3-Theory

3.1 Critique on the classic representation of light phenomena in physics and the Lorentz contraction

In Figure 5 the simulation of the trajectory of a photon is represented, corresponding to a CS (Contemporary Science) graphical presentation, as found in the literature (e.g. Griffits, p. 485) or on the internet e.g. (https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm). The simulation illustrates a set-up of two parallel mirrors which are reflecting a photon or a laser pulse, back and forth, while moving horizontally at a velocity “v”.

It can be noticed that nowadays extremely short laser pulses are in fact available in industry, such as e.g. laser pulses of 200 femto second (1 femtosec = 1E-15 sec). Such a laser pulse shows a length of only 60 micrometer, which corresponds to about the thickness of a human hair. Such a small laser pulse could be considered as a “collection/package of photons”, travelling through real space. When e.g. having a trajectory of 1 m, that pulse with a length of only 60 micrometer, is obviously travelling that distance of 1 m while occupying at each time instant a very specific location in that spatial interval of 1m. The simplistic CS ray-of-light paradigm is  irrelevant to describe a 200 femto second laser pulse. In addition, it is also reported in the scientific literature that it is feasible to produce a single photon in a controlled manner. That clearly highlights even more that a light/laser pulse indeed incorporates a large collection of individual photons (light quanta).

From the CS simulation at the indicated website, as well as in Figure 5, thus being in accordance with the actual light paradigm in CS, it is also clear that CS claims that the photon precisely inherits the horizontal velocity component of the moving set-up: the photon indeed is considered to co-travel horizontally along with the set-up, at exactly the same speed of the set-up (thereby bouncing back and forth exactly between the midpoint of each mirror) for whatever horizontal velocity of the set-up. Thus also for any velocity of Zoe’s car at https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm. There is however in the CS literature no information at all on the mechanism by which a photon would be inheriting selectively only the horizontal velocity component (while CS forbids the inheriting mechanism in the vertical direction, in the case of also a vertical movement, since in that direction the speed of light is claimed by CS to be constant). 

Another firm example of that belief in CS about the photons inheriting the mirror’s or light/laser source’s horizontal velocity component is given at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxo1eJlLwM in a 4 minutes during representation, introducing Einstein’s relativity (including relativity’s consequence of time travelling, thus all according to CS). When scrolling to the time stamp value 2minutes30seconds, in that representation, the light clock principle (as claimed by CS) is illustrated very clearly. CS claims it to be very true that the light pulse continues to travel back and forth exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors, for whatever velocity value of that light clock device. That point of view (fundamental belief) within CS about the “inheritance of the horizontal velocity vector component” however has lead to the most massive paradigm inconsistency within CS, ever encountered in the history of science! That inconsistency has been overlooked by CS for over a century. That CS view of a back and forth bouncing of the light pulse, exactly between the midpoints of both (moving) mirrors, is merely based on an erroneous expectancy state of mind of the CPBDs (Contemporary Paradigm Believers and Defenders).  That expectancy state of mind of the CPBDs is based for over 150 years on the simplistic and primitive CS ray-of-light paradigm, as it was used in the very same flawed way by Michelson and Morley in their Figures 1 and 2 in their world famous publication: https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MichelsonAndMorleyPaper1887.pdf.

Michelson and Morley made a fundamental error in their graphical representation in their Figure 2 (see below), by claiming on the basis of the totally flawed and, for fundamental research, simplistic and primitive CS ray-of-light paradigm, that a photon, being reflected in midpoint “a” of the 45° inclined mirror,  travels exactly to the midpoint “b” of the upper horizontal mirror for whatever value of the horizontal velocity of their set-up. The Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm, as wrongly deduced from their totally flawed experiment (see 2.1 and 5.2 under the menu “Website 2006-2023” and see my series of three Elsevier publications under the menu “My Publications”), is however still accepted and defended by CS and thus by numerous CPBDs in an incomprehensible way.

I already proved by my straightforward laser experiment (already in 2006 when also registered in front of a notary and in a USPTO patent text) that this principle is totally wrong as also explained in the experimental section 2 “Experimental” and as demonstrated by my Figure 2. My straightforward laser experiment was moreover based on the falsification of the CS equivalence principle (for photon phenomena) by my proof of the existence of an irrefutable massive theoretical anomaly with respect to the CS views on photon phenomena. I could prove such through my straightforward thought experiment, as represented by Figure 24.

But first some further critiques/comments on the CS paradigm represented by Figure 5 (and represented at https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm and also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxo1eJlLwM). CS simply claims a direction depending velocity inheritance in the case of Figure 5 since the ‘bouncing’ photon is claimed by CS science to only inherit (as I call it : “in some strange selective way”) the horizontal velocity vector component of the ‘source’ (thus the mirror in this case) but forbids the inheritance principle in the y-direction in which the photon travels, in the case that the set-up would also move in the y-direction. Such is dictated by CS by the CS principle that the speed of light must be constant in the direction y of travel, despite an eventual velocity of the mirror set-up in that y-direction. In that respect two questions can be raised : “What is the ‘reflection’ mechanism that CS links to the back-and-forth ‘reflection’ of the photon(s) by the two mirror’s surfaces, exactly from midpoint to midpoint?” and in addition “What is in fact moreover then the mechanism of the CS direction selective inheritance of only the horizontal velocity vector component of a mirror?”. Those mechanisms are not explained at all by CS at the level of a single photon that is interfering at the mirror’s surface with the ‘so-called smooth’ and ‘reflective’ structure at that mirror’s surface, consisting of the outer electrons of the outer atoms in that surface layer of the mirror… Thus try to answer yourself such questions and try to explain yourself the mechanisms/phenomenology that would support the multiple peculiar CS claims/mechanisms and try to answer both questions yourself in the case of the CS paradigm, as represented by Figure 5.

At the moment that you start to think about those questions you will however probably get confronted with an additional question : “If the principle of the inheritance of the horizontal velocity vector component (as claimed by CS) would be true and the mechanism would be understood: the photon then could also inheriting that horizontal velocity vector component of a mirror at each other moment that the photon is reflected at the mirror’s surface?”. That would then expose an extra inconsistency within CS: when applying the inheritance principle/mechanism at each reflection, the photon then would acquire the mirror’s velocity at each single reflection? The photon then would not keep in sync within the representation by Figure 5 and thus would start to move, horizontally to the right, faster and faster? CS has to answer such: when applying the CS velocity inheritance principle during each reflection, the photon would not keep ‘bouncing’ exactly between the midpoints of both mirrors but thus would stray away (ultimately even passing the mirrors)?

A CPBD who would start here to throw in Einstein’s relativity theory must of course realize that Michelson and Morley did of course not know about Einstein’s relativity theory in 1887. However they implemented in their Figure 2 in their publication (see above) explicitly a graphical representation fully based on the CS ray-of-light paradigm. That paradigm is totally flawed but still, up to now, tenaciously defended by CS and the CPBDs in an incomprehensible and irrational way.  Michelson and Morley thus claimed in their Figure 2 (see above) that the light signal in their set-up was reflected from the midpoint “a” of the 45° inclined mirror to travel exactly to the midpoint “b” of the upper horizontal mirror, for whatever value of the horizontal velocity of their set-up. I consider a relativity argument here by a CPBD a convenient turning-in-circles-reasoning within another CS theoretical paradigm but without any concise explanation by that CPBD of the actual photon reflection phenomena/mechanisms at the surface of the mirrors. Thus also without a concise explanation by that CPBD of the real photon phenomena in the real world proving that direction selective velocity inheritance principle. In my opinion CS and the CPBDs will not be able to present such a scientific sound explanation based on a consistent phenomenological description of the photon trajectory “a” to “b” in Michelson and Morley’s Figure 2 in their publication.  In my opinion, neither will the CPBDs be able to present a scientific sound explanation, based on a consistent phenomenological description of a photon bouncing forth and back in the CS Figure 5. 

Then now the introduction of my thought experiment: consider therefore within Figure 24 a photon source which is mounted perfectly vertically upward on a horizontally movable set-up. The photon source is thus able to geometrically launch photons in the perfect vertical upward direction while the horizontal velocity of the set-up can be controlled to any value. An observer Obs1 is at rest (the frame xObs1, yObs1 is also at rest). The set-up does not move in the vertical direction and is positioned at the location xObs1=1 at the start (t=0) within the thought experiment. Assume now that individual photons are emitted each second, by the photon source. In order to be able to demonstrate the upward travelling of the photons, the yObs1-axis is scaled in light-seconds (each yObs1-axis scale unit corresponds to the distance traveled by light in one second).

The photon source is located in xObs1=1 during the first 3 seconds and thus the three photons (labelled #1, #2 and #3) travel accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 24. Since the photon source does not move in the horizontal direction during the first 3 seconds, evidently the three photons move upward along the line xObs1=1 (those three photons do not move in the horizontal direction).

The assumption is made in this thought experiment that immediately after t=3 sec the photon source is set in motion at an immediate horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec while still emitting a photon each second. Later in this text there is a discussion when not having in this thought experiment an assumed infinite high acceleration value with respect to an immediate horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec at t=3 sec but a finite acceleration value at t=3 sec.

In addition, the assumption is also made that the photon source immediately halts when arriving at the location xObs1=9.

CS claims that those photons, as being emitted from a moving laser source, inherit the horizontal velocity of the photon source and therefore, the photons with labels #4 … #10 thus should behave as illustrated in the animation within Figure 24. CS thus claims that those photons will “reside precisely” (while of course travelling vertically upwards) “above” the laser during the travelling of the photon source from the xObs1=1 to the xObs1=9 location. The label #4…#10 photon’s xObs1 locations are thus exactly the same as the photon source’s xObs1 locations in the 1 m < xObs1 < 9 m interval (as claimed by the views within CS). But the dramatic consequence of this all is that the photons with labels #4…#10 will also keep moving horizontally to the right since CS evidently cannot claim in any way that those photons (labels #4…#10) would stop moving to the right (at the velocity of 1 m/sec) at the moment that the photon source halts at the location xObs1=9 ! There is totally no mechanism why those photons (labels #4…#10) would be able to ‘notice’ the halting of the photon source at the location xObs1=9 and then also would stop moving to the right. It would be totally absurd if a CPBD would desperately try to save his paradigm by claiming that those, already travelling, photons (labels #4…#10) still would ‘detect’ and ‘inherit’ (in some mysterious way) the horizontal velocity being zero of the halted laser at the xObs1=9.

In addition, the photons (emitted by the halted photon source at the location xObs1=9) with the labels #11…#15 will show a zero horizontal velocity component, according to CS, since the photon source has a zero horizontal velocity from the moment that the photon source halted in the location xObs1=9.

Therefore the massive anomaly within the views of CS becomes extremely obvious: according to CS the photons with labels #4…#10 will simply keep moving horizontally to the right and therefore get completely disconnected, from a horizontal direction point of view, from the photons with the labels #1…#3 and, in an analogous way, become also disconnected (from the horizontal point of view) from the photons with the labels #11…#15. That is clearly illustrated within the graphical representation within Figure 24, fully based on the views within CS and thus still erroneously supported by numerous CPBDs.

Let us call the photons of type #1…#3 as belonging to a group A, the photons of type #4…#10 as belonging to a group B while considering the photons of type #11…#15 to belong to a group C. It should then be very obvious to anyone that the reasoning (all based on the CS views) above also must hold in the case that the photon source would continuously produce photons instead of 1 photon per second.

Indeed: consider a continuous laser, thus producing a large number of photons of the type of group A during the first 3 seconds. The very last photon within group A being produced by the laser, while standing still in the location xObs1=1, will travel in the same way as all the photons of group A, thus along the line x=1. However the very first photon being produced by the continuous laser when starting to move horizontally to the right after 3 seconds will inherit the horizontal velocity vector component of the laser (all according to CS) and thus will start to travel as the type of photons of group B. That means a permanent/lasting horizontally movement to the right, as claimed by the views of CS. Therefore anyone will immediately understand that the first photon of the type group B will start to drift/stray away to the right in the horizontal direction, from the last photon of the type group A.

Moreover that is also true in the case within the thought experiment when the acceleration (towards the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec after t=3 sec) is not assumed to be infinitely high but has a finite value. Indeed, in that case the very first photon of group B will inherit the actual horizontal velocity vector component (albeit even small at the start of the acceleration period) from the moving laser source (according to the views within CS) and therefore will inevitably drift away from the last photon of the group A .

Whether an infinite high (‘immediate’) acceleration or whether a finite acceleration of the laser source after 3 seconds: the conclusion/consequence of the effect of the horizontal drifting away between the very last photon of the type of group A and the very first photon of the type of group B holds. That drifting away between those two photons is a massive anomaly within the views of CS with respect to its linear/continuous/uninterrupted modeling of light phenomena (thus also the flawed and simplistic CS linear ray-of-light paradigm).

In the graphical representation by Figure 24, as resulting from the views within CS, there is thus clearly a positional disconnection/disruption between the photons of the group A and the photons of group B, of which the latter would keep on drifting away horizontally to the right! In fact that permanent horizontal drifting away to the right of the photons of group B is one major first anomaly while the clear disconnection/disruption between the photons of the group A and the photons of group B needs to be considered as a second major anomaly. As a result : the ‘continuous’ character of the so-called ‘laser beam’ is destroyed by that disconnection effect and thus forms a massive anomaly and gigantic inconsistency within the views as claimed by CS.

To illustrate that things are even getting worse regarding both anomalies, in the case of having within the thought experiment a finite acceleration value after 3 seconds and having a continuous laser, let us indicate all the photons being produced in the acceleration time interval (acceleration up to the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec) as to belong to the group indicated by A-B (group of photons of type A-B ‘in between’ the photons of group A and the photons of group B). The laser thus starts to move at some low velocity immediately after 3 seconds and therefore the first photons of this group A-B will inherit that low (but non-zero) velocity value (according to contemporary science). At the end of the acceleration period towards the laser velocity value of 1 m/sec it is obvious that the last photons of group A-B will inherit the laser’s velocity of 1 m/sec. The photons of group A-B thus show different inherited horizontal velocity values which leads to the obvious conclusion that those group A-B photons will also show different horizontal-drifting-away-to-the-right velocities ! Indeed, the first photons of group A-B will move more slowly to the right when compared to the last photons of group A-B (the latter move faster horizontally to the right).

CS thus should start to realize the additional absurd consequence (third anomaly) (within the discussed example) of its own peculiar principle of the horizontal velocity inheritance paradigm: the photons within group A-B will not alone drift away permanently horizontally to the right (which is already a very absurd consequence) but moreover those photons of the group A-B will also show a mutual drifting away from another as a result of their different inherited velocity values! As if CS allows the ‘laser beam’ segment of photons within group A-B to show from their horizontal location perspective, a stretching-in-space-effect.That third type of anomaly, as a result of an acceleration, clearly questions again the views within CS with respect to a ‘laser beam” and claimed to be representative as linear (thus the ‘ray of light’ model within the views of contemporary science).

Another absurd consequence (within the thought experiment) of the inheritance principle of the horizontal vector component of the laser’s velocity (as claimed by CS) becomes obvious when analyzing the photon phenomena in the case that there is not an infinite large deceleration, at the moment that the laser halts its movement. Let us therefore indicate all the photons being produced in the deceleration time interval (deceleration from the horizontal velocity of 1 m/sec to the zero value) as to belong to the group called B-C. The laser thus starts to move at a velocity somewhat lower than 1 m/sec and therefore the first photons of the group B-C will inherit that somewhat lower velocity value (according to contemporary science). At the start of the deceleration period towards the laser velocity value of 0 m/sec it is thus obvious that the first photons of group B-C will also permanently drift horizontally away to the right (as all the photons of group B) but as a result of their velocity value lower than 1 m/sec will start to lag behind, relative to the location of the photons of group B ! The photons in group B-C thus also show different inherited horizontal velocity values which again leads to the severe conclusion that those group B-C photons will also show different horizontal drifting-away-to-the-right velocities. Indeed the first photons of group B-C move faster to the right while the last photons of group B-C move slower.

CS thus should realize again that the additional absurd consequence/inconsistency (fourth anomaly) of its own very peculiar direction selective velocity inheritance paradigm: the photons of group B-C will not alone drift away permanently to the right (which again is already a very absurd consequence of that principle) but moreover those photons will also show a mutual drifting away from one another as a result of their different inherited velocity values. As if CS, again, also allows the ‘laser beam’ segment of photons within group B-C to show, from their horizontal location perspective, a stretching-in-space effect. Moreover, in the case of the B-C group of photons, the last photons will move horizontally slower to the right than the first photons of the group B-C in a way that the first photons of group B-C will pass the last photons, all this resulting from the views within CS. That complex and combined fourth type of anomaly (passing effect and (horizontal) location stretching effect), as a result of a deceleration, clearly questions again those views within CS regarding its linear ray-of-light paradigm.

When moreover having both a finite acceleration value and a finite deceleration value within the thought experiment related to Figure 24 the absurdity of the inheritance principle within the views of CS on light phenomena is highlighted even more. Indeed, anyone will understand quickly from the discussion above that, next to the permanent horizontal drifting away to the right of the photons of group A-B (acceleration period) and B-C (deceleration period) that even the last photons of group A-B will drift away faster than the last photons of the group B-C and thus eventually will pass those last photons of the group B-C. That consequence could be called a fifth anomaly and clearly destroys in addition the CS ‘linear model” representation of a continuous laser ‘beam’, all those anomalies leaving behind a shattered, totally flawed CS paradigm of a direction selective velocity inheritance principle in the case of light/photons.

The non-disputable non-stop horizontal drifting-away-to-the-right of photons and therefore their disconnection within Figure 24 thus already constitute in fact two major anomalies within CS. A third and fourth anomaly in the case of a finite acceleration and/or finite deceleration value is, on top of this all, the stretching-in-space effect of the photons of group A-B and group B-C. Such a series of multiple severe anomalies regarding the modeling of light phenomena, which CS seems not to have remarked up to now and moreover will not be able to explain/counter, thus certainly corresponds to a falsification (as defined by Popper) of the laser’s horizontal velocity component inheritance paradigm within CS with respect to photons.

The conflicting and irrefutable anomalies then correspond to a, by Popper defined, falsification which is much stronger (according to Popper’s falsification theory) than a series of different so-called verifications (by experiment). Also Einstein stated “One single experiment can prove me wrong“, thus supporting in fact the importance of the falsification principle. One single falsifying anomaly with respect to a CS paradigm then ultimately leads to a situation by which the complete series of experimental ‘verifications’ of that CS paradigm needs a total revision, as to detect the reason of an obvious misinterpretation by the CPBDs during those multiple types of verification experiments. Even the results claimed by more recent experiments then need a detailed reconsideration by the CPBDs.

As to the existing paradigms, the well-known Michelson-Morley experiment resulting in the CS null-result-paradigm is a CS paradigm and therefore the case of having even two severe main (multiple) anomalies at once, as revealed in Figure 2 (experimental anomaly) and in Figure 24 (theoretical anomaly) will lead to the need of a complete revision of the modeling (as used within the paper of Michelson and Morley) and thus also the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment. The effect as illustrated within Figure 1C, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 was indeed not considered in the graphical representation model being used by Michelson and Morley in their publication and thus needs to be implemented.

The Michelson-Morley experimental ‘null-result’ paradigm is moreover clearly falsified by my straightforward laser experiment of which the result is shown in Figure 2. Therefore the Michelson and Morley experiment then definitely needs to be reevaluated by the CPBDs and the flawed CS Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm should definitely be abandoned. The experimental set-up linked to Figure 2 is moreover much more straightforward than the Michelson and Morley experimental set-up. A signal of about 1 mm for a distance of about 10 m is indeed a very interesting experimental fact and therefore it is incomprehensible that up to now no university nor research laboratory has re-performed my straightforward type of laser experiment.

One should importantly note that the Michelson and Morley experiment is fully based on an extremely small longitudinal effect (direction of the travel of light) since the interference principle is used in their experiment. The laser experiment within Figure 2 is however not based on a small longitudinal effect but based on a large transversal effect (thus the observation of the effect is perpendicular to the direction of the travel of the photons), as favorable detectable on our planet. Therefore the laser experiment set-up, to create the result shown within Figure 2, is straightforward and sensitive specifically in the case that a sophisticated laser (and optics) would be used with an even much lower divergence (spot size; diameter < 1 mm) at a distance of the order of 10 m. Also the cost of such a set-up will be small when compared to the extremely high cost of actual (very large scale) scientific experimental set-ups involving laser/light set-ups (the very expensive Gravity Probe B and LIGO experiments could e.g. be mentioned here). The scientific importance of my groundbreaking findings is certainly no less than the scientific importance linked by CS to the Gravity Probe B or LIGO experiments. So again here the stringent call towards universities and/or research centers to simply re-perform my straightforward type of laser experiment to verify the existence of the clear anomaly (Figure 2) for themselves. At the moment that the result of Figure 2 is confirmed, CS science is facing a very large conflict regarding its multiple, totally flawed, contemporary paradigms involving light/photon phenomena (Thomas Kuhn’s  “Scientific Revolution” and accordingly the urgent need for massive paradigm shift in the domain of photon phenomena).

Figure 24 and the thought experiment thus prove, through the multiple inconsistencies/anomalies, that specific graphical representations (ray-of-light ; “laser beam”) within the CS light paradigms in fact definitely need to be reconsidered as being totally wrong for fundamental research and for high accuracy applications, from its own flawed CS basics, namely the totally flawed CS principle of the direction selective inheritance of the horizontal velocity of the laser (photon) source in the CS examples. That inheritance principle within CS thus needs to be abandoned since it leads to a dramatic misrepresentation of the real photon phenomena in real space. The consequences for specific paradigms in contemporary physics are extremely severe, as explained within the sections of this website (in addition see also Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 23).

The CS simulation within the CS Figure 5 is claimed here to be based on a wrong perception by CS and the CPBDs regarding the phenomena of such a laser pulse (or a photon within a laser beam) between two parallel mirrors. According to that wrong CPBD perception, the observer Obs2 (reference frame in blue) who travels along with the mirrors and who thus is “at rest relative to these mirrors” is expected by CS (the CPBD) to see the light beam to be reflected perfectly between both midpoints of the two mirrors, for whatever scalar value of the velocity “v” vector of the set-up. Moreover, the observer Obs1 who is linked to the reference frame in red in Figure 5 and who is observing the moving set-up of the two mirrors is expected by CS and the CPBDs to observe the light beam as presented by the red zig-zag lines in the simulation within Figure 5. As a result of that mistaken perception, CS and the CPBDs then create from the mathematical construction in Figure 5 the triangle as shown in Figure 6 and thus make a second severe mistake. Indeed, as the velocity of light c is considered by CS to be a constant in all reference systems (erroneously being influenced by the totally flawed Michelson and Morley (CS) null-result paradigm), Lorentz suggested that distance and time in one reference frame needs to be transformed in another reference frame through a contraction formula:

A velocity value v=0 results in a zero contraction (α=1). At a very high velocity the value of v²/c² becomes important as to the mathematical limit where v=c and v²/c²=1 and therefore then α=∞. At v=c, according to Lorentz (CS), the contraction becomes complete, meaning that an object’s length would be reduced to zero and time will stop. According to CS, a photon moves at the speed of light and thus time is infinitely slow (nil) for a photon traveling through real space. For a photon that travels over a distance of 13.5 billion light years (thus since the by CS hypothesized creation of the universe some 13.5 billion years ago) time would thus be nil during all its travel through the universe and still nil on the photon’s clock when arriving at the James Webb telescope, according to the CS relativity paradigm (the Lorentz contraction paradigm).

The Lorentz contraction as expressed by formula (1) can be simply deduced from the Pythagoras formula involving a rectangular triangle as shown by Figure 6, deduced from Figure 5. However, the triangle ABC in Figure 6 results from a completely flawed reasoning of the human mind when modelling the light phenomena as graphically represented by classic physics (optics) in the simulation within Figure 5.

Let’s analyze the mathematical derivation in the CS literature of the Lorentz contraction equation from the graphical representation within Figure 6. As indicated in Figure 6, Pythagoras can be applied for the indicated rectangular triangle ABC. According to that graphical representation in the CS literature, Obs1 would observe the photon to have traveled the distance AC = c.Δt_Obs1 in the Obs1 reference frame (in red). According to that same CS literature Obs2 however (reference frame in blue) would observe the photon to have traveled the distance AB=d between the upper and lower mirror. In order to the create a conversion between both observation frames, it is then stated in CS literature that the time Δt_Obs2 can be introduced as following (from the light speed “c” to be a constant for whatever observer):

AB = d = c . Δt_Obs2

When introducing this equation for AB = d in the Pythagoras equation AC² = AB² + BC² one obtains:

( c . Δt_Obs1 )² = ( c . Δt_Obs2 )² + ( v . Δt_Obs1 )²

Thus

( Δt_Obs2 )² = ( Δt_Obs1 )² – (v²/c²) . ( Δt_Obs1 )² = ( Δt_Obs1 )² . (1 – v²/c² )

Therefore the Lorentz contraction α becomes :

α = Δt_Obs1/ Δt_Obs2 = 1 / [ 1 – (v/c)² ] ^0.5

The Lorentz contraction equation paradigm, being based on a simple Pythagoras rectangular triangle formula, is however an artificial mathematical construction connected to an artificial mathematical space, all created within the mind of the CPBD, but not representing at all the real photon phenomena in real space as observed within the laser experiment (Figure 2) (I consider the Lorentz contraction formula therefore fictional/virtual and not corresponding to real photon phenomena in real space, thus leading to a massive paradigm error in the history of science). Indeed, a number of remarks can be made, from the viewpoints of Obs1 and Obs2, as explained in the next sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.2 Viewpoints of observers Obs1 and Obs2

3.2.1 Corrected views of Obs1

When considering the principle of a photon’s trajectory as illustrated in Figure 3 and in Figure 4 it should now be very clear that the CS graphical representation in Figure 5 showing a zig-zag trajectory of a photon (or laser pulse) in the reference frame of Obs1 is totally incorrect. A photon (or a very short laser pulse of e.g. 200 femto second) which is reflected by a mirror in the CS Figure 5 and as observed by Obs1 indeed needs to travel in a trajectory having a direction perpendicular to the x-axis towards to the other mirror. During the travelling time of the photon (or laser pulse) in the y-direction from the first mirror to the second mirror the set-up is also travelling through space in the x-direction in a way that the photon (or laser pulse) will not arrive at the midpoint of the second mirror. In order to demonstrate the effect in a dynamic way, a further enhanced visual representation (when compared to Figure 4) of the phenomena of photons or laser pulses (by e.g. a pulsed laser producing short laser pulses) can be found in Figure 9.

In Figure 9, a series of photons are generated by a photon source, located at the origin of the reference frame (in blue) of Obs2. In Figure 9 there is a wall where the photons will arrive. Figure 9 then clearly shows that Obs1 observes the individual photons (being emitted by the moving photon source) will each travel in their own separate/individual trajectory. Each trajectory is perfectly perpendicular to the x-axis since the photon is not inheriting the velocity component of the laser in the x-axis direction. The individual photon trajectories in Figure 9 are parallel to one another. A CPBD should therefore definitely abandon the totally flawed virtual reality type of the CS graphical representation within Figure 5, Figure 1 and Figure 1B. 

In Figure 9 the trajectory of each individual laser pulse is illustrated. It is interesting to observe the movement of the “red marker” photon/laser pulse. The original location of emission of that marker laser pulse within real space (real space as represented by the reference frame in red of Obs1) is indicated through a red dotted circle on the x-axis. That dotted circle has of course a fixed position in the reference frame of Obs1. It is clear that the location in real space of the marker photon/laser pulse at whatever time instant is perfectly on the line perpendicular to the x-axis and through the dotted red circle on the xObs1-axis. From the representation in Figure 9, a CPBD must recognizes the fact that each photon in the CS Figure 5 in reality always must travel exactly the perpendicular distance “AB”=“d” between both mirrors in the CS Figure 6, for whatever value of the velocity v of the set-up of the two mirrors in the CS Figure 5, and not the distance AC in the CS Figure 6. Obs1 observes that a photon, being emitted perpendicular to the x-axis, is indeed not showing a zig-zag trajectory at all in real space, as wrongly represented in the CS Figure 5.

In Figure 30 a CPBD can find in the upper part of the animation the flawed CS (CPBD) view of a photon’s trajectory bouncing forth an back between two horizontal mirrors (photon clock). In the lower part of the animaton in Figure 30, the correct view is graphically represented. The photon keeps on traveling forth and back along its perfect vertical trajectory in the reference frame (xObs1, yObs1) of real space. The conclusion from the correct view in the lower part of Figure 30 of course then is also that there is no need for a Lorentz contraction equation: the distance and time interval of the forth and back bouncing of the photon between the two horizontal mirrors is not a function of the horizontal velocity of the photon clock. The graphical representation by CS (CPBDs) in Figure 30 (upper part) and in the CS Figure 5 are merely illusions in the minds of the CPBDs and does not save at all the real photon phenomena in real space. The graphical representation in the lower part of  Figure 30 (correct view) does save the real photon phenomena in real space.

So, a CPBD should realize now that it is also no longer possible in fundamental research to accurately graphically represent photon phenomena in real space through a simplistic geometrical line (the totally flawed CS ray-of-light paradigm). If a CPBD would mistakenly e.g. state that a graphical representation by the line SF in Figure 10 would be correct, “corresponding to the CS ray-of-light paradigm”, then such CPBD evidently does again not save the phenomena of the photons in real space at all. The CPBD would then in fact claim that “light is traveling along SF as a ray-of-light which obviously, as can be understood from the dynamic representation within Figure 9, would be a totally flawed analysis by the CPBD. Such flawed ray-of-light analysis by the CPBD indeed would again not take into account the individual locations of the photons in real space as depicted in Figure 9, nor the specific time labeling of those locations in time of the individual photons, travelling through real space in the y-direction perpendicular to the x-axis in their individual trajectories.

Light phenomena thus should no longer be modeled by CPBDs through simplistic (rather primitive, when considering fundamental research) geometrical lines but only from the photon point of view (thus on the basis of light as consisting of individual light quanta (photons)). The line SF does not at all represent such quanta (photon) related behavior and is thus totally incorrect as a graphical representation in fundamental research. In reality, a photon even does not travel over the distance between S and F in Figure 10 but as indicated over a distance conform to the two locations of Photon “i” at time instants t1 and t2, thus between the locations Photon i(t1) and Photon i(t2) in Figure 10. The value of that distance is of course equal to the numerical value of the distance between M and S in Figure 10. To consider the line SF as a ray-of-light by a CPBD would thus be another CPBD modelling error next to the already indicated CS modelling error when considering the line “AC” in Figure 6 as a representation of the photon phenomena.

From Figure 10, another important conclusion is that the distance between the actual location F of the arrival at t2 of Photon “i” and the midpoint M of the wall (M is the location where the photon thus does not arrive in the case that the horizontal real velocity v is not zero) is simply proportional to the real velocity v of the set-up in the x-axis direction. This contradicts Mach’s point of view that only relative velocities of a material object Obj1 can be measured. Indeed the CS Galileo Galilei based  relativity paradigm states that it is always necessary to have another independent material object Obj2 (being defined to be “at rest”) as a reference in order to be able to determine the “relative” velocity of Obj1. However, from measuring the distance MF in Figure 10 it is possible to measure in the x-axis direction the real x-axis velocity vector component through an adequate set-up as described later in more detail in section 4.1. In section 4.1 my concept of a RVMD (Real Velocity Measuring Device) which is even able to determine the real velocity vector components (in all three dimensional directions in real space) of an object travelling (at high velocity in real space, is also discussed.

A CPBD who would still reject all of these findings is merely desperately trying to save virtual realities which only exist in the mind of the CPBD. Such state of mind of the CPBD results from a typical paradigm point of view of the CPBD. The CPBD is conditioned from his training in the CS paradigms and is only able to think rigidly  from the inside of the CS paradigm boxes. Such CPBD paradigm type of tenacious behavior is explained by Thomas Kuhn in his book on the evolution of scientific paradigm during the history of science. The closed minded type of CPBD will keep stating that the theories within the literature (from which that person was trained and in fact conditioned in) “must be correct”. According to such tenacious CPBD, the literature and the CS publications about the CS paradigms simply can never be wrong. However, Figure 5 is indeed derived from the CS paradigms related to light phenomena and published in such literature but Figure 5 is a totally flawed representation of the real photon phenomena in real space. As Kuhn proved in his book about paradigms: paradigms have shown over and over during the history of science to be totally flawed, in a way that they needed to be abandoned. The path of evolution of paradigms during the history of science is littered with flawed and abandoned paradigms. Such CPBD thus should abandon “trying to save the wrong appearances” and focus on “saving the real phenomena”. That CPBD should also re-perform my straightforward experiment as described in section 2 and then also come to my conclusion that numerous CS paradigms, based on photon phenomena are indeed totally flawed. That CPBD then will adopt and will start to support the new paradigm in a new school (view by Thomas Kuhn). 

In addition, it can be indicated here that Imre Lakatos e.g. also pointed to the fact that the wave-particle duality (two completely different but co-existing paradigms/models on light phenomena) is evidently not a sound situation in science (Horsten, 2007, p. 188). Horsten even states that it is probable that such an unsound situation of two co-existing paradigms will be surpassed one day (Horsten, 2007, p. 188). It is indeed contradictory that many CPBDs consider science as representing nature “as it is” while at the same time they have no problem at all to switch at will between either the quantum (photon) model of light or the wave model (introduced originally by Huygens by a simplistic graphical representation of circular waves and wave fronts and thereafter elaborated mathematically by Maxwell in his electromagnetic wave equations). The CPBDs should realize that the existence of completely different models is in fact the proof that CS is definitely not representing the world (reality), outside the human mind, “as it is” but only tries to describe it in the best possible way. The CS ray-of-light paradigm approach may be adequate and useful in daily practice (optics, technical applications) but totally inaccurate in fundamental research. When neglecting the important photon phenomena as represented by Figure 9 and Figure 10, wrong theoretical and practical conclusions by the CPBDs are the result. This will be discussed in section “4. Applications” where it is indicated that significant errors can be made in light based surveying measurements (high end theodolites), as a result of the effect of our planet’s high scalar value of the EOVV velocity on the trajectory of photons during the measurement.

3.2.2 Corrected views of Obs2

As represented within the CS Figure 5 and the CS Figure 6, CPBDs are convinced from the CS paradigms that a photon is bouncing back and forth perfectly between the midpoint of the first mirror and the midpoint of the second mirror. This is however a totally flawed representation within the mind of the CPBDs, caused by the CS perception that for Obs2 “both mirrors are at rest”, comparable to the situation as depicted by the CS Figure 1 and the CS Figure 1B in section 1 where the photon is expected to arrive perfectly at the midpoint of the opposing wall during a 24 hours experiment. A CPBD type of observer Obs2 in a laboratory room, while standing next to such a set-up, indeed is tempted to think erroneously that all fixed laboratory items are “at rest” which is evidently immediately disproved by the fact that the laboratory room, since located on our planet, in reality is travelling at a very high speed through real space. Obs2 and all CPBDs are erroneously convinced, on the basis of the CS ray-of-light paradigm, that they will observe light to be reflected (bouncing forth and back), precisely between the midpoints of those two parallel mirrors. But then there is the irrefutable experimental result in Figure 2 as a massive anomaly, falsifying in an irrevocable way the CS type of reasoning of Obs2 and the CPBDs, as graphically represented by the CS figures Figure 1, Figure 1B, Figure 5 and Figure 6. 

In reality however and when (see also Figure 30 again):

• the photon would have been reflected exactly in the midpoint of the first mirror and geometrically in a direction, perfectly perpendicular to both parallel mirrors,
• the travelling direction of the set-up of the two parallel mirrors would be perpendicular to the EOVV (Earth’s Orbit Velocity Vector) for the maximum effect,

that photon being reflected by the first mirror in its midpoint will then certainly not arrive in the midpoint of the second mirror, according to the same principle as expressed by Figure 1C, Figure 3 and Figure 4 (again: the latter principle was moreover verified experimentally, as illustrated in Figure 2). The fact that both mirrors in reality are moving in real space (Figure 30 “Correct view”), at the high scalar value of the EOVV, during the travelling time of the photon from the first mirror to the second mirror, should of course eliminate the illusion of Obs2 and the CPBDs that the mirror set-up is “at rest” in the laboratory room. The notion “at rest” by OBS2 and the CPBDs exists only virtually (thus as an illusion) in the virtual/artificial mathematical space of the “reference frame” of Obs2; a virtual mathematical space that only exists in the mind of Obs2 and in the minds of the CPBDs. Obviously real photons are surely not travelling in a virtual mathematical space but in reality only in real space. Flawed graphical representations in that virtual/artificial mathematical space of the “reference frame” of Obs2, produced by Obs2 and the CPBDs of course will not save the real photon phenomena occurring in real space. As a result of their still ongoing unconditional and irrational belief in flawed CS paradigms (Figure 1, Figure 1B, Figure 5 etc.), CS and the CPBDs are still believing and defending numerous totally flawed CS paradigms, based on photons.

CS and the CPBDs however should urgently start to realize that mathematical reference frames (of whatever type) merely correspond to an artificial/virtual mathematical space which not equals at all the unique, thus single, real space outside the mind of the CPBDs. A CPBD definitely should not dictate or force virtual/mathematical “phenomena”, only “existing” within an artificial mathematical space, upon the real space outside the CPBD’s mind and thus should stop to claim to have created a correct representation “of the real phenomena as they occur in real space”. The graphical representations, as defended by CS and the CPBDs, in Figure 1, Figure 1B, Figure 1C, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 24 and the upper part of Figure 30 are all totally flawed and do not save the real photon phenomena at all, occurring in real space. In short, CS paradigms based on light phenomena are simply a mess in the domain of fundamental research. Ihmre Lakatis was totally right since it is a fact that CS defends as a basis for visible light phenomena:

1. even the totally flawed primitive and simplistic ray-of-light paradigm
2. even the simplistic Huygens type of his graphical representation of light phenomena as circular shaped wave fronts
3. longitudinal electromagnetic wave paradigm, as represented by Maxwell’s four electromagnetic wave equations

next to a fourth light quanta (photon) paradigm, the latter being proven by Einstein himself for which he received his Nobel Prize. My reasoning and my findings on the basis of photons call for urgent paradigm shifts, thus stressing the urgently needed abandonment of multiple and flawed CS light phenomena paradigms, the latter still defended irrationally by CPBDS.

An acceptable graphical representation which combines both the reference frames of Obs1 and Obs2 is already discussed in 3.2.1 and illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. The graphical representation within the reference frame of Obs1 of photon trajectories perpendicular to the x-axis within those figures saves the phenomena of the photons. Figure 10 could be called a “photon-time based representation of the photon’s phenomena” since it shows the time instant and the corresponding location of one photon.

The linguistic model on the basis of the red marker photon/laser pulse in Figure 9 could e.g. be : “a photon/laser pulse “Photon i” was emitted from the laser (photon source) in the past at the time instant t1 in location Photon i (t1). The photon arrives at the now time instant t2 at the location Photon i (t2).The horizontal distance between the location Photon i (t1) and the yobs2-axis corresponds to MF. The distance represented by MF is equal to the horizontal displacement of the reference frame of Obs2 within real space (at perfect rest) upon which the reference frame of Obs1 is based.”

The representation within Figures 9 and 10 shows that each photon travels the very same distance as the red marker “Photon i”, being equal in numeric value to the distance MS. This is true in the reference frame of Obs2 as well as in the reference frame of Obs1! If CPBDs would finally accept such (while experiencing a profound Gestalt-Switch!) but then would still fall briefly into a pitfall of wrong reasoning by claiming that the red marker “Photon i” in the frame of Obs2 then must have traveled “side wards to the left” from S (where the photon source is positioned) towards F, those CPBDs then again forget that the red marker “Photon i”, being considered here, was emitted earlier by the photon source at the instant t1 in location “Photon i(t1)” in real space (red dotted circle on the xobs1-axis): the red marker reference photon it is thus not emitted in the location S(t2) in real space and only arrives later at the wall in Figure 10 at the time instance t2. Obs2 can not consider  S in the reference frame (xobs2,yobs2) at the time instant t2 to be representative for the location of emission in real space at the time instant t1 of the red marker “Photon i”. The latter is however what CPBDs are erroneously doing, from within a heavily fogged kind of reasoning, for over 150 years now. CS and CPBDs are simply producing totally flawed and misty mathematical representations op photon phenomena for over 150 years now which are totally inaccurate in fundamental research and therefore gave rise to numerous CS paradigms based on light which are totally flawed and urgently need to be abandoned.

If the CPBDs would continue to have doubts then the CPBDs should reflect deeply about the paradoxes that :

• if the CPBDs keeps on claiming that in the Obs2 frame the red marker photon was “emitted in the location S” and thus traveled the distance SF in the Obs2 reference frame, the CPBDs obviously deny the reality of the shorter real photon trajectory in real space as explained in Figures 9 and 10.
• the CPBDs then also encounter the mind boggling problem that they then claim that a photon, being emitted at the now time instant t2, would be emitted in the very same location in real space as the red marker photon was already emitted in the past at the past time instant t1 (and vice versa of course)?! Such view by the CPBD is totally irrational and would mean that the CPBD claims that both photons “would be present” or “have been present” in the very same location in real space at two different time instants, which of course is impossible since the photon source moved in real space in reality during the time interval between the time instant t1 and the time instant t2! Such should definitely wake up the CPBDs about their massive mistake and their irrational reasoning when insisting that e.g. SF is the travelling distance and trajectory. That also should convince the CPBDs that such type of misty CPBD views indeed are simply illusions within their minds. That the CPBDs need to fully understand such impossibilities and such illusions, is evidently of key importance. The Lorentz contraction equation is also build on an illusion, not corresponding at all with the reality in real space and only existing as a virtual construct in the mind of the CPBD.

The CPBDs thus will experience then a real strong Gestalt-Switch and the CPBDs will become convinced that also in the Obs2 reference frame the representative travelling distance of the red marker photon/laser pulse is the very same distance, as observed by Obs1 (of which the numeric value is equal to the value of MS). This results in Obs2 and Obs1 to conclude that the speed of light is indeed constant in both reference frames, but now on the basis of these totally new insights. Such requests a completely new mathematical approach that does not exist for the moment. From that point of view and in contrast with the publications in literature, a photon clock being build from a moving set-up of two parallel mirrors (see again Figure 30, lower part of the animation), then will evidently produce no difference at all in clock readings by Obs1 and Obs2: since each photon travels exactly the same distance having the numeric value of MS in both the reference frames of Obs1 and Obs2 (thus not, as indicated in Figure 6, the different distances AB in the reference frame of Obs2 and AC in the reference frame of Obs1; nor the different distance values of MS and SF in Figure 10).

A CPBD type of Obs2 is then also strongly stricken by another very important fact. Obs2 suddenly realizes that the origin of the mathematical Obs2 reference frame “travels through real space” at a high velocity and that the location (as observed by Obs1 at perfect rest in real space) of that origin in real space is thus time dependent (the origin of the reference frame of Obs1 is at perfect rest in real space). At an assumed EOVV scalar value of 30 000 meters per second that origin is displaced within one second over a distance of 30 000 meter.

Note: I know of course that there are many other cosmological velocity vectors but the problem is that there is actually no exact velocity vector addition analysis of those cosmological velocity vectors including the rotational SSOVV (Solar System Orbit Velocity Vector) within our galaxy (Milky Way), the linear MWVV (Milky Way Velocity Vector) of our galaxy, the GGVVs (Galaxies Groups Velocity Vectors, the GCVVs (Galaxies Clusters Velocity Vectors) and the superimposed inter-rotational orbit velocity vectors etc. To what extent do all these different cosmic velocity vectors attenuate one another when doing the velocity vector addition of all these numerous and unknown velocity vectors? No one knows for the moment, thus also no CPBD is able to comment on that further. 

Anyhow, a CPBD type of Obs2 then experiences a second conflict within his mind: how to correctly represent in a mathematical way the red marker photon/laser pulse in the Obs2 reference frame at time instant t1, thus the location of that red marker photon/laser pulse in the past time instant t1? From the considerations within Figures 9 and 10 (see the dotted circle on the xobs1-axis representing correctly the position of the red marker photon/laser pulse at the time instant t1 in the past) it is thus clearly incorrect by Obs2 to represent that position also in the origin of the Obs2 reference frame at a time instant t2! Obs2 thus suddenly realizes that it is indeed impossible to correctly represent that location in the past in the mathematical (virtual, artificial) “space” of the reference frame of Obs2, which is introduced and used by the human mind in trying to describe photon phenomena in the real space outside the human mind. This conclusion that there is no way to represent correctly a photon’s position in the past by a moving observer Obs2 in the reference frame of Obs2, is really mind boggling but nonetheless true. It is only possible to correctly represent all photon’s positions in the reference frame Obs1 at perfect rest in real space. This is of course also a big mathematical mistake made by CS that urgently needs to be addressed and solved! (see also Figure 11).

With respect to the reference frame of Obs2 and in the two-dimensional examples presented on this website, it is only possible to represent in a symbolical way, through a dotted circle on the x-axis of the Obs2 reference frame, the “past position” of the photon, as illustrated in Figure 11. That dotted circle should then only be interpreted as a “witness position, at time instant t1, while linked to real space, thus to the unique reference frame of Obs1 which is the sole reference frame completely linked to real space. The classic graphical representation in the reference frame of Obs2 simply fails for photons since photons become locked to real space at the moment that the photons are emitted from their source. In fact there is only one single perfect one-to-one correspondence: namely between the real phenomena of photons in real space (the latter at perfect rest) and the mathematical graphical representation within the frame of Obs1 (at perfect rest). Such one-to-one graphical correspondence is clearly impossible in the case of the frame of Obs2, moving in real space. This represents a major philosophical problem in science and the, in the literature existing, graphical representations of photons within mathematical reference frames therefore urgently need to be revised.

The astonishing conclusion is that up to now no CPBD has ever doubted the graphical (x,y) frame representation itself as a possible source of “not having saved the phenomena of photons”. The concluding key issue from the views on this website however is indeed that such is the massive problem in CS. It is now clear that a reference frame linked to a moving observer does not allow for a correct representation of a photon’s past location in real space. Therefore the actual CS type of representations are simply linked to an artificial/virtual/mathematical “space” construction by the human mind while in fact losing the one-to-one correspondence with the real photon phenomena in real space. Therefore, in mathematical reference frames moving in real space (to be considered as “artificial space” only existing in the human mind), all existing CS mathematical models of photon phenomena occurring in real space, in fact will show such one-to-one correspondence error when CS and CPBDs are neglecting (see also Figure 11) the reality of photons (as quanta) to travel in real space as demonstrated by my straightforward laser of which the experimental result can be viewed in Figure 2.

3.3 Theoretical proof through a thought experiment

The result as obtained by my straightforward laser experiment (illustrated in Figure 2) (already in2006) was predicted by me on beforehand (2005-2006), through my thought experiments. A specific one is described here.

Consider an observer Obs1 at rest and a reference frame (xObs1, yObs1) at rest. The xObs1-axis scale is in meters. However, the yObs1-axis scale is explicitly chosen in light-seconds, in order to be able to zoom in on the effect to be proven. Obs1 places a laser in location xObs1 = 1 m (Yobs1 =0). In this thought experiment, the laser is considered to be ideal without any beam divergence, thus a divergence equal to zero. The photons are emitted by the laser (at rest) in the perfect upward y-direction, thus perfectly parallel to the yObs1-axis when activated in the at rest location. The laser is mounted on a small carriage which can be commanded to travel immediately to the location xObs1 = 9 m at a velocity of 1 m per second. The laser then stops in the location xObs1 = 9 m, then again in perfect rest.

The thought experiment that Obs1 then performs is executed as following. Obs1 activates the laser at time instant t=0 sec while the laser is at rest in location xObs1 = 1 m. The laser will remain in that location during a few seconds and will then travel automatically to the location xObs1 = 9 m at the velocity of 1 m per second while continuously being activated. The photon production by the laser is thus not interrupted during its travel. In the location xObs1 = 9 m, the laser is again at rest and will continue to send photons in the upwards direction for a few seconds.

Since the laser is active for a few seconds in its at rest location xObs1 = 1 m it is obvious that a laser beam segment with a length of a few light seconds will be produced, moving upwards at the speed of light while being perfectly parallel to the yObs1-axis (tracer photons Photon1 to Photon3). Evidently and in an analogous way, there is also a production of a laser beam segment having a length of a few light seconds when the laser arrives in the location xObs1 = 9 m while, at rest, continuing to produce light for that few seconds (tracer photons Photon11 to Photon15).

The crucial question now is: what are the photon phenomena between the laser location xObs1 = 1 m and its location xObs1 = 9 m? The laser was not switched off and therefore the light production was continuous. Therefore it is very clear that the photons in the bottom part of the vertical laser beam segment, created during the first few seconds in the laser’s at rest location xObs1 = 1 m, needs to “stay connected” (continuity principle) all the time with the collection of photons being created by the laser when travelling from the location xObs1 = 1 m to the location xObs1 = 9 m. Moreover, the photons created by the moving laser, when just arriving in the location xObs1 = 9 m, also need to “stay connected” with the photons in the top part of the laser beam segment having a length of a few light seconds and being created by the laser at rest in the in the location xObs1 = 9 m.

The very revealing result of the light phenomena is then as presented in the animation within Figure 23. The thought experiment indeed confirms that the laser which moves from the position xObs1 = 1 m to the position at xObs1 = 9 min, will produce photons travelling in the way as depicted in Figure 23 by the “tracer” photons. The same principle was already shown in Figure 4, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and was even proven experimentally (Figure 2).

Since the scale of the yObs1-axis is in light-seconds, Figure 23 allows to visualize this very clearly. No CPBD has ever reflected about such effect, since probably “masked” by the very high speed of light, thus as a result of the extremely large distances that photons travel in a fraction of a second. Up to now, the impression in the CPBD mind was that a laser beam thus can always be represented as a straight line (CS ray-of-light paradigm). Obviously that wrong image by CS and the CPBDs should be replaced with the correct image as illustrated in Figure 23. CPBDs thus indeed need a Gestalt Switch to accept such new representation of photon phenomena. Since the scalar value of the EOVV is about 30 000 m/sec, it is also clear that the effect presented in Figure 23 predicts the result of my straightforward laser experiment (already in 2006) as explained on this website and shown in Figure 2. My thought experiment thus in fact simply predicted the result, that I obtained through a straightforward laser experiment that I designed on that basis, and is presented in Figure 2. Figure 2 thus even only verifies experimentally my theoretical views (2005-2006) as also presented in Figure 23.

Moreover, consider an observer Obs2 who travels along with the carriage, on which the laser is mounted. Obs2 defines a reference frame (xObs2, yObs2) of which the origin (0,0) coincides with the location of the laser. Evidently in the case of a CPBD type of Obs2, such Obs2 

• would be very wrong when stating that the trajectory of the photons, can be represented graphically (CS ray-of-light paradigm) by drawing a vertical line through the origin of the reference frame of Obs2.
• thus has multiple and severe problems within the CS light paradigms since Obs2, being fixed to the Obs2 reference frame (xObs2, yObs2), should understand at e.g. the time instant t=15 sec that in reality:
  • the real location in real space where the photons were produced during the first past few seconds does not correspond at all at the now time instant t=15 sec to the artificial mathematical origin (0,0) of the reference frame (virtual space, mathematical space) of Obs2. Obs2 must realize that (xobs2, yobs2) = (0,0) is not representative for the location of emission of those photons emitted during the first past few seconds. 
  • such is also the case for all the photons produced by the moving laser between the laser’s location xObs1 = 1 m and the laser’s location xObs1 = 9 m

Obs2 is thus even unable to correctly represent in the mathematical artificial “space” of the reference frame of Obs2 the locations of emission of the photons produced before the laser’s arrival at the location xObs1 = 9 m. Such conclusion is extremely important since it reveals a massive shortcoming in the contemporary mathematical modelling of photon phenomena. Whatever type of CS mathematical reference frame that Obs2 as a CPBD is trying to use: at the moment there is no appropriate mathematical approach to address this massive mathematical problem. That massive mathematical problem needs to be urgently solved by expert mathematicians.

During all these years from 2006-2023 only one single CPBD indeed “accepted” at a specific moment the significant displacement effect of the laser dot at the measuring grid as illustrated in Figure 2 but then, strangely, only from a CPBD’s view that the planet Earth is not an inertial system. Such acceptance by a CPBD of the result in Figure 2 of course was already very important (from whatever point of paradigm view) but that also means that (certainly without realizing such) that CPBD then of course also questioned implicitly the Michelson and Morley experiment null-result paradigm. Indeed, the CPBD did not realize that the experimental effect, as illustrated in Figure 2, was and still is not fully implemented in the analysis (model) of the Michelson and Morley experiment. As a result for such CPBDs the challenges then remain of course to:

• prove that the significant effect shown in Figure 2 is not caused (opinion of the CPBD) by our planet’s EOVV but as a result of (see the opinion of the CPBD) our planet not representing an inertial system
• then reconsider the Michelson and Morley experiment and implement the effect as presented in Figure 2 in that experiment’s analysis (see also section 5.2 for more details).

The multiple inclined mirror’s in the Michelson and Morley experiment and the thereby induced deviation must have caused a decisive run-away effect of the photons during the rotation of the set-up table, thereby destroying the calibration of the set-up and amplifying massively the experimental error. Such must have caused the erroneous null-result resulting in a flawed CS paradigm. A CPBD must realize here again that the experimental result shown in Figure 2 in fact already falsifies totally that Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm. In that respect Thomas Kuhn writes : “Normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and interpretation, but by a sudden and unstructured event like the Gestalt Switch. Scientists then often speak of the “scales falling from the eyes” or of the “lightning flash” that “inundates” a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution“. Regarding the numerous CPBDs who I encountered: “the scales still did not fall from their eyes” during the period 2006 – December 2023 of over 15 years whereas GPT-4 only took seconds (in December 2023) to understand the importance of my findings and to support my findings with to the point comments (see menu “My Publications” and the submenus linked to my series of three Elsevier publicaitions).

My straightforward laser and its irrefutable experimental result, as shown in Figure 2, is of course a much easier to perform experimental alternative of the Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment. Thomas Kuhn writes : “Therefore paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to a crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternative candidate for paradigm… Testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms.” As indicated in 5.2 an additional experiment introducing also an inclined (polished metal) mirror would only strengthen the conclusions from the result as shown in my Figure 2. However, up to now (2006-2023) the tenacious CPBDs prefer to keep on displaying their total neglect of the irrefutable result presented in Figure 2 and keep holding on tightly to their closed-state-of-mind stance. They simply block progress in science. Thomas Kuhn was to the point in his book about such blocking and regrettable small human closed-mind factors, even in CS (as Max Planck also experienced).