### Paul Marmet: The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light

**G. O. Mueller** weist in **Kapitel 3**, Seite 358, seiner Dokumentation auf folgende Arbeit von

**Professor Dr. Paul Marmet** hin, Zitat:

*„Marmet, Paul: GPS and **the** **illusion** of **constant** **light** **speed**. –
In: *

*Galilean*

*electrodynamics*

*.*

*14. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 23-30.“*

Nachstehend bringen wir Auszüge aus **dieser Arbeit:**

**Zitat: **

**Paul Marmet: The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light**

**Abstract.**

When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located. We know that the Lorentz transformations and special relativity are unable to provide a realistic physical explanation of the behavior of matter and light. We show here that all these phenomena can be explained using Newton’s physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously ^{(1)} that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and physical bodies become longer because of the increase of the Bohr radius. These results allow us to answer the question: ** With respect to what, does light travel?** For example, when we move away at velocity v, from a source emitting light at velocity c, the relative motion of the radiation is observed from the Doppler shift. How can we explain logically that these photons „appear“ to reach us at velocity c and not (c-v)? The conventional explanation relies on special relativity, but it implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer’s tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks synchronization. The Lorentz‘ transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light with respect to a moving frame is the most fascinating illusion in science.

**1 – Introduction.**

Many experiments, like the **Michelson-Morley** and Sagnac experiments and others, are testing the fundamental nature of light. It is conflicting to observe that the velocity of photons is measured as a constant, when the observer moves away from that light source. Photons, just as any other particle, possess an independent existence and are not created by a physicist’s thought, as claimed in quantum mechanics. Since all other particles are measured with additive velocities (V-v) or (V+v) with respect to a moving frame, why can photons not obey that same rule? Since Newton’s mechanics has shown that all relative velocities produce a Doppler frequency shift, we must expect logically that some special phenomena prevent us from detecting the real change of relative velocity. It is quite incorrect to believe that this phenomenon cannot be explained using physical reality and Newton physics. As required by the principle of mass-energy conservation ^{(1)}, the atoms (nucleus and electrons) forming the local standard reference meter and the moving clock have acquired some extra mass due to the materialization of kinetic energy. Quantum mechanics shows^{ }^{(1)} that this increase of energy changes the de Broglie electron wavelength and consequently, the Bohr radius and the clock rate. It is surprising to find new hypotheses like space-time distortion, and even more, the suggestion of „new logic“ to explain these observations, while it is not taken into account that the rate of the moving clock is naturally modified due to the increase of mass (following the absorption of kinetic energy). The simple application of the principle of mass-energy conservation explains naturally all these experiments.

**We must add that there is only one Real Logic. An assumed ****Superior**** Logic, applicable to modern physics is not compatible with Real Logic. We must recall that an empirical equation used to predict the outcome of a physical system is not an explanation. When there is no physics underneath these mathematical equations, they give empirical predictions of what will happen to the system. Mathematical equations generally deal with symbols, but they never explain „why“. A real explanation must answer the question of causality, which is asked by why? An equation is never the „cause“ of a phenomenon. **

**(Zitatende**, Hervorhebung durch Fettdruck von Friebe)

Lesen Sie bitte **hier** weiter!

- 1. Mai 2009
- Projekt G.O. Mueller
- Kommentare (0)