The radiation continuum theory as an alternative to special relativity 1998
By Curt Renshaw
Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen
zur Ergänzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 – 2004, Kapitel 4.
The radiation continuum theory as an alternative to special relativity / Curt Renshaw. In: Physics as a science. Ed.: G. Galeczki (u.a.). Palm Harbor 1998, S. 225-242.
Entwickelt im Rahmen einer eigenen Theorie eine Kritik der SRT, insbesondere das Postulat der absoluten C-Konstanz und C-Gleichheit gegenüber allen beliebig bewegten Beobachtern.
(S. 227:) "Recent advances in experimental tools have allowed tests of the EPR paradox to be performed, most notably by Alain Aspect at CERN in 1982. The results of the experiment are quite striking. Either the notion of what we call reality is false, and the ideas of physical objects, sequenced events, history, dogs and planets are meaningless, or special relativity is incorrect.
Specifically, that portion of special relativity that deals with the velocity of light being an absolute limit to the speed of objects or information transfer must be false.
In short, the model of light proposed by Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, though not necessarily completely wrong, is at best incomplete."
(S. 231-232:) "It is important to consider the context of Lorentz’s work. Faced with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and with the incredible success of Maxwell’s equations, Lorentz had to find a way to reconcile the two. The Lorentz transformations allowed the preservation of the form of Maxwell’s equations in any inertial frame of reference while still supporting the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the "medium" of light propagation (the aether) was not dragged along by the earth. The Lorentz transformations, developed as a means to reconcile the unexpected results of the Michelson-Morley tests, predict that lengths should contract and clocks should slow down for a reference in motion. These transformations imply an invariant c for all inertial frames of reference, and are in fact developed under the assumption of an invariant value for c, but they do not force c to be invariant.
In other words, the actual motion of light is not controlled by the equations Lorentz chose to model it, any more than a red light physically stops a car from crossing an intersection. Einstein used the Lorentz transformations to formulate his second postulate – that c is independent of the motion of the source. This postulate was given a strong boost because the required Lorentz length contraction could be interpreted to apply for all electromagnetic phenomenons. Since matter is electromagnetic in nature (composed of electrons, etc.), the supposed Lorentz contraction should apply to all matter.
However, the Lorentz length contraction is merely a result of the particular transformations chosen to preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations, but is not a necessity for all allowable transformations of the same, nor does it represent an actual physical effect of motion."
— Nimmt als Ergebnis des MMV an, "that the "medium" of light propagation (the aether) was not dragged along by the earth". Da bei stationärem Äther eine Drift gemessen würde und bei vollständig mitgenommenem Äther keine Drift gemessen würde, scheint Renshaw ein positives Ergebnis des MMV anzunehmen (Drift von 6 – 8 km/sec). Es verwundert daher, daß er seine Argumentation gegen die absolute C-Konstanz nicht auf das direktere Argument des Positiv-Ergebnisses des MMV stützt. Allerdings stellt er sich nirgends im Text gegen die propagierten angeblichen "Null-Ergebnisse" des MMV: seine Position in dieser Frage bleibt daher etwas unklar, was bei manchen Kritikern anzutreffen ist; die meisten von ihnen stellen aber eindeutig fest, ob sie das "Null-Ergebnis" oder die "Positiv-Ergebnisse" für richtig halten.