Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by MMX?

  1. #1 Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by MMX? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9
    Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?

    Please read
    http://api.ning.com/files/Hark62hE1u...ADT/Apaper.pdf

    This paper has just been accepted by GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS. Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney, an editor in GED, said to me “It is understandable, and reasonable to publish in GED. Please be aware that GED pages are filled through year 2011,So this will appear in 2012, unless someone withdraws something before then.”
    This paper was contributed to the American Physical Society(APS), and reviewed by the editors and reviewers of PRL, PRD and PRA successively, but they can’t point out any flaws. However, they still rejected it for criticizing my past paper which has been published.
    They know that this paper will end special theory of relativity and rewrite physics textbook, therefore, they reject it even if there isn’t any flaws.
    My contribution experience is in http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman...626&auth=Huang. The editor of PRL rejected my paper. I asked him why, but he didn’t answer. So I contributed it to PRD. The editor of PRD believed it would be more suitable for PRA, so PRD turned to PRA.
    Gordon W.F. Drake, the editor of PRA reviewed my paper seriously. He can't answer the little questions in the paper, and didn’t point out any mistakes or give any reasons, but my paper was still rejected finally. He let me appeal to Gene D. Sprouse, chief editor of APS, and asked him to make the decision.
    After 70 days research, Gene D. Sprouse appointed Mikhail V. Fedorov to review my paper and give the rejecting reasons. Then Mikhail V. Fedorov rejected my paper with a very funny excuse, which was “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics”. But “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity” has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.” But as for the paper “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” which I wanted to publish, he did’t give any comments.
    I reminded that it was Mikhail V. Fedorov’s oversight. He didn’t make any comments on the paper I wanted to publish. So Gordon W.F. Drake asked Gene D. Sprouse to judge again. But Gene D. Sprouse said he reviewed it “responsibly and fairly”. Don’t you believe it is the truth? Probably you don’t believe, but it is the truth.
    The reason why they rejected my paper was that it could change people’s opinion about the special theory of relativity. They didn’t like to see this happen.
    Followed is my communication with APS. It would be easier for you to know my experience, help you understand my paper.
    Please read my paper as well as the record of communication with the editors of APS. I think you will be interested in it.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Dr. Huang,
    Your manuscript has been considered. We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters.
    Yours sincerely,
    Jerome Malenfant
    Senior Assistant Editor
    Physical Review Letters
    Email: prl@ridge.aps.org
    Fax: 631-591-4141
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for consideration in Physical Review A.
    However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.
    As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal. In particular, they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects.
    Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.
    Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis, "Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40.
    Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore, with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gordon W.F. Drake
    Editor
    Physical Review A
    Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
    Fax: 631-591-4141
    http://pra.aps.org/
    and
    Rashmi Ray
    Senior Assistant Editor
    Physical Review D
    Email: prd@ridge.aps.org
    Fax: 631-591-4141
    http://prd.aps.org/
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray,
    Many thanks for your mail of 29th December 2008, informing me my manuscript was not suitable for publication in PRA in time and giving me specific reasons meanwhile.
    I take this opportunity to discuss several natural phenomena with Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but can it prove that the sun revolves around the earth? In addition, stone falls faster than feather, but can it prove that the heavy object falls faster than the light one? I deem that you will say it can not. Because Copernicus and Galileo have told us that such a cognition was false.
    If the viewpoint of Copernicus and Galileo were not authorized in the scientific community, do you agree with them?
    It’s mostly said that relativistic has been proved by many experimental evidences and there is no clear evidence to suggest it is wrong. For example, when the quality of high-energy particle increases, its lifetime prolongs. That is considered as one of the experimental proofs to prove relativistic. However, Lorenz's theory can explain these phenomena, why these phenomena are not proofs to prove Lorenz's theory? If there were not relativistic, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove Lorenz's theory. What do you think about it?
    For example, Ives and Stilwell proved that movement would result in slower time by experiment in 1938. But Ives opposed relativistic all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.
    In addition, Michelson-Morley experiment is considered as another proof to testify the relativistic. However, both Michelson and Morley didn’t agree with the viewpoint. They deemed that the experiment could be explained by theory that the earth drags the ethers on its surface.
    The differences between the relativistic and Lorenz’s theory are principle of constancy of light velocity and principle of relativity. Only when experimental evidence testifies the two principles, can it be considered as the proof to prove the relativistic.
    It has been pointed out that there is none to test the speed of the same light in different inertial systems, among the present experimental evidences which are considered as the proofs to testify principle of constancy of light velocity.
    Please consider carefully about the circle fiber issue put forward in my paper. If the speed of light is invariant, will the results be consistent when we analyze it in different reference systems? The persons who support the relativistic can’t explain the issue, including old professors who have taught relativity for several decades. Moreover, the other issues and analysis put forward in my paper are supported by many people. I think if you read my paper and think my questions and analysis carefully, you will consider my questions and analysis fully of novelties, although you may not agree with me.
    I think problems independently and put forward my own viewpoint all along. I once put forward a new theory and deduced such formulas in relativity as quality-speed formula, time-speed formula and mass-energy formula, only with two or three steps. It’s much simpler than the deduction process of relativity. It’s my theory that can easily explain GZK knotty problems of cosmic ray. The theory was published in the USA this year and you can read on line: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf, with reviewer’s attitude as follow:
    “Use neutrosophy to analyze and remould the special theory of relativity by Huang Xinwei
    This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”
    Of course, that paper can not represent this one and the reviewer can not represent reviewers of PRA either.
    In the end, I beg for your patient and careful consideration on my manuscript. I believe you will change your former attitude.
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    I understand your feelings of disappointment on reading my previous letter of rejection. However, it is important to remember that the special theory of relativity is now over 100 years old, and it has been intensively studied by many authors since then. It has also been subjected to a large number of high-precision experimental tests, and no defect has been found in the predictions of special relativity. Under these circumstances, exceptional evidence is required to overturn a well established theory. It is not sufficient just to show that the same results can be obtained from a different philosophical point of view, because then the paper is about philosophy and not physics. In order to be acceptable for publication, a paper in this area must show that existing theory is not adequate in some way that is experimentally measurable, and then propose a method to remedy the defect. Your paper does not meet these criteria, and so it is not acceptable for publication. It is like saying that Copernicus was also wrong in saying that the earth goes around the sun, but without giving adequate reasons for your claim.
    I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the reasons for rejection.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gordon W.F. Drake
    Editor
    Physical Review A
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Drake,
    I am very glad to hear from you and greatly appreciate that you replied me in your hurry time.
    I deeply admire your profound knowledge, but I have to figure out that you hold a viewpoint which is the same as many people's views: there are a large number of experiments which have proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which is contrary with it. Therefore, it could be consider wrong only when there are new and conclusive experiments which are contrary with it.
    In this regard, what I want to say is that these experiments can not be taken as the evidences of relativistic because other theories can also explain them. Einstein admitted in "Introduction of Special and General Relativity" that Lorenz also explained for all of these facts and experimental results. Lorenz has proved that the results of Michelson-Morley experiment do not contradict Ether Theory.
    In recent years, many scientists express different views on the theory of relativity. For example, H. O. G. Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner, figured out that the theory of relativity was nothing more than a knick knack and it obliterated the distinction between science and pseudo-science. J. P. Wesley, a German senior theoretical physicist, said: "The theory of relativity has never been useful." J. G. Bernes, physics professor of Texas University in the U.S., said that the theory of relativity was "a disaster" and it's time to change the blind faith in the theory of relativity. "Physicists' general attitude to the theory of relativity is that they do not understand it but think it shouldn't be wrong because it has been recognized. I acknowledge that I have kept such an attitude until recent years." said by L. Essen, late senior scientist who was once the director of Time and Frequency Department of British National Laboratory. After his research, he finally found the theory of relativity was a contradiction full of loopholes. However, didn't they know that there were a large number of experiments to prove the theory of relativity was correct?
    In 1970, Paul Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that the concept of Ether didn't die but it was such a concept that hadn’t been discovered some usefulness yet as long as the basic issue remained unresolved, and that it must be remembered that there was a possibility. In 1979, he showed further that the cosmic background radiation contradicted Einstein's viewpoint, in his report on the meeting in memory of the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's birthday in Princeton in the U.S. In a sense, Lorenz is correct but Einstein is wrong. Why did Michelson and Morley get a null result and why didn't they found the earth's absolute movement? The only explanation is that their technology wasn't advanced enough. However, present technology is more advanced than a century ago. With the modern technology, the existence of absolute movement can be proved.
    Twenty years ago, I am also one of the admirers of Einstein. However, after in-depth thinking on the theory of relativity, I gradually thought that it was wrong but Ether Theory may be closer to the truth. I also understood why there were so many people that opposed it in the past 100 years and why the Nobel Prize judges refused to award a prize to Einstein for his theory.
    In China, some senior professors said that those who opposed the theory of relativity considered it wrong because they didn't understand it. Accordingly, I put forward my questions but they couldn't answer them. Because these questions weren't written in textbook, they had not though them before.
    Those senior professors also said that there were a large number of experiments which had proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which was contrary with it. Therefore, I asked them to answer the question in my paper that whether the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit around the optical fiber. However, they couldn’t answer it.
    I deem that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicts the theory of relativity. I also have analyzed the reason in my paper. If you do not agree with me, could you tell me whether they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit? In addition, there were two experiments in my paper both are against the theory of relativity, didn't you see them?
    I hope you are able to consider carefully about the questions and whether the Michelson-Morley experiment can prove the principle of constancy of light velocity. It would be better if you can discuss them with your colleagues and the experts who have been studying the relativity theory.
    If you can not answer the question, why couldn't you allow the person who can answer it to express a different viewpoint?
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    In your last letter, you asked me to consider your alternative explanation for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by invoking the concept of ether drag. The problem is that one cannot consider just this one experiment in isolation from the many other outstanding successes of the special theory of relativity.
    In proposing an alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is incumbent upon you as the author to show that the alternative theory does not lead to contradictions elsewhere. One of the most important examples is the energy levels of atomic hydrogen. These are in precise agreement with experiment when the special theory of relativity is included via the Dirac equation (together with higher-order quantum electrodynamic corrections), but not when they are omitted. If one abolishes the special theory of relativity in favor of a picture involving ether drag, then you must find some other way of restoring agreement between theory and experiment for the energy levels of atomic hydrogen.
    Unless you can do so, your proposal is incomplete and cannot be accepted for publication because it leads to a contradiction with the high-precision spectroscopic data for atomic hydrogen. You must similarly take into account the many other tests, such as the relativistic dynamics of particles in high energy accelerators, and the conversion of mass into energy. Particle accelerators would not work if the relativistic dynamics did not work correctly. It is not sufficient just to quote famous people who speculated about alternative theories. None of their speculations included ether drag as a serious alternative.
    I might suggest that you submit your paper to a journal that specializes in publishing speculative ideas.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gordon W.F. Drake
    Editor
    Physical Review A
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear professor,
    I am very glad to hear from you. Many thanks for your careful consideration and valuable suggestions on my paper. They are very significant for me.
    As far as I know, many physicists have realized that the theory of relativity has serious problems, but why are they still unwilling to give up their attitudes to the theory? Because they feel that they will be unable to explain these phenomena without the theory.
    In fact, this thought is not entirely correct. The issue has been talked about in the first mail to you. Nevertheless, these phenomena can be explained by Lorenz's theory. If there were not the theory of relativity, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove the Lorenz's theory.
    For instance, the energy levels of atomic hydrogen were accurately measured by Ives and Stilwell in 1938. This issue has also been talked about in the first mail. Ives opposed the theory of relativity all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.
    Lorenz agreed with the Ether theory. His theory, like the theory of relativity, is also not perfect. In addition, I can put forward my own theory, which can as well explain these phenomena which can be explained by Einstein's or Lorenz's theory. More over, my explanation is much simpler than theirs. This issue was mentioned in the first letter to you, but you could have not noticed.
    Please read the paper I sent to you today. The paper has been published in the U.S. with the reviewer’s evaluation as follow: “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”
    Of course, my theory is not perfect either and it needs continuous improvement. However, I feel that if you read my paper and mail carefully, you will consider my viewpoint with many fresh ideas even if you do not agree with it.
    I believe that we are far from the truth, but it also waits for us to explore continually.
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    Your paper has been rejected. Further consideration can only be given if you decide to exercise the option, available under this journal's Editorial Policies (copy enclosed), of appealing the decision to reject the manuscript. Adjudication of such an appeal is based on the version of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at this stage.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gordon W.F. Drake
    Editor
    Physical Review A
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,
    Please pardon my presumption in writing to you. My paper was rejected by editors of PRL and PRA without any reason, so all I can do is to beg an appeal for a fair and just treatment to my paper.
    The title of my paper is “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” with No. LY11626A.
    At first, I submitted my paper to PRL but received a rejection without any reason. I asked them twice for reasons, but they did not reply to me. So I switched to PRD, but they transferred my paper to PRA.
    Gordon W. F. Drake, an editor of PRA, rejected my paper on the same day of receiving. You can check it with the reasons given by him, as well as my response. After I refuted his reasons twice, I requested him to answer my question via special theory of relativity. However, he could neither answer my question nor point out any error in my paper, but rather giving me a new reason. Furthermore, that reason also has been refuted by me, and he accepted my paper for the moment. Unfortunately, after a few days and without the experts' review, he gave me his third rejection without any reason.
    Please read my paper which is novel and important and will reverse the wrong awareness of past and prompt people to change their views on the special theory of relativity via re-analysis of the past experiments. I think that is the main reason that why my paper was rejected by PRL and PRA. Another important reason may be that I am not an influential international professor. I think it is unfair and unjust.
    It will hinder the development of science. If in such a way, Copernicus' paper doubting the theory of center of the earth and Einstein's special theory of relativity would not be published, because their papers would change people's awareness and they were not influential international professor at that time.
    I request for your careful consideration on the questions and analysis in my paper, and you will find it is an important paper which only occurs once every 100 years. If the paper were published as early as 100 years, Einstein would have to give up his special theory of relativity, Planck would also rectify his evaluation to Einstein and Michelson would say that the special theory of relativity wasn’t supported by his experiment.
    It's worried that it will not be able to explain the past experiments without the special theory of relativity, but there is really no need for that fear. If there isn't the special theory of relativity, those experiments will be considered as the experimental evidences of Lorentz's theory. Even if there isn't Lorentz's theory, a substitute will be put forward. I have a paper with the title of "Applying Neutrosophy to Analyze and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity" published in the U.S. in accordance with the requirements of PRA.
    I believe you will treat it fairly and justly.
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang
    I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background. The 5D substitution of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not a theory at all. The absolute time is something mythical rather than well defined and justified, as well as all suggested relations for the velocity with respect to this absolute time. The criticism of STR in the paper is based mainly on what the author calls "paradoxes" of STR and on mentioning some problems of the modern astrophysics which are interpreted as contradicting to STR. The latter is not evident or proved to be true, and cannot be proved by a simple citation of sayings of some scientists. As for the "paradoxes", they are mostly not related to STR and they are not paradoxes at all. In particular, the author is worried mostly about masses acquired by particles during their acceleration and occurring owing to the Einstein's relation E=mc^2. According to the author's formulation, if a particle is accelerated and if the increase of its energy is interpreted as the increase of a mass, then in the rest-frame of this particle other objects will be seen as accelerated and increasing their energies and masses. As these other objects were not affected by any forces, increase of their energy seen from the particle's rest-frame is considered as an STR paradox. But in fact, this effect is not a specific feature of STR. It occurs even in the case of a starting train at a railroad. For a person sitting on a bench in the train and watching in a window for what's going on at the platform, all objects will seem being accelerated and, hence, increasing their energies whereas in the platform-frame all these objects remain at rest. Is this a paradox? Of course it is not, but even if some people can think this is a paradox, the effect is not related to STR. Two comments more. 1) STR is valid only for inertial frames, i.e., frames moving with respect to each other with constant velocities. Rigorously, processes of acceleration are beyond STR. 2) In STR the relation E=mc^2 is simply a definition of the relativistic mass m. The latter does not bear in itself any additional information compared to the energy E. Relativity of the concept of kinetic energy is illustrated quite well in the above described "railroad paradox", and it's hardly surprising at all. A simple substitution of the word "energy" by the word "mass" hardly adds any elements of a surprise to the fact of relativity of these physical quantities. Discussion of other "paradoxes" could be continued in a similar way. But it's hardly reasonable because all this leads to the conclusion formulated in the very beginning of the report: the paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics.
    Mikhail V. Fedorov
    Editorial Board Member
    Physical Review A
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear professor Gordon W.F. Drake,
    I appreciate that you submitted my appeal to professor Gene D. Sprouse. You are fair and impartial. I know that it is very difficult to issue my paper, as it challenges the mainstream theory. It is also very difficult for the editorial department to make the decision to publish it. I understand you.
    I do not know what Professor Gene D. Sprouse's opinion is about my paper. However, it is obvious that Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not understand my paper.
    Please note that I would like to publish paper LY11626A - Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? rather than Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity.
    Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity has been published in the United States. Please see <<a href="http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf">http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf>;. The comments of reviewers are:
    This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.
    Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not make any evaluation on my papers LY11626A. I would like to know if Mikhail V . Fedorov Professor can tell us his opinion about LY11626A. Can the two beams return to the starting point O at the same time?
    If Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov can not tell us, on what ground he refused my paper? Why he refuse to listen to different opinions?
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    I have reviewed the file concerning this manuscript which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your
    paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A, and resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor in Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision.
    On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gene D. Sprouse
    Editor in Chief
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,
    I'm very grateful for your focus on my paper.
    If I were editor, you were the author. If you sent me paper A, I refused your paper A before giving any comments on the papers but explaining that paper B is not suitable for publication. Do you think it is responsible and fair?
    Now editor refused my paper Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? before giving any comments on my papers, because my another paper is not suitable for publication. Is this responsible and fair?
    No one can point out any defects in the paper, but no one agree to publish this paper. That's the same as what I encountered in China: no one can answer my simple question and no one can point out any flaws of my papers. They said, we admit that we can not answer your question, but we do not recognize that the theory of relativity is wrong.
    This reminds me of a Danish fairy tale: the Emperor's new clothes are beautiful, which only smart talent is able to see. Ministers have praised this new dress is so beautiful, and dare not admit that he can not see any pieces of this new clothes. Finally, someone shouted that God, the emperor is wearing nothing. Ministers can not agree with him, but said that the person was not smart.
    Nobel Prize winner H.O.G.Alfven regarded the theory of relativity as "a small display," "deny the line between the science and pseudo-science." German senior theoretical physicist and doctor J.P.Wesley said: "the theory of relativity does never work." Does it? I raised such a simple question, no one can tell the answer. What is the use of the theory of relativity? If some people ask the question to you , how do you answer them?
    This letter is my final appeal to you. I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.
    Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov criticized that my another paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics, which, however, has been published. It is not the paper I would like to publish now. Is it ridiculous that on the grounds of that to refuse to publish this one? Is it convincing? Furthermore, without the theory of relativity, I can put forward my own theories to explain the phenomenon that the theory of relativity explains. Can professor Mikhail V. Fedorov do it?
    You can also see that no one can point out any error in my paper, which means that my paper is correct. Why can not the right papers be published?
    I know the real reason my paper having been refused: a professor, has been for decades, told the students that Michelson-Morley experiment is the experimental basis of the principle of constancy of light. Now, there are papers said that was not the case. Can the professor agree to publish such a paper?
    Although the majority of professors are unwilling to recognize the textbooks are wrong, the development of the history of science tells us that the truth will overcome the fallacy. Although the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the issuance of Copernicus's book, it can not save the wrong Geocentric Theory. Aristotle's followers evict Galileo out of the University of Pisa, but it can not save the wrong theory of heavy objects falling faster than the light objects.
    We commend the Copernicus, Galileo's courage to challenge the authority of error theory, despise those conservative-minded people who suppress Copernicus, Galileo. However, when Copernicus, Galileo's papers are sent to the Physical Review, will you release it?
    More and more people have realized that the theory of relativity is wrong. I believe that my paper can also help you to realize this. If you persist in refusing to publish my paper, I will contribute it to other journals. I believe that eventually there will be an open-minded journal to accept it, create a sensation, and rewrite physics.
    At that time, how the peoples will comment on American Physical Society having refused my paper? Is the principle of the American Physical Society to impede its development but promote the development of physics?
    I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.
    Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Dr. Huang,
    The decision of Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, Editor in Chief of the American Physical Society, regarding your paper LY11626A "Can the principle of constancy of light velocity..." was transmitted to you via hard copy letter on June 9th. Dr. Sprouse's decision, to confirm the rejection of your paper, is final. No further consideration of the paper can be made. You may want to consider submitting the paper to another journal.
    Yours sincerely,
    Amy Halsted
    Special Assistant to the Editor in Chief
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Editors,
    Although my paper was rejected ultimately, I still appreciate those people including editors in PRL, PRD, and PRA and Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, etc. You carefully reviewed my paper. I highly appreciate your serious attitude. In China, it is impossible for my paper can win such treatment or reach the hands of the Editor-in-Chief of Chinese Physical Society.
    Although you do not agree to publish my paper, you can not point out any problems of the paper, which is tantamount to that my paper is correct. This is the best assessment of my paper. I still thank you for the review process, which makes me more confident of the paper.
    I understand the reasons that I can not make the paper published. If I were the editor, I find it difficult to decide to publish such a paper. I will apply to other publications. Please delete my paper.
    Thanks again that American Physical Society carefully reviewed my paper, and thanks for each person reviewed this paper.
    Sincerely,
    Xinwei Huang


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9
    Hello, everyone!

    MMX tells us that in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.
    However, in zhe circle around the planet, the light back and forth dos not spent equal time?
    Rigorous thinking people will not easily come to this conclusion.
    Please seriously consider this issue!
    Please think carefully about this question:whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time.
    Please think carefully about why the APS editors can not answer this question and pointed out that any errors.

    Best Regards
    Xinwei Huang


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 ou see 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Nice piece of work. Otherwise you put it little more in laymans terms (as Einstein wrote a more popular book explaining his theories and ideas.) A newspaper or a popular scientific magazine might accept it and publish it. I,ts reasonable enough and an interesting view on the history of the experiment and how it funktions in physics.

    You,re absolutely right if there would be something aetherlike and an aetherwind and it would influence lightspeed for different directions this would also count for the interferometer in itself so for one path back and forth would outcancel each other.

    So it is not an argument I guess, the lightspeed can still be higher in one direction and lower in the other resulting in the same average lightspeed for the trajektory with a perpendicular angle. It is really weird.

    But I also don,t think it is different for both trajektory and also for back anf forth not different. It only would be if the interferometer was used outside in open air and with wind. Then still for both trajektory,s the same but for one or both one way and the reflected way a difference with back and forth canceling out.

    It would only be an increase in wavedistance with wind in back and decrease wind against. Nothing to do with "wavespeed" if the frecquency stays the same (it does if viewed in the same line / direction ) I suppose as with sound and water the produkt lambda * frequency just gets higher. Would be something if suddenly the waves at sea would change there speed locally there would be a gap.

    However, in zhe circle around the planet, the light back and forth dos not spent equal time?
    This would be the case if you assume an unseen "god given" aether relative to which we move and the air moves the earth rotates and moves .etc.

    Personally I think it mosly depends on wind direction and how fast the wind blows (which is mostly different with heigth). Solid ground/earth surface, things unmovably placed like houses etc it all may have a rather constant day-night cycle for water (also part of the earth) it is allready different for air also a simple airballoon would show this it won,t stay exactly above the same place. Nature knows no preference for referring to solid ground or to water only people seem to have and see the water as moving the ground not (they only are in relative motion).

    If you light a laser from a drifting balloon to another one at big distance the time distance (or the distance meassured with help of time, a clock) between the balloons won't change as long as the distance between
    them doesn,t change ( if they drift same direction).

    But as time involved for signalling when the second balloon has received the message after being send it has travelled a few meters seen from the ground.

    So the distance in meters on the ground is longer or shorter depending if the laser shoots against the wind or with it.

    Not because it is heavy for the light to travel against the wind (as the balloons drift it makes no difference) but simply because the second/receptive balloon has approached the location where the first was at the time the signal started.

    Hence if you use the ground (meters) as a reference for time as distance you see a different relation of meters and second.

    What actually happens is sort of a doppler effect when frecquency (time in the produkt : lambda * f) changes related to the ground.

    while the distance in meters was measured without time involved looking at both balloons at same time.

    If the same was done using the shadow of the balloons that travel over the ground.
    In that case If the signal is send the balloon that sends it sees it,s own shadow at a certain spot (and markes it).

    At that moment the second balloon hasn,t received the signal in completion. As that balloon receives the signal it,s shadow on the ground has moved a litle (depending on the distance between the balloons). This location marked also but as a little later then the first mark was made there is a different distance depending on the drift direktion relative to the signalling direction.

    If both directions (drifting and signalling) are the same the distance is longer then an instant meassurement of the distance if distances opposed the distance between the shadows (at different times not same time) is shortened a little.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I told you that the MM experiment is one of the most often misunderstood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9
    Many people can not understand why two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
    Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.
    The question now is whether their journey is equal after gyrating a circuit they return to point O.
    Many people think that they are not equal. Because of the rotation of the planet, the optical path of the light in counter-clockwise is less than that of the light in clockwise direction.
    Although I remind that they analyzes this issue in the inertial system that never rotates together with the planet, which completely ignores the results of the analysis on the planet's surface. But they turned a deaf ear. They always impose the result analysing from the inertial system to the planet's surface.

    I had to ask them to think about another question. Please see
    api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2o gup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG

    Viewing from the rotating disk, is the person's journey about 100 meters or about 300 meters ?
    Of course it is about 100 meters.
    Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk?

    Many people think that two beams of light can not return to point O at the same time because Sagnac effect.
    They said Sagnac shows effect up in GPS satellites.
    Yes, Sagnac effect shows up in GPS satellites. However, please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V.
    However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C.
    Sagnac effect exists because the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C±V.
    If the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C, does Sagnac effect still exist?

    My question is to reveal this.

    I think that the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
    If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ?
    They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper.
    This shows I was right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Xinwei Huang
    Many people can not understand why two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
    Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.
    The two beams arrive back at the same time because they have a different distance to travel over. This is because the MM apparatus contracts.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •