pop special relativity vs moving medium theory

 Copyright Carl Janssen 2024

Title : Pop Special Relativity versus moving medium theory

What is moving medium theory?

Moving Medium Theory is the name I have chosen for an alternative theory to what I call pop special relativity.

Why did I choose the name moving medium theory?

I chose to call it that name for multiple reasons.  

First, because light in this theory always travels through a medium with a chemical composition instead of a perfect vacuum although the medium can be an imperfect vacuum.  In this theory the so called vacuum of outer space is actually a medium which is a low density fluid with a chemical composition and the movement.  In this theory the movement of this fluid relative to other objects effects how much black-body radiation this fluid sends to them in the form of the cosmic microwave background, which can be calculated by Doppler shift equations.  How much radiation from the cosmic microwave background a cesium clock experiences in this theory effects what time it displays.  

Second, because instead of speculating about the velocity of a hypothetical medium called Aether that light travels through, it instead supposes that light is traveling through a medium which can be observed and has a measurable velocity such as for example saying that light might travel through air with a measurable wind speed instead of through Aether.  

Third because the velocity the medium moves at may effect how light propagates in this theory.  Moving Medium theory explains the null results of many inferometer experiments by a means other than length contraction.  In moving medium theory the speed at which the inferometer moves is measured relative to the medium it is in when predicting how light should propagate, where as in Pop Lorenz Aether Theory and Pop Special relativity it is asserted that the earth is moving very fast therefore the inferometer must be moving really fast even though it might appear stationary relative to the person taking the measurements.

What do I mean by pop special relativity

By pop special relativity, I mean special relativity as generally defined by the popular mainstream media, from my point of view, from many years of watching, hearing and reading what has been labeled as both fiction and non-fiction sources.  According to wikipedia "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

One might argue that what I call pop special relativity is not the same as genuine theory special relativity and that I am using a straw man to debunk something that is not the real one and only genuine theory of special relativity.  But, I am calling it pop special relativity to avoid such a straw man argument so as not to accidentally misrepresent the one and only genuine theory of special relativity if there is such a thing.  Now my point of view about what is generally displayed to the public might be wrong but adding the phrase "from my point of view" to the phrase pop special relativity just makes this too long to write.

Another way to think about what I mean by pop special relativity is a certain theory I am presenting based on what would happen if certain popular misconceptions about special relativity were assumed to be true but only if you assume what I call pop special relativity does not line up with the one and only genuine theory of special relativity.  If pop special relativity does line up with the one and only genuine theory of relativity than what I call misconceptions are not misconceptions about that theory.

Basically, I am combining about 4 to 6 common mistakes, about the nature of reality, I believe people make when they mention Special Relativity and combining these mistakes into a single theory called Pop Special Relativity, which I will try to debunk because I do not believe it accurately reflects the nature of reality.  In addition to debunking it I will suggest an alternative theory called the Moving Medium Theory to explain some results in some experiments which some people believe support some of their Pop Special Relativity claims, hopefully I will do so without making the same 4 to 6 common mistakes that I attribute to Pop Special Relativity.

This article is not meant to be up to academic standards but just a starting place to get my ideas out in a informal manner

This is not a peer reviewed scientific journal article or homework for a academic institution and although some works are cited, this would not meat the academic requirements for citing works.  I will not cite any particular source to back up my claim that the theory I call Pop Special Relativity is a theory that I believe generally has been presented to the public under the name of Special Relativity.

How does moving Medium Theory Compare to the One and Only genuine Special Theory of Relativity

I do not assert that Moving Medium Theory either agrees with or disagrees with whatever you think is the One and Only Genuine Special Theory of Relativity is, you can judge that for yourself upon looking at the theory presented and perhaps you might judge that it is not complete enough for you to come to a conclusion one way or another.

Credit to conversations with people that can not be cited

One source of inspiration for this idea is someone who told me that they were measuring the speed of sound in a vacuum who claimed that sound does actually travel in a vacuum but it travels really slow.  I do not even know the name of this person so I can not attribute to them and they did not give me this theory but it strongly influenced me to think that light never actually travels in a perfect vacuum.

Another source of inspiration were some conversations I had with someone who died before I came up with this theory or at least this theory at the stage I currently have it in, based on my memory of when I was informed of this person's death.  This person mentioned how a previous researcher did not want to block the flow of air from outdoor windows when doing experiments but in doing so it ruined the necessary temperature regulation of the experiment to know if the source of any different results was from the temperature or from other factors.  This might have influenced me to think about the idea of how moving wind would effect light or sound waves compared to stationary air.

I can not footnote such conversations and they would legally be hearsay, nor do I trust that they would agree with my ideas, nor do I trust that my memory of such conversations would be correct.  Furthermore, I wonder if they would prefer not be associated with my ideas, anyway.

Four or five mistakes that I believe resulted in what I call Pop Special Relativity

First Mistake 

Believing that light travels through a medium called either a Perfect Vacuum or Aether which has a different velocity than the medium that light is actually travelling through.

Second Mistake part one

Assuming the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and does not depend on the velocity of the medium light is traveling through

Second Mistake part two

In the case of the Fizeau experiment they actually did pay attention to the velocity of a medium but incorrectly treated it like the flow was uniform when it was laminar and then incorrectly assumed the flow was going in the same direction as the light propagated when it changed directions to run a different direction than the direction light was propagating in when it got near turns in pipes which in my opinion resulted in different results than Fizeau predicted not because Pop Special Relativity is correct but because he made the wrong assumptions about the velocity of water in his model.  It is important to note that although some people object to the conclusions involving the Fizzeau experiment because of laminar flow.  I am adding a second reason involving the change in direction of water near the turns in the pipes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Third Mistake

Ignoring or denying the legitimacy of a reference frame in which The Earth is stationary when doing interferomoter experiments.

I will give an example of this involving the first special relativity lab experiment I ever remember doing, although I fear my memory maybe greatly wrong, I can not go back and ask the person, it is hard to tell what really happened and what was supplemented in my imagination as a result of later exposure to physics theories, so I will just give something that kind of fits my memory and kinds of fits the kinds of theories and experiments people do whether or not it is perfectly true to the event.  Unfortunately I have never seen such a object when I have tried to find a replication of this on the internet.  I can not really put a foot note of my vague memory, and as I said before this is not a formal academic article.

We were given equations and a piece of paper.  We were to stare at a closed circular object.  I believe it might have been a enclosed light where you could see circular fringe patterns through glass or transparent plastic.

The equations mentioned a velocity.  So I told the instructor that I was confused because the object was not moving and in fact I saw absolutely nothing moving in the entire experiment so I did not know what velocity to use because I did not know what object's velocity I should be measuring since nothing was moving.

He said the fringes should change pattern when they move but they will not change patterns and that I should shake it around and see that it does not change patterns when it was moving.  He did not say this but so that the reader understands, it was predicted that it should change fringe patterns according to some earlier theories and later theories were designed to explain why a multitude of devices like it do not change fringe patterns or do not change fringe patterns as much as predicted.

I believe he said it was a sodium lamp that he got at Home Depot or the name of some other store that was common during that year and that he modified it.

Looking back on this experiment I realized they most likely wanted us to put in the asserted velocity the earth was moving even though the earth was stationary relative to me from my reference frame.

Of course I could shake the object but no matter how fast I shake it without breaking it, it simply will not move as fast as the earth is asserted to move in such experiments so the change in fringes would only be based on a small fraction of the velocity asserted to be used for fringe calculations.

More over even if I did move the object the medium inside the object which the light propagates through would move right along with the object meaning that there is a 0 difference in velocity between the device and the medium which I suggest would result in no change in the fringes.  There maybe a Doppler shift of the light after it leaves the device on the way to my eyes if I shake it but I would suggest that for all practical purposes the interference pattern of the light inside the closed device should be the same before it leaves the device since the device is not moving relative to the medium inside it through which light propagates while inside it,

Some interferometers unlike this set up do not enclose the medium so they could move relative to the medium but they still would move at a much lower velocity than the asserted speed of the earth that is used however instead of attributing that a zero or much lower speed should have been plugged into calculations supporters of Pop Special Relativity assert that it was correct to plug in the asserted speed of the earth which was much higher and then the lack of significant change in fringes must be attributed to objects shrinking.

I propose ignoring the reference frame in which the earth is stationary has resulted in a wrong idea that objects shrink when you change reference frames in Pop Special Relativity.

Fourth Mistake

Confusing the change in time displayed on a clock with the amount of time that actually passed.  

If someone knows they are traveling at a certain speed but the clock displays that half as much time has passed as has actually passed then if they try to calculate how far they have traveled they will get half of the correct answer.

I would suggest the mistake of confusing the change in time displayed with a clock between two events with the actual change in time between two events further reinforces the belief that objects are different lengths in different reference frames for the same event and that likewise mistakenly believing objects are different lengths and the length between objects is different in different reference frames for the same event further reinforces the incorrect belief that the actual change in time between the same two events is different for different reference frames.  

Some people might object that in One and Only Genuine Special Theory of Relativity the lengths or distances involving actual real world objects do not change but that the only length or distances that change are in the coordinate systems however even if we assume that is true I would suggest that that is not how much of the general public sees it which is why I am comparing this with what I call Pop Special Relativity not with whatever you may think is the One and Only Genuine Special Theory of Relativity.

Potential Fifth Mistake

Possibly confusing the distance objects travel with the distance between objects and the length of objects.  This might have occurred with waves and or with non wave objects.

Time compared in Newtonian Physics vs moving medium theory vs pop special relativity

In Newtonian Physics the actual time an event occurs is the same in all reference frames.

In Newtonian Physics the change in actual time between two events is the same in all reference frames.

In Moving Medium Theory the actual time an event occurs is the same in all reference frames but the time displayed on clocks can be different from one clock to another.  In moving medium theory the time displayed on the same clock is the same for the same event in all reference frames.

In Moving Medium Theory the change in actual time between two events is the same in all reference frames but the change in time displayed on clocks can be different from one clock to another.  In moving medium theory the change in time displayed on the same clock between two events is the same in all reference frames.

In pop special relativity the actual time the same event occurs can be different in different reference frames.

In pop special relativity the change in actual time between two events can be different in different reference frames

Distance objects travel compared in Newtonian Physics vs Moving Medium Theory vs Pop Special Relativity

The distance an objects travels between two events in Newtonian Physics, Moving Medium Theory and Pop Special Relativity can be different in different reference frames.

For example, in both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory, if the distance between a runner and a race track start line, increases at a speed of v then from one reference frame the runner would not travel any distance at all but the start line would travel a distance of v*t  where as from a second reference frame the start line would not travel any distance at all but the runner would travel a distance of v*t and from a third reference frame they would both travel an equal distance of 0.5*v*t in opposite directions, but in all reference frames including the ones I have not listed, the distance between the object of the runner and the object of the start line would be equal to the same quantity of v*t

Distance between objects and Length of objects compared in Newtonian Physics vs Moving Medium Theory vs Pop Special Relativity

If the shape and size of an object is the same than the length between the same two parts of the same object are the same

In both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory the shape and size of the same object can be different for two different events.  In both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory if the distribution of pressure on the parts of an object are different for two different events then the shape and size of the object will be different for those two different events.  

In both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory if the distribution of pressure is the same on all parts of an object for two different events than the object will have the same shape and size for both events.

In both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory the shape and size of the same object during the same event is the same in all reference frames.

In both Newtonian Physics and Moving Medium Theory the distance between two objects will be the same in all reference frames for the same event.

In Pop Special Relativity the Shape and size of the the same object during the same event can be different in different reference frames

Velocity of light compared in Moving Medium Theory vs Pop Special Relativity

In Pop Special Relativity the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and for all events but the length of the medium light is moving through shrinks in the direction the medium is moving since the length of objects shrink relative to the direction they are moving in a reference frame.  However the medium does not shrink if it is stationary relative to the reference frame since shrinking of objects does not occur if they are stationary relative to a reference frame in Pop Special Relativity.

Ignoring rotations - If a medium is moving in uniform flow then in Moving Medium Theory the speed of light relative to that medium is the same in all reference frames for the same event and is based on the table for the speed of light for that medium.  The table would list the chemical composition, density, pressure and temperature and not rely on speculative results for a hypothetical Aether.

In moving medium theory the velocity of light is different for the same event in two different reference frames if the velocity of the medium the light is propagating through is different in each of those reference frames for the same medium.

Let's say light would travel from a source at a velocity of A*c in the X direction and B*c in the Y direction where the square root of A squared plus B squared equals one as according to the Pythagorean theorem from a reference frame in which the medium light is propagating through is both stationary and of uniform flow and in which the source is stationary relative to that reference frame.  Now if you are in the same reference frame but the medium is moving in a uniform flow with a velocity of E*c in the x direction and  F*c in the Y direction ( where the square root of E squared plus F squared might or might not equal one ) then in the Moving Medium Theory the light would travel at a velocity of ( A + E )*c in the X direction and ( B + F )*c in the Y direction and the length of the medium would not shrink in the direction that it is moving but in Pop Special Relativity the light would travel at a velocity of A*c in the X direction and B*c in the Y direction and the medium the light is traveling through would shrink in the direction the medium is traveling because in Pop Special Relativity the speed of light is the same in all reference frames

Let's look at another example which is one dimensional.