Disagreement with Einstein



Mindful Subject Clearing – Physics

The Disturbance Hypothesis of Light

KHTK Postulates for Physics


From Evolution of Physics by Einstein

III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Ether and motion

Let us now write down the facts which have been sufficiently confirmed by experiment without bothering any more about the “e___r” problem.

(1) The velocity of light in empty space always has its standard value, independent of the motion of the source or receiver of light.

(2) In two c.s. moving uniformly, relative to each other, all laws of nature are exactly identical and there is no way of distinguishing absolute uniform motion.

There are many experiments to confirm these two statements and not a single one to contradict either of them. The first statement expresses the constant character of the velocity of light, the second generalizes the Galilean relativity principle, formulated for mechanical phenomena, to all happenings in nature.

In mechanics, we have seen: If the velocity of a material point is so and so, relative to one c.s., then it will be different in another c.s. moving uniformly, relative to the first. This follows from the simple mechanical transformation principles. They are immediately given by our intuition (man moving relative to ship and shore) and apparently nothing can be wrong here! But this transformation law is in contradiction to the constant character of the velocity of light. Or, in other words, we add a third principle:

(3) Positions and velocities are transformed from one inertial system to another according to the classical transformation.

The contradiction is then evident. We cannot combine (1), (2), and (3).

The classical transformation seems too obvious and simple for any attempt to change it. We have already tried to change (1) and (2) and came to a disagreement with experiment. All theories concerning the motion of “e___r” required an alteration of (1) and (2). This was no good. Once more we realize the serious character of our difficulties. A new clue is needed. It is supplied by accepting the fundamental assumptions (1) and (2), and, strange though it seems, giving up (3). The new clue starts from an analysis of the most fundamental and primitive concepts; we shall show how this analysis forces us to change our old views and removes all our difficulties.


Einstein’s conclusion in (1) is incorrect.

The velocity of light in empty space is not constant. The velocity of light is so much greater than the velocity of a material source of light that it appears to be constant.

Per Disturbance hypothesis, the velocity of electromagnetic radiation shall depend on its frequency. No experiment so far has been accurate enough to detect the difference in velocities of the colors in the visible spectrum. No experiments have been conducted to compare the velocity of light to the velocity of radio waves to the far left of the electromagnetic spectrum; or to the velocity of cosmic rays to the far right of the electromagnetic spectrum. The velocity of light cannot be considered an absolute constant.


Einstein’s conclusion in (2) is correct.

There is no way of distinguishing absolute uniform motion.

When considering the laws of nature one must also take into account the effect of inherent inertia on natural phenomena. The inherent inertia of light is very different from the inherent inertia of a moving body. This was not taken into account when comparing the velocity of light to the velocity of a material source of light in experiments that formed Einstein’s conclusion in (1).


Einstein’s decision to give up (3) is correct.

The classical transformation is “matter-centric” rather than “ether-centric.”

The “ether-centric” transformation shall take into account the effect of inherent inertia on natural phenomena as considered in Disturbance hypothesis. Please note that the Disturbance hypothesis still needs to be worked out in mathematical detail.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • 2ndxmr  On March 19, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    v:”Einstein’s conclusion in (1) is incorrect. The velocity of light in empty space is not constant.”

    Consider the classical case of the velocity of sound in air: the train approaches, the whistle pitch is higher; the train recedes the whistle pitch is lower.

    This is a 2 c.s. that sees the speed of sound as a constant and the effect of relative motion as a Doppler shift of the emitted radiation (the whistle).

    The same thing is evident between galaxies and we all know it as the red shift.

    Neither case violates the rule of the constant velocity of propagation in the medium.


    • vinaire  On March 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

      Velocity of a disturbance in a medium depends on the properties of the medium. My hunch is that in case of electromagnetic radiation, the frequency of the disturbance affects the inertial properties of the medium.

      I do not discard ether as the medium. I think that undisturbed ether is a field of zero inertia. The disturbace created in it imparts inertia to ether, which, in turn, affects the velocity of the disturbance.

      With inertia being a variable, the velocity will be a variable too. I am still working through this hypothesis.


%d bloggers like this: