Blog Ekkehard Friebe

Ich nehme Bezug auf meinen Blog-Eintrag: Nikolai Rudakov: „Establishment”. Aus dem dort genannten Buch (1981): „Fiction stranger than truth – In the metaphysical labyrinth of relativity” von Nikolai Rudakov bringe ich nachstehend eine weitere Leseprobe:

Zitat:

9 Motion of Light
The second part of Einstein’s light postulate declares that the velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. In other words, the motion of light is not related to the motion of its source. This conclusion is based on the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the same experiment which served äs a point of departure for the relativity postulate. This means that both postulates Start from the same premise, namely that the velocity of the Earth and the velocity of light are nonadditive, but arrive at opposite conclusions in respect of the two motions. The first is declared to be relative, unmeasurable and undetectable, while the second is absolute, detectable and measurable. It is obviously difficult to sustain an argument which asserts that the absolute motion of one physical entity is non-existent because there is no basis for determining such motion and at the same time ascribes absolute motion to another physical entity and implies that there is a basis for determining such motion.

The concept of motion is indivisible. There are no apriori or theoretical grounds for declaring any motion non-existent or for arbitrarily deciding that a particular motion is, in principle, indeterminable. The central and immutable idea of any motion is a spatio-temporal change in relation to two physically meaningful points, units or entities. If we have only one point, unit or entity, it is not possible to ascribe motion to it. The difficulty in the use of the concept of motion arises from the meaning of „spatio-temporal change“, i.e. from the role of space and time in the definition of motion. It is possible to argue that space and time are not pre-conditions of motion, but consequences of it. This is, in effect, what Einstein does in relation to the motion of his inertial Systems. However, he does not use the same argument in relation to light. Here he apparently accepts the spatio-temporal background in the traditional sense, at least at the time of formulating his special theory.

The two components of the physical background, space and time, have their specific identities. One distinctive feature which separates them is of crucial importance for the concept of motion. If we analyse motion dynamically in terms of space points, time points and mass points, we will find that space points have something in common with mass points, but not with time points. Both space points and mass points are geometrical points which can serve äs reference points for the purpose of establishing the existence of motion. Although motion cannot occur between two space points, it can occur between a space point and a mass point. In other words, space has traditionally been endowed with a dual nature or function as far as motion is concerned. It is a distinctive component of the spatio-temporal background, enabling the dynamical relationship between two mass points, but at the same time it can act as one of the two partners in the relationship.

We have to distinguish two types of motion: (a) between two reference points when one of them is represented by a mass point and the other by a space point, and (b) between two reference points when both are represented by mass points. It is a basic tenet of Einsteinianism that space points have no ontological Status and that only motion between mass points is to be considered physically valid. The trouble with this tenet is that it cannot be applied to the motion of light. The light quantum represents the equivalent of a mass point in motion. But in relation to what is it moving? The emission point, associated with the light source, is the only other relevant mass point, but it is specifically excluded from consideration by declaring that light is independent of it. However, space points are also specifically excluded from consideration by declaring that the aether and the capacity of space to serve as a reference System are non-existent. Thus the concept of the motion of light in relativity is afflicted with a fundamental deficiency. The relativists cannot demonstrate that light is in motion, that it has a velocity, that it can be used to establish a link between his inertial Systems and to determine whether they are in a state of relative motion or not.

Three factors equivalent to geometrical points participate in the Michelson-Morley experiment: (a) the light emission point rigidly connected with the centre of the Earth, (b) the kinetic mass point of the light quantum, and (c) the reference point component of empty space. In order to simplify the terminology we will refer to these three factors as source, light and aether. As motion requires only two factors we will be able to distinguish three separate motions in the experimental Situation: (a) the source-light motion, (b) the source-aether motion, and (c) the light-aether motion.

(Zitatende)

Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!

Beste Grüße Ekkehard Friebe