You can download at the Home page my publications :
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, "A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in "exact" science ?, 450 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
(The next paragraph was added on November 8, 2011)
At the end of this paragraph you can download a critique on the calculation approach as made by Ronald van Elburg in trying to explain the neutrino anomaly being detected an reported on by the CERN Opera research team. The approach by van Elburg or any other calculation method for that matter which are based on reference frames, in the case that they are known to move in real space, will be erroneous when applying the contemporary paradigms. A reference frame on our planet's surface or a reference frame linked to a satellite indeed both move at a very high speed in real space since our planet moves at its orbit velocity in real space (estimated to be 30000 m/sec). It is shown on this website and also in the downloadable publications at this website that a photon's (or for that matter other "electromagnetic" information carriers) past location in real space simply cannot be represented correctly in such a moving reference frame. It is clear that Ronald van Elburg introduces such reference frames (as is classic within contemporary physics) since he writes at http://home.kpn.nl/vanelburg30/Publications.html : "The main point of the paper is about the OPERA experiment and not about GPS. If the hypothesis is wrong it should be easy for the OPERA team to prove it wrong. However, the whole concept of synchronization of clocks makes it hard to determine in which reference frame the OPERA experiment was set. I propose the experiment was set in the satellite reference frame and has been treated (at least partially) as if it were set in the CERN-Gran Sasso reference frame." Any attempt to explain the CERN Opera anomaly without considering the views as presented on this website thus will be erroneous since the fundaments (premises) in contemporary physics, on which the calculation method is based, do not save the real phenomena in real space and thus the calculation will be flawed. In an analog way e.g. the Michelson and Morley experiment is also based on a wrong graphical representation of photon phenomena and is thus also flawed, as explained on this website. The critique on the calculation approach as made by e.g. Ronald van Elburg was also sent by E-mail to a considerable number of the CERN Opera researchers and you can download the document here : Critique on van Elburg calculations regarding the OPERA neutrino anomaly
4.1 Real (absolute) velocity measuring device
From the preceding sections it is thus clear that a concept is feasible enabling the measurement of real (absolute) velocity. This is already described in detail in a patent text but reviewed here in order to point to the schematics of eventual set-ups. In the patent text a concept is introduced which uses an additional mirror or eventually two parallel mirrors to reflect the laser photons in order to increase the trajectory of the photons and thus increase the shift of the laser dot at a detector. However, only the concept without the use of a reflection of a mirror (or the use of multiple reflections by two parallel mirrors) is discussed here. Therefore, the drawing #6 from the patent text is introduced here and the measuring device without any mirror is schematically illustrated in Figure 12.
A tube-like container under vacuum holds a laser source and a sensor. The laser source is geometrically mounted perfectly in a way that the laser points exactly in a perpendicular direction towards the sensor. The sensor’s plane is perfectly perpendicular to the y-axis. The sensor allows to locate the arriving laser pulse and therefore also the signal shift which is caused by the velocity of the measuring device.
It should be noted that :
- if the device travels in the right-handed direction at a specific velocity, the signal shift at the sensor is at the left-handed side of the sensor
- if the device travels in the left-handed direction at a specific velocity, the signal shift at the sensor is at the right-handed side of the sensor
- it is therefore clear that, when the abscissa position (x-value) of arrival of the photons at the sensor is exactly the same as the abscissa position (x-value) of photons departures from the laser source, the only possibility is that the measuring device must be at absolute rest in the x-direction, thus having a real (an absolute) velocity equal to zero (simply no velocity to the left nor to the right which can only be equal to absolute rest in the x-direction). The device thus enables the measurement of real (absolute) velocity in one direction.
When having a three-dimensional set-up, as illustrated schematically in Figure 13, with three of such tube-shaped devices (each one according to Figure 12) perpendicular to one another, a full three-dimensional measurement system is obtained. Such a set-up thus would enable to measure all real (absolute) velocity vector components vx, vy and vz (thus also the trajectory direction) in space. If the signal shifts for all three measuring devices would be zero, the real (absolute) velocity vector components vx, vy and vz thus would also be zero and this would indicate that the device is at absolute rest in real (absolute) space in all directions.
A vector analysis of a velocity vector (v) in space can be considered, as illustrated in Figure 14 and Figure 15.
In the three dimensional analysis in Figure 14, a velocity v shows three vector components vx, vy and vz. Only the two-dimensional case (x,y) will be discussed here since the reasoning for a three-dimensional case including (x,z) and (y,z) is analogous.
Up to now, the discussion was restricted to the case (x,y) where only the vx value differs from zero. When having the situation as depicted in Figure 15 with a velocity vector vxy in the plane (x,y), the velocity measuring device also moves in the y-direction. From the fact that a photon being launched in the direction perpendicular to the x-axis is locked to real (absolute) space in the launch trajectory direction perpendicular to the x-axis it is clear that the measurement of vx is not influenced by the vy component of the velocity vector : the (x,y) based signal shift (point of arrival of the photon) in the device, as illustrated in Figure 12 but now also moving in the y-direction, and resulting from vx will remain the same for whatever value of vy. It is not the intention of this website to make the complete analysis regarding all signal shift aspects within the three dimensional measuring set-up but the basics of the approach should be clear from these considerations.
It thus can be concluded here that real (absolute) velocity indeed can be measured on the basis of the trajectory of photons in real (absolute) space since those photons are "locked" to real (absolute) space and thus can be used as a "witness". The device can be mounted on a space ship or used on our planet to measure real (absolute) velocity without the need of an independent second material object "at rest" as a reference. In a space ship the measuring device would enable to read the velocity, even in a confined compartment without any visual or whatever other contact with a second material object in space considered "at rest". A measuring concept and device is therefore possible which fully counters the paradigms of Galileo, Mach and others, which proclaim the non-existence of real (absolute) velocity.
4.2 Determining an object’s real position from the perceived position by using the real (absolute) velocity measuring device
It is common knowledge that the sun’s image arrives only on earth after 480 seconds since photons need that time to travel the distance between our planet and the sun. This means that an observer on earth perceives the sun in a location which happened already 480 seconds in the past and therefore the sun’s actual real position is in fact not observed but a position in the past. A sunset, when being defined in a geometrical way as the sun’s exact position disappearing behind the earth’s horizon as a result of the rotation of the earth, obviously happened in reality 8 minutes ago while the perceptible image as observed by an observer is linked to observed sunrays corresponding to an 8 minutes old image of the sun’s position !
What about the information delaying effect from the extremely high but still finite speed of light on earth itself ? It is indeed clear for an observer Obs2 on earth that the finite value of the speed of light results in a small but definite travelling time from a laser source to a wall. In addition, as illustrated in preceding sections on this website, the effect of the earth’s high velocity in space on the position of the location of the location of arrival of a photon was demonstrated to be significant. The same time interval effect is of course also true when an observer on earth observes a stationary object on earth at a given distance. The light signal coming from the object as the information carrier of the object’s position also needs a definite travelling time before reaching the observer. The incoming information which the observer receives is consequently also delayed according to this travelling time of the light. This may seem totally negligible at a first glance (and even not accounted for, up to now in science) but this is certainly not the case. Since any observer travels through space on our planet at a very high velocity (the earth’s orbit velocity), the delayed incoming information at the eye of the observer of the light signal from the observed stationary (relative to the observer) object in fact causes a significant, thus NOT negligible, effect with respect to the interpretation of the object’s real location.
For now, the exact value of the real (absolute) velocity of the earth in space obviously is not known since the sun’s complete planet system needs to be considered to also move in space, moreover within our moving galaxy. The real (absolute) velocity could be measured with the real (absolute) velocity measurement device as mentioned in section 4.1 but, in addition, the very complicated three dimensional situation of the observer on our globe also needs a profound mathematical analysis. Evidently, an accurate analysis would require a time demanding project and a team of specialists. As a result, only an oversimplified representation is pictured in Figure 17 showing an observer and an object, both stationary on “earth”. It is also assumed here for now that the orbit velocity of about 30000 meter per second of the earth, as mentioned in the literature, corresponds to its real (absolute) velocity in space. Of course this should only be accepted here for demonstration reasons since in reality a three dimensional real (absolute) velocity measuring device should be applied at the location of the observer. The “earth” in this example is therefore restricted to two dimensions, rotating in a 24 h mode in counter clockwise mode. The “earth” shows a "real" (an “absolute”) velocity of 30 000 m/sec in the x-direction in this oversimplified example. Corresponding to time intervals of 6 hours, four succeeding positions of the observer (Obs2) and the object (Obj) are drawn. In this example the observer and the object are stationary on earth while the distance between the observer and the object is 10 000 m.
Figure 17: Simplified representation of a surveying action of an object by an observer on "earth"
In the positions Obs2_B/Obj_B, the observer and the object move simultaneously and in parallel in the positive x-direction. It clear that this resembles to the situation of the real (absolute) velocity measuring device. A light signal departs from the object towards the observer, in the y-direction. This situation is somewhat more complicated since it could be argued that a hypothetical single photon travelling perfectly in the y-direction could not be perceived by the observer since the observer also moves in the x-direction during the photon’s travelling time from the object to the observer. However, in real life, an object being illuminated by e.g. the sunlight during daytime, is reflecting/scattering photons from each object’s surface point in all possible directions. Therefore it is clear that the photons which are actually visually captured by the observer’s eye are those photons which were send towards the observer at a particular (small) angle, a little off the y-direction. The trajectory could be analysed in detail with the implementation of trigonometric formulas in order to exactly calculate that very small off-angle (trajectory in absolute space) and the marginally increased travelling distance and travelling time of the light signal towards the observer. For very large distances such exercise could be made but in this case, with the “small” distance of 10000 m between object and observer, it is assumed that the travelling time can be approximated well by the division of the distance of 10000 m by the speed of light, resulting in a travelling time of 3.335 x 10-5 sec.
It can then be concluded that the difference between the object’s perceptible and real position is about 1 m since during the travelling time of 3.335 x 10-5 sec, the object has shifted that distance of 1 m in real space as a result of the high speed of our planet in space. The perceptible position of the object is thus estimated to be 1 m to the observer’s left (thus the real position is “+ 1 m” when compared to the perceived position). The estimate thus proves that it is very important in surveying applications, where light or a laser beam is used, to take into account the effect of the high velocity of our planet in space on the registered location of an object under survey. For an object at distances of 1000 m and 100 m these effects are estimated to be respectively 10 cm and 1 cm, to the left of the observer.
For positions Obs2_D/Obj_D the difference between the object’s perceptible and real position is also about 1 m but in that case the perceptible position of the object is then 1 m further to the observer’s right (thus the real position is “- 1 m”). In the case of the positions Obs2_A/Obj_A and Obs2_C/Obj_C the difference between the object’s perceptible and real position in the example is estimated to be null to the left/righthand of the observer.
The situation in positions Obs2_B and Obs2_D involves a very small angular shift of 0.006° (which is about 0° 0’ 22”) which is not noticeable to the humans eye. This angular shift is distant independent, in a way that a human’s visual perception is unable to detect the differences (luckely the speed of light is that high ...). However, highly accurate measurement devices would detect the effect and this could thus be important in a number of very high accuracy positioning (surveying) applications. This could be done by the assistance of a three dimensional real (absolute) velocity measuring system and by the calculation, through adequate transformation equations, of the real coordinates from the perceptible coordinates of the observed object. The extrapolation of the oversimplified one-dimensional based examples towards the real three-dimensional situation of the earth of course needs a much more complex analysis by experts in order to set up those correct transformation equations. In addition, the value of the real (absolute) velocity needs to be measured first also. However, the example shows the basis of the approach which is needed for that matter.
Such effects thus cannot be neglected in high accuracy surveying applications such as large buildings or other large constructions (e.g. large span bridges when working simultaneously from both construction sides towards the middle of the construction). In a building application's arbitrary example such as e.g. the Petronas twin towers in Kuala Lumpur with a height of about 500 m, a distance or height of 100 m involves a measuring device (surveying ; theodolite) of which the reading then can show an “error” of -10 mm to + 10 mm with respect to the REAL position of the observed material object when compared to the PERCEIVED one. Moreover, such error is depending (alternating) from the rotational position of our planet (time instant of the measurement in a 24 h interval) and direction (east, west, north, south). Up to now, geometrical measurements do not consider these error effects although they are extremely relevant and thus should be accounted for.
It is recommended to the Surveying Community to reproduce the laser experiment as discussed (see Figure 2) themselves and then come to the needed conclusions in that respect. Evidently a theodolite showing an accuracy of 1 arcsec should also be able to detect the effect by simply measuring the coordinates of a fixed reference point at a wall (preferably in a temperature conditioned research room) while using a fixed theodolite at a distance of e.g. 10 m and then observe the coordinate changes of the fixed point at the wall at the level of the registered arcsec value over a period of 24 hour by e.g. a data acquisition each 15 minutes. The Lissajous effect shown in Figure 2 should then also be reflected in those theodolite measurement results and then will also confirm our findings. The theodolite will indeed register during the 24 hour test a change in the apparent coordinates of the fixed reference point (at the arcsec level). The change is caused by the fact that the photons being send from the reference point need time to arrive at the theodolite and thus are from the past. Since the angle between
- the direction defined by the theodolite and the reference point
- the velocity vector of our planet
changes in the same way, as in the laser example in Figure 2, it is clear that the change of the order of 20 arcsec should also be detected in the theodolite results. Evidently the test needs to be performed properly which e.g. requires a stable floor for the theodolite tripod, a sufficiently long stabilizing settling period of the theodolite tripod to rule out mechanical effects (creep), probably a computerized data acquisition in order not to disturb the tripod manually after the stabilizing period, etc.
4.3 A suggestion for an alternative much cheaper Gravitational Wave Detection set-up, when compared to the Michelson interferometer based LIGO set-up
First some brief information on the LIGO experiment (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory). LIGO is based on the Michelson interferometer principle, but with two perpendicular vacuum tubes of each 4 km long (!), thus holding perpendicular laser beams. So, again, photons are used in the LIGO experiment ... (thus also see/remember my critique on the Michelson-Morley experiment). You can find on YouTube broad information on the LIGO experimental principles (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzZgFKoIfQI ) : there it is explained that a signal smaller than 1/1000 of the (charge) diameter of a proton needs to be detected !!! At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#Observations you can read the same with respect to the extremely weak signal to be detected : "Based on current models of astronomical events, and the prediction of the general theory of relativity, gravitational waves that originate tens of millions of light years from Earth are expected to distort the 4 kilometre mirror spacing by about 1E-18 m, less than one-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton. Equivalently, this is a relative change in distance of approximately one part in 1E21". Thus notice indeed the incredible specification of the needed detection of a super tiny distortion of 1E-18m for a distance of 4000 m which is thus a needed sensitivity of 1E-18m/4E03m = 2.5E-22 (or 2.5E-20 % ; that is 0.000000000000000000025 % which is simply mind blowing for an installation of such gigantic size (vacuum tubes of 4 km long !).
Evidently a massive amount of noisy signals is present in the data acquisition process during such an experiment, when trying to detect such super tiny signals. Within the data processing of that large amount of noisy signals the kind of mind blowing sensitivity, as described, is thus aimed at ! In that respect, two LIGO experiments at two different locations (twin LIGO detectors, located in Livingston-Louisiana and Hanford-Washington, USA) are performed in order to look for two 'simultaneous' resembling signals 'as a proof'. Remark here that it is called 'highly unlikely' that by coincidence two 'same' signals could be detected 'at the same time' at those two locations.
The merging of two black holes is considered in theory (mathematical modelling !) as a source of gravitational waves. The LIGO team in the USA (measurement on September 14 2015 and communicated on February 11 2016) claimed to have detected gravitational waves from "two merging black holes at 1.3 billion light years from our planet". The latter is thus ALL based on theory (models) and thus an "expectation" (from the interpretation of such theoretical model results). Even more specifically : according to these theoretical models, two spiraling black holes of respectively 29 and 36 solar masses into one blcak hole of 62 solar masses would have produced gravitational waves in a cataclysmic event of only two tenths of a second (during which - on teoretical grounds - there should have been a conversion of 3 solar masses into gravity waves). That event thus would have taken place about 1.3 billions of year ago, all according to the theoretical mathematical models. The solar masses of respectively 29 and 36 solar masses are parameter values in the model equations in order to obtain mathematically (theoretical) model signal results which then "fit" (coincide with) the measured LIGO experimental ones. Picking out a "significant" signal, lasting only two tenths of a second out of a myriad of other noisy signals and to find moreover a fit with a mathematical model result, AND moreover simultaneous in the two LIGO locations, could be called very unlikely to be only a statistical event. Nevertheless, the likelyhood is also NOT zero, as statistics can probably show, in the case of a massive number of such noisy signals within which the super tiny signal needs to be detected/extracted. As an indication in that respect : assume as an extreme that the gravitational wave experiment is performed 24hours/24hours, 7days/7days, 12months/12months : in one year there are 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 31 536 000 seconds ; thus 157 680 000 time intervals of two tenths of a second in one year. It is thus not totally impossible (which complements "highly unlikely") that comparable but independent noise of the same characteristics could emerge simultaneously in the signal seas at each of the two experimental locations.
Evidently, relativity paradigm believers will grasp the recent LIGO claim to stress the correctness of their paradigm as again being "proven" and to not consider in any way the massive anomalies, as presented in Figure 2 and Figure 24. But then my important remark (!) and as a good sport : even those rigid paradigm believers should at least consider the experimental result related to Figure 2 and then even reflect on the remarkable opportunity for them to use the much stronger signal that could be produced by the lateral signal concept of the laser set-up linked to Figure 2 ... ! In my opinion it would be a much, much cheaper set-up when compared to the Michelson interferometer type of set-up used in the LIGO experiment where two perpendicular vacuum tubes of 4 km are used ! If gravitational waves exist, then the transversal signal shift concept as used in the laser set-up linked to Figure 2 would even be much easier detected AND moreover in one single (even much shorter) tube, when compared to the extremely complex LIGO set-up principle. Thus of course here again a stringent plead to research centers and/or universities to re-perform the type of laser experiment as presented in Figure 2 and to see for themselves the result and thus also the potential of the concept that I endorse, even if they "despise" (as paradigm believers they do of course) the massive anomaly message linked to Figure 2. But in the latter case they need to be bold and look nevertheless into the concept related to Figure 2 in order to evaluate an alternative concept with respect to LIGO. I even suggest to call the alternative detection system LLDGWD (Lateral Laser Displacement Gravitational Wave Detector). The major problem of course that they then will have, after verifying the correctness of the reported effect as shown in Figure 2 : they will then also not be able to deny any longer the existence of a major destructive experimental anomaly with respect to the description of light phenomena by contemporary physics. So they will end up to be baffled with a major paradox and a checkmate/crisis situation with respect to multiple flawed contemporary paradigms based on light, which they rock-solid believed in ... (Thomas Kuhn ...).