Category Archives: KHTK Physics

Comments on Faraday’s Ray Vibrations


Reference: Disturbance Theory


This is a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard Philips on April 15, 1846. It is available at “Experimental Researches in Electricity”, Vol III, M. Faraday, p447-452.

Here is a brief summary of my comments.

Faraday was an experimentalist and not a theorist. Based on extensive experimentation, Faraday boiled down the phenomena of electricity and magnetism to LINES OF FORCE. To Faraday, matter was an abstraction of atomic nuclei, which were essentially the CENTERS OF FORCE. The lines of force originated from and terminated at these centers.

Other physicists and mathematicians theorized action at a distance; but Faraday saw effects propagating through the intervening space by lines of force. Faraday suggested that the vibrations of radiation and radiant phenomena may also occur in the lines of force, thus dispensing with the then popular idea of aether.

Thus, to Faraday, the radiative phenomena were the forces themselves traveling as vibrations. They formed their own medium. No other medium was required. The supposed high elasticity of aether could then be explained by sluggishness (inertia) of the lines of force.


The contents of Faraday’s letter follow. My comments follow the paragraphs in bold color italics.

To Richard Phillips, Esq.

Dear Sir,

At your request I will endeavor to convey to you a notion of that which I ventured to say at the close of the last Friday-evening Meeting, incidental to the account I gave of Wheatstone’s electro-magnetic chronoscope; but from first to last understand that I merely threw out as matter for speculation, the vague impressions of my mind, for I gave nothing as the result of sufficient consideration, or as the settled conviction, or even probable conclusion at which I had arrived.

Faraday was chairing a Friday lecture at the “Royal Institution,” by Charles Wheatstone, on a device Wheatstone had invented for measuring very short time intervals. Half an hour before the talk the lecturer went home (for whatever reason), leaving Faraday with an assembled audience but no lecturer. [This allegedly started a custom in the Royal Institution to lock speakers in an office half an hour before their talks]. Faraday knew enough about the subject to give a good account of Wheatstone’s “chronoscope,” leaving ample time to spare. To fill time, Faraday then added his own lecture, with the above title.

The point intended to be set forth for consideration of the hearers was, whether it was not possible that vibrations which in a certain theory are assumed to account for radiation and radiant phaenomena may not occur in the lines of force which connect particles, and consequently masses of matter together; a notion which as far as is admitted, will dispense with the aether, which in another view, is supposed to be the medium in which these vibrations take place.

Faraday was an experimentalist and not a theorist. Based on extensive experimentation, Faraday boiled down the phenomena of electricity and magnetism to LINES OF FORCE. Other physicists and mathematicians theorized action at a distance; but Faraday saw effects propagating through the intervening space by lines of force. Faraday suggested that the vibrations of radiation and radiant phenomena may also occur in the lines of force, thus dispensing with the then popular idea of aether.

You are aware of the speculation [M. Faraday, Phil Magazine, 1844, Vol XXIV, p136; or Exp.Res.II.284] which I some time since uttered respecting that view of the nature of matter which considers its ultimate atoms as centres of force, and not as so many little bodies surrounded by forces, the bodies being considered in the abstract as independent of the forces and capable of existing without them. In the latter view, these little particles have a definite form and a certain limited size; in the former view such is not the case, for that which represents size may be considered as extending to any distance to which the lines of force of the particle extend: the particle indeed is supposed to exist only by these forces, and where they are it is. The consideration of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant phenomena.

Faraday saw the ultimate atoms of matter as centers of forces and not as so many little bodies surrounded by forces. Scientists considered atoms to exist separately and independently of forces; but in Faraday’s view the lines of forces of the particles determined its body and the size. Thus the particle existed only by these forces. Faraday then thought that the lines of force may even form the seat of vibrations of radiant phenomena.

Another consideration bearing conjointly on the hypothetical view both of matter and radiation, arises from the comparison of the velocities with which the radiant action and certain powers of matter are transmitted. The velocity of light through space is about 190,000 miles in a second; the velocity of electricity is, by the experiments of Wheatstone, shown to be as great as this, if not greater: the light is supposed to be transmitted by vibrations through an aether which is, so to speak, destitute of gravitation, but infinite in elasticity; the electricity is transmitted through a small metallic wire, and is often viewed as transmitted by vibrations also. That the electric transference depends on the forces or powers of the matter of the wire can hardly be doubted, when we consider the different conductibility of the various metallic and other bodies; the means of affecting it by heat or cold; the way in which conducting bodies by combination enter into the constitution of non-conducting substances, and the contrary; and the actual existence of one elementary body, carbon, both in the conducting and non-conducting state. The power of electric conduction (being a transmission of force equal in velocity to that of light) appears to be tied up in and dependent upon the properties of the matter, and is, as it were, existent in them.

Faraday saw the transmission of radiation to be very similar to the transference of electricity. The velocities of light and electrical current were practically the same. Light was transmitted by vibrations through an aether, which had no mass but was infinite in elasticity. Electricity was also transmitted by vibration but through a metallic wire, which had mass and other properties of matter.

I suppose we may compare together the matter of the aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in the abstract as matter, and of force or power associated with these nuclei, or else both consisting of mere centres of force, according to Boscovich’s theory and the view put forth in my speculation; for there is no reason to assume that the nuclei are more requisite in the one case than in the other. It is true that the copper gravitates and the aether does not, and that therefore the copper is ponderable and the aether is not; but that cannot indicate the presence of nuclei in the copper more than in the aether, for of all the powers of matter gravitation is the one in which the force extends to the greatest possible distance from the supposed nucleus, being infinite in relation to the size of the latter, and reducing the nucleus to a mere centre of force. The smallest atom of matter on the earth acts directly on the smallest atom of matter in the sun, though they are 95,000,000 miles apart; further, atoms which, to our knowledge, are at least nineteen times that distance, and indeed in cometary masses, far more, are in a similar way tied together by the lines of force extending from and belonging to each. What is there in the condition of the particles of the supposed aether, if there be even only one such particle between us and the sun, that can in subtility and extent compare to this?

Faraday reasoned that a particle of ordinary matter gravitates, and the force of gravitation ties two such particles together even when they are at immense distances. How did then a particle of ether compare to a particle of matter?

Let us not be confused by the ponderability and gravitation of heavy matter, as if they proved the presence of the abstract nuclei; these are due not to the nuclei, but to the force super-added to them, if the nuclei exist at all; and, if the aether particles be without this force, which according to the assumption is the case, then they are more material, in the abstract sense, than the matter of this our globe; for matter, according to the assumption, being made up of nuclei and force, the aether particles have in this respect proportionately more of the nucleus and less of the force.

On the other hand, the infinite elasticity assumed as belonging to the particles of the aether, is as striking and positive a force of it as gravity is of ponderable particles, and produces in its way effects as great; in witness whereof we have all the varieties of radiant agency as exhibited in luminous, caloric, and actinic phaenomena.

Perhaps I am in error in thinking the idea generally formed of the aether is that its nuclei are almost infinitely small, and that such force as it has, namely its elasticity, is almost infinitely intense. But if such be the received notion, what then is left in the aether but force or centres of force? As gravitation and solidity do not belong to it, perhaps many may admit this conclusion; but what are gravitation and solidity? certainly not the weight and contact of the abstract nuclei. The one is the consequence of an attractive force, which can act at distances as great as the mind of man can estimate or conceive; and the other is the consequence of a repulsive force, which forbids for ever the contact or touch of any two nuclei; so that these powers or properties should not in any degree lead those persons who conceive of the aether as a thing consisting of force only, to think any otherwise of ponderable matter, except that it has more and other forces associated with it than the aether has.

In experimental philosophy we can, by the phaenomena presented, recognize various kinds of lines of force; thus there are the lines of gravitating force, those of electro-static induction, those of magnetic action, and others partaking of a dynamic character might be perhaps included. The lines of electric and magnetic action are by many considered as exerted through space like the lines of gravitating force. For my own part, I incline to believe that when there are intervening particles of matter (being themselves only centres of force), they take part in carrying on the force through the line, but that when there are none, the line proceeds through space. Whatever the view adopted respecting them may be, we can, at all events, affect these lines of force in a manner which may be conceived as partaking of the nature of a shake or lateral vibration. For suppose two bodies, A B, distant from each other and under mutual action, and therefore connected by lines of force, and let us fix our attention upon one resultant of force, having an invariable direction as regards space; if one of the bodies move in the least degree right or left, or if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention; for, either it will increase in force whilst the neighboring results are diminishing, or it will fall in force as they are increasing.

The particles of aether may not have gravitation but they have infinite elasticity. Both gravitation and elasticity are alike forces. There are various kinds of lines of force but they all have the same dynamic character. They transmit any change at one end immediately to the other end, which may appear like a vibration.

It may be asked, what lines of force are there in nature which are fitted to convey such an action and supply for the vibrating theory the place of the aether? I do not pretend to answer this question with any confidence; all I can say is, that I do not perceive in any part of space, whether (to use the common phrase) vacant or filled with matter, anything but forces and the lines in which they are exerted. The lines of weight or gravitating force are, certainly, extensive enough to answer in this respect any demand made upon them by radiant phaenomena; and so, probably, are the lines of magnetic force: and then who can forget that Mossotti has shown that gravitation, aggregation, electric force, and electro-chemical action may all have one common connection or origin; and so, in their actions at a distance, may have in common that infinite scope which some of these actions are known to possess?

Faraday saw in space, whether vacant or filled with matter, only forces and the lines in which they were exerted. This accounted for the electric and magnetic phenomena. It could also account for the gravitational phenomenon, and its action at a distance. The vibrating theory of light could equally be described through lines of force in place of aether.

The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water.

Faraday thus considered radiation as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force, which are known to connect particles and also masses of matter together. This idea dismissed aether but not vibration. The vibrations that accounted for the wonderful phenomena of polarization were real; but they did not require a separate medium. They were apt condition for the action itself.

The occurrence of a change at one end of a line of force easily suggests a consequent change at the other. The propagation of light, and therefore probably of all radiant action, occupies time; and, that a vibration of the line of force should account for the phaenomena of radiation, it is necessary that such vibration should occupy time also. I am not aware whether there are any data by which it has been, or could be ascertained whether such a power as gravitation acts without occupying time, or whether lines of force being already in existence, such a lateral disturbance at one end as I have suggested above, would require time, or must of necessity be felt instantly at the other end.

The propagation of light, and therefore probably of all radiant action, occupies time. It may be concluded that any transmission of effect over lines of force should also occupy time. Faraday saw the impossibility of instantaneous action at a distance even in case of gravitation.

As to that condition of the lines of force which represents the assumed high elasticity of the aether, it cannot in this respect be deficient: the question here seems rather to be, whether the lines are sluggish enough in their action to render them equivalent to the aether in respect of the time known experimentally to be occupied in the transmission of radiant force.

Faraday substituted the high elasticity of aether by sluggishness (inertia) of the lines of force.

The aether is assumed as pervading all bodies as well as space: in the view now set forth, it is the forces of the atomic centres which pervade (and make) all bodies, and also penetrate all space. As regards space, the difference is, that the aether presents successive parts of centres of action, and the present supposition only lines of action; as regards matter, the difference is, that the aether lies between the particles and so carries on the vibrations, whilst as respects the supposition, it is by the lines of force between the centres of the particles that the vibration is continued. As to the difference in intensity of action within matter under the two views, I suppose it will be very difficult to draw any conclusion, for when we take the simplest state of common matter and that which most nearly causes it to approximate to the condition of the aether, namely the state of the rare gas, how soon do we find in its elasticity and the mutual repulsion of its particles, a departure from the law, that the action is inversely as the square of the distance!

In Faraday’s view, force pervades all bodies and space and not aether. The force even forms the bodies and space. We no longer have aether “filling” the space or vibrating between the particles. All we have are various conditions of force. These conditions express the inverse square law much better than the idea of aether.

And now, my dear Phillips, I must conclude. I do not think I should have allowed these notions to have escaped from me, had I not been led unawares, and without previous consideration, by the circumstances of the evening on which I had to appear suddenly and occupy the place of another. Now that I have put them on paper, I feel that I ought to have kept them much longer for study, consideration, and, perhaps final rejection; and it is only because they are sure to go abroad in one way or another, in consequence of their utterance on that evening, that I give shape, if shape it may be called, in this reply to your inquiry. One thing is certain, that any hypothetical view of radiation which is likely to be received or retained as satisfactory, must not much longer comprehend alone certain phaenomena of light, but must include those of heat and of actinic influence also, and even the conjoined phaenomena of sensible heat and chemical power produced by them. In this respect, a view, which is in some degree founded upon the ordinary forces of matter, may perhaps find a little consideration amongst the other views that will probably arise.

Faraday admitted that his views required more study and experimentation, but he felt certain that any view of radiation must also include, in addition to light, the phenomenon of heat, and the chemical effects produced by radiation. This justified the broader view of force.

I think it likely that I have made many mistakes in the preceeding pages, for even to myself, my ideas on this point appear only as the shadow of a speculation, or as one of those impressions on the mind which are allowable for a time as guides to thought and research. He who labours in experimental inquiries knows how numerous these are, and how often their apparent fitness and beauty vanish before the progress and development of real natural truth.

The text of Faraday may be difficult to understand, with ideas no longer held about the “aether” and the nature of atoms. However Faraday’s main ideas are: the lines of force fill all space, and light propagating in space is a vibrating line of force. These lines of forces terminate at atoms of matter, which form the center of forces. Faraday felt such “transverse” waves, oscillating sideways like waves in molded gelatin (“jello”), explained the way light could be polarized. This last paragraph is an example of Faraday’s charming style.

I am, my dear Phillips,

Ever truly yours,

M. Faraday,

April 15, 1846


Comments on Newton’s Laws of Motion


Reference: Disturbance Theory


Newton’s First Law states, “Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”

In my opinion the right line is an approximation of the curvature of a circumference of near infinite radius. Therefore the curvature of the right line is negligibly small, but there is a curvature.

The normal problem with the perception of uniform motion is that we can give it any velocity by choosing an arbitrary inertial frame. We can “see” a particle moving at the speed of light by imagining an inertial frame that is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction.

Any body that is naturally in uniform motion is actually rotating around some axis. It has a radial component that may be negligibly small because the distance of the body from its axis of rotation is infinitely large. But it is that radial component that must be referenced to get the correct idea of the tangential component, which we happen to see as uniform linear motion.

Newton’s first law is correct in a relative sense only because the uniform motion also occurs when the net force on the object is zero. Here we have forces acting on the object, but they balance themselves out.

When a body maintains its status quo of motion in the absence of force, it is said to have inertia. Newton attributed this property to matter only, because electromagnetic field as a substance was not yet discovered in his time.

Newton was very uneasy about ‘action at a distance’. He would have readily accepted the concept of the field because it gave a better explanation. Newton would have assigned the property of inertia to field as well, because field maintains its frequency in the absence of external influence.

The Newtonian body is actually made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a field of rapidly increasing frequency. Electrons are like “eddies” in that field. The nucleus forms up at the center of an atom as a very condensed field, which contains the most mass.


Newton’s Second Law states, “The change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.”

Each particle in this universe seems to be moving under the influence of some force, whether by itself or as part of some body. The planets are not only spinning but they are also revolving around another object. Both of these forms are angular momentum. Such is the case with galaxies and, maybe, with cluster of galaxies and larger objects. The angular momentum not only pins an object to itself, but also pins it in relation to another object. It is an important component of inertia.

The simplest example of a motion would be circular, with a constant angular velocity. The tangential component of such a motion will have a uniform constant velocity. It would appear to move in a right line especially when the distance from the axis is very, very large. Its true motion can be comprehended only from the viewpoint of the axis around which it is rotating. Its “uniform motion” from any other origin will be fictitious.

So a plane flying in a right line with constant velocity has that linear motion as the resultant of many different motions. The real motion of the plane can only be comprehended, from an axis around which it is rotating at that instant. That axis gives it a certain angular velocity and radius from which the uniform motion may be assessed correctly.

All real motion requires acceleration and force. The linear momentum is the result of an angular momentum that has a very large radius. 

A more general relationship that defines force is the rate of change of momentum; or F = dp/dt, where F is force, p is momentum, and t is time. The general equation may be extended to field as follows:

Momentum, p = E/c = hf/c, where E is energy, ‘c’ is universal constant of space to time ratio, h is Planck’s constant, and f is frequency.

Force, F = dp/dt = (h/c) df/dt, where df/dt is the gradient of frequency.

A very high gradient of frequency exists on the surface of particles like electrons, protons and neutrons, that are like eddies or whirlpools in the field comprising the atom. This force is responsible for the gravitational attraction between particles.


Newton’s Third Law states, “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.”

The constant speed of light may be looked upon as due to the balance of two opposite forces. There is forward acceleration of the photon, which is checked by its internal inertia. If the inertia were not there, the speed of photon shall be limitless.

The Newton’s Laws of motion implicitly include inertia. The inertia of the nucleus of an atom is greater than the inertia of a photon escaping from the atom by many orders of magnitudes. This is the same ratio as the inertia of matter to the inertia of light.

The vector addition supported by Newton’s Laws of motion applies to a level of inertia corresponding to matter. It cannot add the negligible inertia of light to the inertia of matter, where the levels of inertia are far apart by many orders of magnitude. This vector addition is replaced by relativistic addition. This is the primary success of Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s special relativity.

The speed of light ‘c’ is basically a universal constant that  defines the relationship between space and time. But the “speed of light” is a poor reference point of all inertial frames. This is because light has a finite amount of inertia even when it is infinitesimal. A reference point of all inertial frames must have zero inertia. Light is a good approximation as long as it is being used as a reference point for inertial frames relating to matter and not to field.


Field, Activity & Energy


Reference: Disturbance Theory


The field that fills the emptiness is a disturbance. Therefore it is full of ACTIVITY. This activity is expressed as continual oscillations between two states—electric and magnetic. We may refer to this activity as ENERGY.

This activity is made up of oscillations that are repeating themselves interminably at a certain rate. Each repetition is a CYCLE, and the rate of repetition is the FREQUENCY. Both cycle and frequency are properties of the field.

Each cycle of oscillation consists of the same amount of activity, or energy, regardless of the frequency. This fact leads to the phenomenon of quantization of energy. This is because only complete cycles are involved in interactions. Since the cycles may be counted, it appears that only discrete amounts of energy are involved in interactions.

The whole subject of Quantum Mechanics in physics is constructed from this phenomenon of quantization. The “amount of energy per cycle” is a very fundamental constant of the universe.

We may determine this universal constant by dividing the energy of the field by commensurate frequency (E/f). This gives us the value, 6.626176 x 10-34 joule-seconds. This value is represented by the Plank’s constant ‘h’.

As frequency increases, the energy of the field also increases, and so does inertia. Thus, energy and inertia akways increase and decrease together.

This cycle of energy cannot be divided further into smaller cycles. Therefore, the Planck’s constant ‘h’ serves as the smallest unit of energy.

The cycle of energy gives the appearance of a quantized (discrete) universe. However, the cycle is continuous in itself.


Universe, the Beginning

Reference: The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda


Here we have the Ancient Creation Hymn along with a modern scientific rendition.


There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottomlessly deep?

Prior to the universe there was no idea of existence or non-existence.

There was no awareness of matter, energy, space or time.

The universe seems to arise from some disturbance 

Of what? We do not know.

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

There was no idea of death or immortality then.

There was neither day nor night.

There was only the slightest awareness

Of motion appearing by itself

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Lack of motion was hidden by lack of awareness

Nothing was distinguishable, everything was the same

The motion that arose was surrounded by no motion

There alone was the power of awareness.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

It was the desire that was the disturbance

It was the beginning of the mind

There was then the awareness of existence

That also brought the awareness of non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Scale was formed from physical motion to metaphysical awareness, 

All opposites, such as below and above, had a scale as well.

There was concrete reality, and the abstraction underlying it

There was desire below,  and there was change above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Before the beginning of awareness

There was non-awareness

Before the beginning of motion

Who would know what was there?

Any knower came afterwards with the creation

Who then knows how disturbance came to be?

Whence this creation has arisen
– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know.

The beginning of the universe is there

Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not

Maybe the broadest viewpoint of it

Could reveal the secret of the beginning

Or, perhaps, it may not.



  1. We do not know what was there prior to the beginning of the universe. So, we shall call that state BRAHMAN as referred to in the ancient Vedas. This is also the “noumenon” of Kant.

  2. The universe seems to arise from the disturbance of this earlier state of BRAHMAN, or absolute zero. This beginning is characterized by motion and awareness. This is also the “phenomenon” of Kant.

  3. When there is motion there is also awareness. When there is no motion there is no awareness. Thus, motion and awareness present two different aspects of disturbance.

  4. The dimension of disturbance may be represented by a ‘concrete-to-abstract’ scale with concrete motion at one end also appearing as abstract awareness at the other end.

  5. This scale may be formalized as physical motion that is getting increasingly abstracted as metaphysical awareness.

  6. Thus there is a gradient of abstraction from PHYSICAL to METAPHYSICAL just like there is a gradient of temperature from HOT to COLD.


Obsolete: Einstein’s 1905 Paper on Relativity (Part 1)



Reference: Disturbance Theory


This examination of Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity (see the link below) is being carried out to see if Einstein’s original postulates can be modified to bring better consistency among the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics.

Einstein’s 1905 paper:

Please note that the indented text below is from Einstein’s paper.



“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.”

This introductory paragraph from the paper mentions asymmetry observed in the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor. This asymmetry occurs in the reference frame of the lab, which results in different interpretation of the same phenomenon.

This “asymmetry” disappears when we use the magnetic lines of force, which are attached to the magnet, as the reference frame. The conductor moves relative to these lines of force the same way in either case producing the same result.

“Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.”

This paragraph states that no motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium” has been discovered. This is incorrect because the very fact of radial acceleration due to inertia is a proof of motion relatively to the “light medium”.

This “light medium” is the space itself as established by Maxwell’s equations. The very fact that the speed of light is determined exclusively by the permeability and permittivity of space establishes space as the “light medium”. Light is a disturbance in space.

It was assumed that space could not be a medium because it could not be rigid to electromagnetic waves, while being completely permeable to matter. It was not realized that space puts up resistance to motion relative to it in the form of inertia. Thus space is not completely permeable to matter. Space resists the motion of matter. This resistance shows up as inertia.

Any motion relative to space requires force and it is accompanied by acceleration. Moons are always accelerating toward their planets.  Planets are always accelerating toward their stars. Stars are always accelerating toward the center of their galaxies and so on. There may appear to be no acceleration in the direction tangential to an orbit. But there is always a radial acceleration toward some center. When there is no force or acceleration, there is no motion relative to space.

There is no uniform motion without acceleration that travels in straight line. All Newtonian or Einstenian inertial frames are actually a single frame, which is at rest relative to space. This nicely explains the Principle of Relativity.

Any motion in this single frame is resisted by inertia. A fixed velocity in this frame shall result from a balance between acceleration and inertia. The velocity of light is finite and constant because there is a balance between an electromagnetic push of disturbance and the inertia of disturbed space.

If a Michelson-Morley experiment is conducted to compare the speed of light in the direction tangential to earth’s orbit and also normal to it, it is likely to observe a difference due to the centripetal acceleration of earth. Einstein’s assumption that there is no motion of the earth relative to the “light medium” is not fully justified.

An absence of inertia may be used as an absolute rest point from which to measure motion. This would also be an absence of electromagnetic frequency. Any motion relative to space will manifest some force due to inertia as acceleration.

The phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics, has inertia as a property common between them that can be referenced from the idea of undisturbed space.

Einstein postulates as the Principle of Relativity: “The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.”

This postulate assumes that light has same magnitude of inertial characteristics as matter. This assumption is not justified.

Einstein makes another postulate: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

This postulate assumes that there is no property shared by light with the body that emits it, which control their respective velocities. This assumption is also not justified because the velocities of light and the emitting body are related by their respective inertia relative to inertialess space.

“The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.”

Essentially, Einstein uses RIGID MATTER as its reference frame. We may call it the Material Reference Frame or MRF. This reference frame does not properly account for the inertia associated with light and sub-atomic particles. It actually considers inertia of light particle (photon) to be zero.

The proper reference frame would however be SPACE. We may call it the Space Reference Frame or SRF. This reference frame shall account for the inertia associated with light and sub-atomic particles. It would not represent space by rigid coordinates. The SRF coordinate system shall take into account the varying characteristics of inertia of the particles being considered.

[To be continued…]