You can download at the Home page my publications :
E Brauns, "A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in "exact" science ?", 450 pages
E Brauns, "On multiple anomalies and inconsistencies regarding the description of light phenomena in contemporary science.", 9 pages
E Brauns, "On a massive anomaly through a straightforward laser experiment falsifying the equivalence principle for light.", 6 pages
E Brauns, "On the flawed Michelson and Morley experiment null-result paradigm.", 21 pages
E Brauns, "On a flawed Lorentz contraction paradigm caused by an erroneous Michelson-Morley model and null-result.", 11 pages
E Brauns, "Two massive anomalies within contemporary "exact" science's light paradigms proving that multiple contemporary paradigms (including the relativity paradigm) are totally flawed.", 47 pages
2.1 Experimentally detected anomaly (conflicting with the existing light behaviour paradigm)
In classic optics (contemporary science), a situation as depicted graphically in Figure 1, is considered to be trivial by most people: in a laboratory room a laser is set up and launches a beam of light in the perfect y-direction towards a fixed wall of which the midpoint is exactly on the ordinate axis (called Yobs2). The laser beam exactly starts at the origin (0,0) of the fixed reference frame having the ordinate axis Yobs2 and abscissa axis Xobs2. Since the laser set-up is at rest in the laboratory room the human observer (called Obs2 since another observer Obs1 will be introduced later), performing the experiment, is also considered to be at rest. Obs2 is trained in classic optics (contemporary science) and when asked if the laser beam will exactly hit the wall in the midpoint of the wall, Obs2 confirms of course that the laser beam is exactly lined up with the ordinate axis and thus indeed will hit the wall at its midpoint since the complete set-up and reference frame is fixed, thus ALL is AT REST.
Regarding the further views in this section one needs to consider light to consist of photons. The concept of light quanta (photons) was already introduced by Newton and Einstein stated this also explicitely: one can read about such at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers#Photoelectric_effect. Einstein indeed received in 1921 a Nobel price on the basis of his work on the Photoelectric Effect (publication Einstein, Albert (1905), "Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt", Annalen der Physik 17) in which he postulated that light itself consists of localized particles (quanta, thus photons). [It should be remarked that Einstein did not receive the Nobel price with respect to the relativity theory, as some people may think that he did.]
According to the training of Obs2, a photon called Photon1 that thus departs at (0,0) at time instant t1 will arrive, after travelling the distance to the wall, precisely at the midpoint of the wall at the time instant t2 .
Figure 1: Theoretical model in the human mind from classical optics
When however performing a real experiment with a laser (see 2.3 for some details about the set-up that was used), this so-called triviality of Figure 1 within the mind of the human observer, definitely shows that such theoretical model in that mind of the observer is not conform with the reality outside the observer's mind (see my critiques on the contemporary views and see the corrected views in 3.1 and 3.2). When thus using a laser with a very small beam divergence it is possible to generate with such a specific laser a very fine laser beam and thus also a small laser dot (e.g. 3 mm in diameter or less) at a wall at a distance of e.g. 10 m. When then capturing in regular time intervals with a PC controlled digital camera during a time period of 24 hours the laser dot position (on a fixed measuring grid having grid lines with an interdistance of 1 mm) and rendering those images into a movie, the result is shown in Figure 2.
This striking experimental observation of a changing laser dot position (which was considered to be a fixed position according to classical theory in optics and physics) on the measuring grid is linked to the very high orbit velocity of our planet around the sun (of about 30000 m/sec !) and its effect during a 24 hour axial rotation period of our planet. The room, the laser set-up and the wall/grid of course are NOT at rest and travel thus in fact along with our planet at a very large real velocity through real space. When I explained a university level engineer the effect and reason of a changing laser dot position at the wall in a 24 hour experiment, his first reaction was that light is THAT fast over a distance of 10 m that one can totally neglect any effect. So I challenged him to grab a scientific calculator and to first calculate the time that light needs to cross a distance of 10 m. Cynically he showed me the result of 3.33E-08 sec and he considered his claim "neglectable" as proven. Then I asked him to calculate the distance that our planet and thus also the wall (fixed on the surface of our planet) travelled in real space during the time interval that light needs to travel in real space from the laser to the wall over the distance of 10 m between laser and wall. He stayed cynical during that calculation only to find out, on the basis of the phenomenal orbit velocity of 30000 m/sec of our planet around the sun, the value of 0.001 m which is 1 mm (!!!). He could not believe what he saw on the calculator and calculated again the result only to find of course the very same value of 1 mm. So he was totally astonished that the wall travelled in real space over a distance of 1 mm during the "neglectable" travelling time of only 33.3 nanoseconds of light over the distance of 10 m from the laser to the wall. Intuitively he expected at the most an effect of micrometers or less but his intuition was very wrong and so he was baffled regarding the order of a full 1 mm ! At that moment he experienced a Gestalt Switch and thus immediately understood better the reason of a changing laser dot location at the wall during an experiment of 24 hours. He indeed understood that the direction of the real velocity vector of our planet (thus also the wall) is cyclically changing over a 24 hours full planet's rotation when compared to the direction of the line connecting the midpoint of the earth and the midpoint of our sun and that a laser dot shift then can be explained on straightforward grounds as presented in my publication and here at this website. He then compared the result and the meaning of the laser experiment, as shown within Figure 2, with an "Egg of Columbus" situation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus). So eventually grab your own scientific calculator and make yourself the very simple calculations to see for yourself and probably experience the same astonishment as I directed him to experience... Therefore it is even more strange that contemporary paradigm believers/defenders hide themselves, now already for years, in silence for this simple fact and the result presented in Figure 2. Moreover they also hide for the meaning and consequences of Figure 24 which proves that their particlular strange belief can only be totally wrong, namely that light, being launched in the y-direction, will inherit the velocity vector component in the x-direction of the moving laser source ...Regarding that belief there is also no information about the physics of the type of selective "inhereting mechanisms" of specifically/only the velocity vector x-component ! Too annoying for them as facts ? Hopefully the distribution of my publication of over 400 pages, that can be obtained at no cost, can finally change things in that respect and within the very near future. Then the urgently needed constructive paradigm shift processes, as described by Thomas Kuhn, can take place. A closed state-of-mind by contemporary paradigm believers only blocks such.
The result of the experiment of course has extremely important consequences with respect to the actual existing paradims regarding light phenomena. It should be remarked that the experimental observation shown in Figure 2 was observed in multiple separate experiments during 24 hour cycles and thus was proven to be reproducible. It is the object of the next sections to explain and discuss these observations. It should already be remarked here that the alternative laser experiment proves that the "rays of light" approach in the graphical representation within the publication of Michelson and Morley is totally flawed, thereby countering the null-result of the Michelson and Morley experiment. A plausible indication is given in section 5.2 regarding the eventual cause of the null-result within the Michelson and Morley experiment; such was not suggested up to now in the literature and should be controlled theoreticaly and experimentaly. The conclusion that was made from their experiment, thus the Lorentz contraction conclusion, then is simply based on a wrong model (graphical representation) which did not save at all the real light/photon phenomena and therefore should be corrected/abandoned on the basis of the experimental information disclosed from Figure 2.
The result of the laser experiment as shown in Figure 2 constitutes a destructive anomaly with respect to several contemporary paradigms, including the light clock paradigm, the possibility of travelling to the future paradigm (Langevin's twin paradox which is claimed by contemporary science not to be a paradox at all and "can be explained" by contemporary theories in physics) etc. See the other sections at this website. The laser experiment as described in this website in fact represents a full alternative experiment with respect to the Michelson and Morley experiment while moreover being very straightforward and less complicated as an experimental set-up when compared to the Michelson and Morley experimental set-up. Einstein quoted "One experiment can prove me wrong".
Multiple attempts over the years to publish the result of the laser experiment as shown in Figure 2 and the destructive consequences of the anomaly for contemporary paradigms in physics only were blocked by contemporary paradigm believers/defenders. You can read about that large scale tenacity and closed-state-of-mind of those contemporary paradigm believers in the last section of my publication. Hiding in deafness seems nowadays a powerful approach to silence new views. Up to now none of those contemporary paradigm believers countered the experimental result as shown in Figure 2. Also my urgent call from the very beginning to re-perform the straightforward type of laser experiment at universities or research centers only met silence and deafness up to now. The main goal of this website and my publication is indeed simply to stimulate at least some researchers out there who are showing an open-state-of-mind and who are willing to set up the type of laser experiment that I describe. In that respect they can find some more details and some set-up recommendations in my publication. When confirming the result of my laser experiment they will experience for themselves the existence of the anomaly as shown in Figure 2 and such would support the, in fact already existing, check-mate position (experimentally from Figure 2 but also theoretically from Figure 24) of the flawed contemporary paradigms. Again : that can only trigger the process of a paradigm shift as described by Thomas Kuhn. Figure 24 should already spur them even more to perform the laser experiment !
Figure 2: Result of a real laser experiment
2.2 Set-up moving at high speed in real space
In Figure 3, a graphical representation is introduced which shows two reference frames (in blue for Obs2 and in red for Obs1). Indeed, the laser set-up as described in section 2.2 is present within the laboratory room which evidently is located on our planet and thus in reality is moving in real space at high speed. Few people realize that the earth has an astounding orbit velocity around the sun of about 30 000 meter per second! Each second the earth thus therefore travels an impressive trajectory of 30 000 meter in space. When then considering the reference frame of Obs2 it is clear that the laboratory room and therefore in fact the reference frame itself is actually moving through real space at high speed. The reference frame "at rest" of Obs2 is therefore a mathematical construct in the mind of Obs2 and the mathematical artificial two-dimensional "space" as defined by that reference frame of Obs2 is thus virtual in the mind of Obs2 which does not exist in reality outside the mind of Obs2 as a real space.
In order to comply better with the situation of Obs2 (who now clearly realizes that (s)he and the Obs2 reference frame is not at all AT REST), a reference frame is introduced in Figure 3 belonging to an observer Obs1 who is really at rest in real space [try to explain the experimental results within Figure 2 and please don't react on these considerations as a paradigm-believer who only thinks from within her/his box but at least assume with an open mind just for now that the real space, where planets or space crafts are travelling in, corresponds to Newton's absolute space as the absolute reference at absolute rest ; you can then criticize the contents of this website later, after at least having read the views within the sections of this website]. The reference frame (in red) of Obs1 is thus assumed to be at absolute rest. Figure 4 shows an animated version of Figure 3: make very sure to remark that the location in real space where the Photon1 departed at the time instant t1 does not correspond any longer with the location of the origin of the frame of Obs2 at time instant t2 !
The argument from contemporary paradigm believers/defenders that the graphical representation within Figure 3 and Figure 4 is wrong, since those paradigm believers state (from circular referencing within the relativity theory) that "light inherits the horizontal velocity component of the light source" is simply killed by Figure 24 at this website. Figure 24 is a theoretical check-mate for those contemporary paradigm believers while Figure 2 is an experimental check-mate for them. But only silence from them for many years now with respect to the destructive anomalies for their paradigms as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 24. Read also in more detail in my publication about my critiques on - and questioning of - their beliefs about their "light's inheritance" principle of the horizontal velocity component of the light (laser) source...
Figure 3: Laser set-up within frame of Obs2 moving at high speed through real space (at rest)
Figure 4: Animation of the phenomena as depicted in Figure 3
2.3 Experimental conditions
The phenomena as described for the laser pulse (photon) within Figure 3 when travelling perfectly vertically towards the wall but then NOT arriving at the midpoint of the wall in the case that v>0 was experimentally proven as shown by the movie of Figure 2. When pointing a fixed laser towards a fixed measuring grid at a distance of e.g. 10 m, the earth’s high velocity in space will have in fact a significant effect on the position on the fixed measuring grid of the laser dot, during a time interval of 24 hours. Indeed, from the continuously changing angle of inclination of the set-up with respect to the sun during our planet’s 24 hour rotation, this should be comprehensible :
The consistent 24 hour effect of the earth's rotation on the location of the laser dot on the measuring grid, as measured experimentaly, is clear from Figure 2. However, in the human’s wrongly conditioned mathematical three dimensional Cartesian perception of space (frame x,y,z), to be “at rest” in a laboratory room it is wrongly “expected” that the laser dot at the measuring grid will stay perfectly fixed, thus in one steady position on the measuring grid. Since it is possible to present by experiment an anomaly with respect to such paradigm, that paradigm should cease to exist according to Popper’s falsification principle (Horsten, 2007, pp. 151-165).
Figure 7: Images of laser dot at the measuring grid at three time instants in a 24 hour laser test
Figure 8: Images of laser dot at the measuring grid at three time instants in another 24 hour laser test
Regarding the experiment, an advanced laser Brightline PRO showing a very small beam divergence (< 0.1 mrad) was purchased at Laserglow Technologies (USA). The laser was rigidly mounted on a tripod. The laser beam was horizontally directed to a measuring grid at a distance of 10 m (East-West direction). A low laser beam intensity was set by the laser power control unit in order to create an as small as possible laser beam dot size at the grid. The grid shows gridlines with an inter distance of 1 mm, as to be able to register the displacement of the laser dot during the 24 hour earth’s rotation. The laser dot was regularly photographed over a time period of 24 hours through a computerized trigger system and by using a high resolution digital camera on a tripod. The still photographs were then software sequenced (24 fps) into a movie (Figure 2) enabling the visualization of the laser dot position, moving on the reference grid from the earth's rotation effect. To check the reproducibility, the 24 hours experiment was repeated on multiple days.
The earth’s inclined rotational axis and the actual location of the laser experiment demands a rather complex and detailed three dimensional analysis to calculate the precise laser dot displacement on the grid, which is not the subject of this website. The results of the experiments however clearly show that the laser dot’s position is indeed not fixed on the measuring grid and that the size of the displacement is conform to the expected value. The sequenced photographs clearly show the movement of the laser dot position on the grid, being perfectly synchronous with the earth’s 24 hour rotation. Multiple 24 hour experiments showed a reproducible and consistent behaviour of the laser dot on the measuring grid. These observations evidently presents a severe anomaly towards the Michelson and Morley null result paradigm, as well as to the Lorentz paradigm.