velocity vectors are parallel to that of the incident light. The moving observers measure the quantities (c + v) and (c – v), and conclude that, in the two cases, velocity of light relative to them is (c + v) and (c – v), respectively." The statement is not correct. Apparently these type of statements are at the root of all the confusions swirling around the Sagnac effect. The speed "c+v" is not an observed speed. It is simply the sum of the speed of the light front (c) and the speed of the rotating platform (v).

I recommend re-reading the last by one sentence in my paper: "We specifically point out that those quantities do not refer to the speed of light, but rather to the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity."

A. Faraj, May 29, 2005:
(c + v) is the relative velocity of light with respect to an observer, in direct approach to the light source, with velocity v.
(c - v) is the relative velocity of light with respect to an observer, in direct recession from the source of light, with velocity v.

It’s clear and simple. Yet, Mr. Sfarti has insisted, here and elsewhere and for long time, that the difference between two velocities is not a velocity. And the sum of two velocities is not a velocity. Obviously, the problem, here, is very basic. So what is it?

Adrian is not helpful in this regard. He just keeps repeating ‘velocity sums’ and ‘velocity differences’ are not velocities, over and over again with little or no additional information at all.

Therefore, let’s try to overcome “Kuhn’s Incommensurability Barrier” and look at the matter from his perspective. The first thing, we can see from this position, is that the term ‘Velocity’ for him means only what we call ‘Actual Velocity’. It does not include what we call ‘Relative Velocity’.

We all agree that ‘c’ is the actual velocity of light, and ‘v’ is the actual velocity of the observer, as judged from a third frame of reference at rest with respect to both. Thus, when Adrian tells us (c + v) and (c - v) are not velocities, he means they are not actual velocities. We grant him this, and we agree with him that (c + v) and (c - v) are not actual .velocities. No ray of light flies around in space with (c + v) or (c - v) just because some observer is moving with velocity ‘v’.

Now we want him to agree with us and with every textbook on the basics of kinematics that (c + v) and (c - v) are ‘Relative Velocities’. Will he agree? Will he give us his own definition of the term ‘Relative Velocity’? I certainly hope so. Because Adrian is a colleague. And nothing more distressing and heart-breaking than to see a colleague using defective arguments to defend his pet theory.

Clearly, Adrian is not an Orthodox Relativist. Otherwise, he would have used Orthodox methods to defend his position. How do Orthodox Relativists defend their position in this case?

HINT: Vagueness, Vagueness, Vagueness, and Jumping forever back and forth between two frames of reference....

A. Sfarti, May 30, 2005:
A.A.Faraj writes: "We all agree that ‘c’ is the actual velocity of light, and ‘v’ is the actual velocity of the observer, as judged from a third frame of reference at rest with respect to both. Thus, when Adrian tells us (c + v) and (c - v) are not velocities, he means they are not actual velocities. We grant him this, and we agree with him that (c + v) and (c - v) are not actual .velocities. No ray of light flies around in space with (c + v) or (c - v) just because some observer is moving with velocity ‘v’." Yes, I agree with the above.

The point that I make is that time and again, in the (erroneous) interpretation of the Sagnac experiments people take "c+v" (and the Sagnac experiment as a whole) as a contradiction to STR. Galilean relativity and STR actulally agree that "c+v" represents a relative speed. In the Sagnac experiment, "c+v" is created by the fact that the paltform rotates toward the incoming light fron with the speed "v". Where Galilean relativists and SRT proponents differ is in interpreting the speed of light as viewed by an observer tied to the rotating platform : the Galilean relativists expect it to be "c+v" while the SRT people know by now (see the MM experiment) that it is "c". One last thing: I am far from being an Orthodox SRT person, please see my paper on Generalization of SRT on the current website.

A. Faraj, Jun. 1, 2005:
Now this is the main problem with the STR Explanations.

On one hand, the Michelson-Morley Experiment cannot be explained away by STR, unless (c & v) are non-additive, exactly as stated in the Postulate of Constancy.

On the other hand, the Sagnac Experiment, the Michelson-Gale Experiment, and the Doppler effect cannot be explained away by STR, unless (c & v) are additive.

 The contradiction between Additive and Non-additive (c & v), in the two cases above, and not the confusion on the part of the critics or anybody else, is the source of the controversy.

Before the first STR Explanation in 1985 [Chow, W. W., et al, (1985). Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 61-104], the general consensus was that STR does not apply to rotating frames of reference. And hence, the Sagnac effect was not a problem.

The Doppler effect, however, is a big problem. Because, no matter what theory is used, Doppler effect always implies additive (c & v). Not only that, but also Doppler effect is one of the most reliable tools for measuring relative velocities. And although (c + v) and (c - v) have never been measured directly, there is little doubt, that their flight time over a pre-specified distance d is [d/(c + v)] and [d/(c - v)], exactly as inferred from their Doppler shift in the reference frame of the moving observer.

A. Sfarti, Jun. 2, 2005:
The MM experiment cannot be explained away by STR unless c and v are non additive" This is incorrect. There are many explanations of the MM experiment WITHIN the framework of STR that employ "c+v" and "c-v". For a very recent explanation please see my paper Generalization of the Standard Theory of Relativity. Time and again: MM, Sagnac, Thomas Wigner (this one is a much tougher one, see my very recent paper on the same website ) can and are being explained consistently within the STR framework. I will write soon an explanation for the Doppler effect. To my best knowledge there is no effect that contradicts STR. In my writings I try to help people avoid wasting their time in terms of finding experiments that contradict STR.

M. Yagan, Jun. 2, 2005:
On the Sagnac Effect by Dr. Sfarti
In his paper at this site and in his e-book published at www.mathpages.com (where he used more harsh words to the same end) concludes that the Sagnac effect can not be used against STR. what the sagnac experiment in conjunction with the Michelson Morley experiment and the imaginary train of Einstein all together suggest to me is not the fallacy of the Lorentz transformations rather the fallacy of STR predictions. The Sagnac setup is the proper reference frame of light where the transmitter, receiver and observer are at rest relative to each other (see my paper Relativistic Dynamics of Field-Particle System) so if an interferometer is fixed to the loop in the receiving end it will not register any interference.

This is equivalent to the M-M experiment which was conducted in the proper reference frame of light (transmitter, reciever and observer were at rest relative to each other) as for the inertial observer (with respect to the hub axis) not being in the proper reference frame (moving relative to transmitters) measures interference between the 2 signals equivalent to the delay observed by the observer on the ground in the imaginary train experiment. So basically its Doppler shift which is iterpreted as simultaneity break (actually the head of both photons-waves reach the detector at the same time but the period of these waves are different so is the time to be absorbed by the detector).The process of sending and receiving signals in the same reference frame is a totaly different physical process than sending and receiving signals between different reference frames therefore the observations and measurements of one does not reflect the other.

A. Faraj, Jun. 2, 2005
In almost every textbook on STR, the Michelson calculations on the basis of additive (c & v), are reproduced, and their failure, by the virtue of the Null Result of his Experiment, is clearly stated. This well-known ‘Null Experimental Result’ is made a fundamental postulate of STR, the ‘Postulate of Constancy’, by Einstein himself.Hence, the Postulate of Constancy is the negation of Additive (c & v). And the negation of the additive (c & v) is necessarily Non-additive (c & v). That should be the end of it. No further STR explanation of the ‘Null Result’ is logically possible. How can one explain a fundamental postulate of some theory on the basis of that theory? Any attempt in that direction is completely futile and viciously circular.

Adrian has suggested evaluating the numerous reformulations and modifications of STR, including the one proposed by him. However, it’s an unacceptable practice, in criticizing a prominent theory, to treat a new version of it as canonical before it is deemed as such by the Conventional Community. That is because such critique is a waste of time at best and a straw-man fallacy at worst.

Adrian, also, needs to make his position, regarding the Constancy Postulate, explicit and clear. Since it appears that, in his various expositions, the Postulate of Constancy is either given an implicit Galilean re-interpretation or quietly abandoned altogether. A. Sfarti, Jun. 4, 2005: One more try! See the PDF file, The Sagnac Effect

A. Sfarti, Jun.10, 2005:
AA Faraj wites: "The Doppler effect, however, is a big problem. Because, no matter what theory is used, Doppler effect always implies additive (c & v). Not only that, but also Doppler effect is one of the most reliable tools for measuring relative velocities."

Are you aware that the "emission theory", (A.A. Cyrenika, APEIRON 2000) used in your paper produces results that disagree with the Ives-Stilwell experimental data while STR produces results in total agreement?

A. Faraj, June 10, 2005:
Adrian’s conjecture that “the emission theory ....... produces results that disagree with the Ives-Stilwell experimental data while STR produces results in total agreement” is incorrect. The Ives-Stilwell Experiment is perfectly consistent with the Emission Theory. Check for example (http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj4.htm"). Is Adrian aware of this new experimental finding: “Absence of Transverse Doppler Shift at Microwave Frequencies” (http://fodok.uni-linz.ac.at/fodok/publikation.xsql?PUB_ID=11801)? That is a challenge for Special Relativity, but not for theories built upon variable speed of light, including the Emission Theory. Furthermore, the Ives-Stilwell Experiment is not in total agreement with STR as Adrian thinks. In fact, according to H. Hayden, H. Ives rejected STR completely.

"... Wang and Lu (p. 103) present evidence from the Ives-Stillwell data that the earth moves with respect to the preferred reference frame of the cosmos. Herbert Ives battled Einstein theory until his dying day, despite the fact that the Ives-Stilwell experiment is frequently cited as support for the theory. I believe that he would be very happy that experimentalists and theorists alike still pore over the data and find new ways to challenge Einstein theory...”-Professor Howard Hayden, Editor of Galilean Electrodynamics (http://www.hoff-lu-institute.org/publications.htm).

A. Faraj, Jun. 11, 2005:
As a rule of thumb, the evaluation of any STR modification is a total waste of time. The reason is simple. The STR believers would see it as a case of ‘heretic bites heretic’, and has nothing to do with them. The Originator, who is usually so attached emotionally to his new STR version, would also dismiss such a review as biased and an attack on his long shot at ‘Scientific Immortality’.

In spite of all this, I’m, here, going to break the above rule. And since Adrian is one of very few people who take the trouble to read my Comments, I shall do my best to be objective. The following remarks are my final comments on this article of A. Sfarti (http://www.wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti2.htm).

The rest of Adrian’s Article, from “Despite the ease and clarity…” to “…that intervene in the explanation of the Michaelson-Morley experiment ”, has been the subject of the lengthy debate above, between Adrian, Yagan, and me. And I believe I have won.

A. Sfarti, Jun. 13,2005
A.A.Faraj gives a good analysis of my paper, thank you for correcting the oversight on the presence of the Doppler effect in the Sagnac experiment. It will be corrected in the next version. Aside from this, AA Faraj gets hung up in a lot of technicalities but never answers the two fundamental problems with HIS paper:

A. Faraj, Jun. 14, 2005:
Usually in a debate of this sort, one party starts by making strong statements about some controversial issue to force the other party to respond, and things roll forward from there. However, by graciously acknowledging an oversight with regard to Doppler effect, Adrian has cut short this process. Therefore, I must qualify my previous statements. I’m certain that the Maxwell Theory and the Emission Theory give Doppler shift in the Sagnac case. I can’t say the same about STR. Applying its Doppler formula directly to the Sagnac arrangement, one obtains Doppler shift. But STR is a tricky theory, and may not give the same result when viewed from a different angle. Accordingly, Adrian is advised to check and re-check the authoritative references on STR, before making any change in his Paper.

We turn now to the two basic questions, which in his view, I haven’t answered.

What happened next gives credence to the supposition that science really has its roots in sorcery! To clinch the evidence, the Ives-Stilwell data must have as much red shift as blue shift. But their canal rays don’t allow it. The emission is primarily within a light cone in the forward direction. The STR theorists exploited this loophole, and turned the experiment on its head. They plugged an angle of 90 degrees into the STR formula, and got a red shift equal to the Gamma factor. Then they declared this amount to be present in and the same for all possible angles, not just the angle of 90. Add this tiny amount to each item in the experimental sample, and voila, the anomaly disappears! Hence the Ives evidence has, suddenly, become inconclusive. Poor Ives! He protested and protested for no avail. The tide was against him. It was like trying to prove to the Romans their Jupiter is composed of ammonia!

Now, we discuss the second part of Adrian’s problem. He stated that if one uses the Cyrenika Doppler formula (actually the Stewart Doppler formula), the results disagree with the Ives-Stilwell data. That is simply not true. The Emission, the Ballistic, the Ritz, or call it what you want, faces exactly the same anomaly as STR, by giving larger Doppler shift than the one given by the Classical Theory. However, the STR formula has only one v, while the Ballistic formula has two, one v for the source and one v for the observer. With these two velocities, the Emission Theory can account for almost any Doppler anomaly. That is because, as E. Fermi used to say, with few more free parameters, one can construct an elephant!

Moreover, the Gamma factor of the Emission Theory, unlike that of STR, contains the term ‘sin(i) squared’, which makes it extremely flexible. Besides all this, there is the Cyrenika formula (truly his) for the so-called Delta effect, which can produce Doppler-like shift of almost any magnitude depending on distance and acceleration. The theory just can’t fail in this regard. Poor Ives…may the march of technology have him vindicated in the near future!

A. Sfarti, Jun. 15, 2005:
I’m certain that the Maxwell Theory and the Emission Theory give Doppler shift in the Sagnac case. I can’t say the same about STR."

AS - I corrected the paper, please see the new upload. The main point is that the explanation is trivial and is INDEPENDENT of the theory being used. Has nothing specific to do with STR.

"AAF: [A] Does the Sagnac Experiment disprove Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity? The answer is YES. Unless it’s assumed that STR does not apply to rotating frames of reference, the Postulate of Constancy is sufficiently falsified by the positive outcome of the Sagnac Experiment. "

AS : We have a strong disagreement here based on the trivial explanation given to the Sagnac experiment.

"AAF [B] Does Ives-Stilwell Experiment support STR? Let’s examine the facts. The STR Doppler formula gives in all cases Doppler shift greater than that given by the Classical Doppler formula. Ives and Stilwell set out in 1937 to test just that. Using canal rays (H ions), they obtained the value given by the Classical Doppler formula, which is about 0.046A less than the one given by the STR formula. So Ives thought the evidence is clinched against Special Relativity."

AS: Correct , there are some small differences. See the newly uploaded paper on the Doppler shift.

" AAF : Now, we discuss the second part of Adrian’s problem. He stated that if one uses the Cyrenika Doppler formula (actually the Stewart Doppler formula), the results disagree with the Ives-Stilwell data.

" AS : Please plug in Cyrenika's formula in the IS experiment. BTW, you are wrong on the STR description of Doppler, of course STR has provision for both the speed of the emitter and the receiver. See same paper.

A. Faraj, Jun 16, 2005:
 The official verstion of STR does not distinguish between the velocity of the source and the velocity of the observer. It recognizes only the resultant velocity, v, for both of them.

As for your Article (http://www.wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti5.pdf), it's somewhat long. I prefer to write an article on it, in rebuttal, which may take a while. It may be a good to have an HTM version of your Paper available; the PDF is too slow.

A. Sfarti, Jun. 16, 2005:
AA Faraj writes:

    "The official verstion of STR does not distinguish between the velocity of the source and the velocity of the observer. It recognizes only the resultant velocity, v, for both of them."
AS answers: this is just not true and you can see it in the paper uploaded. The issue is moot anyway, in the IS experiment there is only one speed , the speed of the source. Frankly I am getting tired of your evasive moves, why don't you plug in the (only) v in the Cyrenika formula for Doppler effect and compare with the experimental results of Ives-Stilwell. Because you know that the results will be way off? Trying to use a discredited theory (emission, not even APEIRON accepts papers on this thing anymore) on a trivially explainable experiment (Sagnac) will not achieve you a shot to "immortality" to quote you somewhat liberally. I wrote the pieces on Sagnac and on Doppler just to help you but you seem set to persist. Good luck, I am sure that you'll find some fringe magazine to publish your paper on Sagnac.

A. Faraj: Jun.17, 2005:
A. Sfarti wrote "this is just not true and you can see it in the paper uploaded"!

Re: Your paper is not official. It cannot be used to evaluate STR. Besides, you clearly have a trouble with the basics. How can you claim that a theory, which prides itself on 'all motions are relative', makes distinction between actual velocities? In no way, on this theory, observers can know whether they are moving or at rest. The two states are by the first postulate absolutely equal. Don't mention your version of it to deny this. Yours is not official, OK?

A. Sfarti wrote "...why don't you plug in the (only) v in the Cyrenika formula for Doppler effect and compare with the experimental results of Ives-Stilwell"?

Re: How many pages it took you to plug it into Einstein's formula, which has been plugged in a million times before you. Be patient! Originality is never served on a silver plate.

A. Sfarti wrote "Trying to use a discredited theory (emission, not even APEIRON accepts papers on this thing anymore) on a trivially explainable experiment (Sagnac) will not achieve you a shot to "immortality" to quote you somewhat liberally. I wrote the pieces on Sagnac and on Doppler just to help you but you seem set to persist. Good luck, I am sure that you'll find some fringe magazine to publish your paper on Sagnac"!

Re: Man, what happened to you? I thought the passing of the years made a wise person out of you. Look, if it's the phrase "TOO SLOW", I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way. And if it's the 'PROMISED REBUTTAL', don't worry it will be in the form of general rebuttal. Your Paper, of course, will be among the references, but it will not be subjected to any direct attack. OK?

I think this should be the end of the DEBATE. Frankly, I'm started to get tired as well. GOOD LUCK TO YOU TOO.....

A. Sfarti, Jun. 18, 2005:
AAF writes "Besides, you clearly have a trouble with the basics. How can you claim that a theory, which prides itself on 'all motions are relative', makes distinction between actual velocities? In no way, on this theory, observers can know whether they are moving or at rest. The two states are by the first postulate absolutely equal. Don't mention your version of it to deny this. Yours is not official, OK?"

AS answers : Uh-oh, we're getting personal here, aren't we? Again, you are wrong. The theory in the paper on Doppler is textbook stuff, college level. It's not my theory, it is just trivial stuff. The fact that you don't recognize the formulas doesn't mean that I "have trouble with the basics". If you took some time to look at the formulas you'd discover that they are perfectly equivalent to the ones you are used to. Like in all the other cases where you jumped the gun, I'll respond by adding a few sentences that prove that I really understand "the basics". A lot better than you think.