Email: Ali A. Faraj |

**Absolute Velocities:**

**In this exposition, the predictions of the
Emission Theory of light, concerning absolute velocities of isolated systems,
have been worked out and discussed in detail. In addition, the related aspects
of this theory have been reviewed and investigated at length. The aim is to
facilitate the task of possible experimental testing, in the future, and to
dispel long-standing and appalling misconceptions surrounding this important
subject.**

** **

*Keywords: **Doppler effect; light aberration; relative velocity;
absolute space; superluminality*

** **

Absolute velocity can be defined as the common uniform linear velocity of the various components of a physical system, relative to absolute space. Absolute space, in turn, can be defined as the immobile three-dimensional physical void that exists independent of material bodies.

In spite of all the claims to the contrary, absolute space is one of the most intuitive and self-evident concepts ever encountered. Rational beings that lack a clear perception of absolute space, simply, do not exist. In fact, if all the obscurities of matter vanished, and the notion of matter were as simple and clear-cut as the notion of absolute space, there would have been no need, in that case, for physics at all.

Since Newton’s time, it has been recognized that measuring rotational and non-uniform velocities of isolated systems, on the basis of Galilean kinematics, presents no great difficulty.

By contrast, the determination of uniform linear velocities, with respect to absolute space, is fraught with all sorts of difficulties. The main stumbling blocks are, undoubtedly, the immense blind spots induced by theoretical prejudices and historical controversies.

Right from the start, the Copernicans set out to destroy the
Ptolemaic astronomy. However, they encountered a startling but otherwise
erroneous objection, namely, "*a
moving Earth flings non-attached bodies away into space"*!

Galileo responded to this major objection of the Ptolemaists by expounding, in great detail, the kinematics of relative velocities.

As it is often the case with great truths, in the end, dogmatism prevails. Some of Galileo's successors have, actually, gone too far in this direction to assert the absolute impossibility of finding out uniform linear motions relative to absolute space under any conceivable circumstances. This is despite the fact that such determination, is not only possible; but it's, also, an immediate and straightforward consequence of Galilean and Newtonian Relativity.

The widely publicized failure of the Wave Theory’s
prediction, regarding velocities relative to the Ether, has made this dogmatism
even stronger. So much so, that the supposed impossibility of measuring
absolute velocities has become a fundamental principle of physics, i.e. the *‘**Relativity Principle ’*

Nonetheless, there are more daunting aspects of this notorious problem than mere collective prejudices and conventional blind spots. Here, we shall discuss, primarily, only those aspects related to the Emission Theory of light.

First and foremost, wrestling with the kinematical Principle of Relativity can be very unpleasant experience, and it is not recommend for the faint-hearted! Like a whirlpool, it draws you deeper and deeper into an incredible abstract world where infinity is the limit and where the most brilliant breakthroughs are made and destroyed in matter of minutes.

The Relativity Principle, in this respect, is quite unique among other principles of physics. Try, for instance, to disprove Newton’s First Law; and you won’t go far in that direction, before your attempt at disproof is crushed under a heavy load of internal contradictions. That is not the case with the much weaker Relativity Principle where a successful disproof always appears to be just over the horizon.

Furthermore, the theory under discussion does not invalidate the Relativity Principle. It, merely, restricts the scope of its application.

As it will be demonstrated in this discussion, the common linear velocity of an isolated system in uniform motion with respect to absolute space, can be determined, on the basis of the current theory, if and only if two or more of its parts are in relative motion with respect to each other. And accordingly, the Principle of Relativity must be recast, on the basis of this theory, as follows:

**[****A]**
It is impossible, within the framework of the Emission Theory, to determine the
common uniform linear velocity of an isolated system whose components are at
rest with respect to each other.

**[****B]**
It is impossible, within the framework of the Emission Theory, to determine the
common uniform linear velocity of an isolated system whose components have only
relative-velocity vectors along the line of the common-velocity vector of that
system.

In addition, the minuteness of the predicted magnitudes of
observable effects of comparatively low absolute velocities, based upon this
theory, can be, depressingly, Einsteinian. For example, the observable
variations, as predicted by the most generalized form of the Emission Theory,
concerning two bodies with absolute velocity of (300 kms^{-1 }) and
relative velocity of (30 kms^{-1}), are no greater than (30 ms^{-1}).
The predicted magnitudes of observable effects are, of course, more significant
and much easier to measure, if the given absolute velocities are about or
greater than (1,000 kms^{-1}).

The Emission Theory, whose predictions are the main topic of this paper, is itself an obscure and less known theory. And it’s essential, therefore, to begin this exposition with a brief discussion of the relevant aspects of this theory.

**1. ****General Remarks**

** **

The
synonymous terms "*emission theory*", "*ballistic theory*",
and " *corpuscular theory*" of light have been used in the
published literature to refer to a collection of closely related theories based
firmly on Galilean and Newtonian kinematics.

To avoid redundancy, the term 'emission theory’ will be used consistently throughout this discussion to denote the most generalized version of those theories.

The published work on the Emission Theory is substantial and
it goes as far back as Newton’s ‘*Opticks*’ in the 17^{th}
century. Consequently, no attempt at
the survey of such extensive literature is made here. And only references, to
it, will be specified when appropriate.

Although the Emission Theory has its roots in studies of
optical and electromagnetic phenomena, its revolutionary nature is more
conspicuous in the field of astronomy. It, literally, turns the science of
astronomy on its head. Not a single bit of modern astronomy can remain
unchanged, if the speed of light is taken to be variable in the Galilean sense
and in accord with the generalized version of the Emission Theory. Thus, if
ever there is a second Copernican revolution in astronomy, it will most likely
be based on the Emission Theory or something very close to it. That is because
right from the beginning, astronomy has been built entirely upon the assumption
of constant speed of light. Just place
the old Assumption of ‘*Earth at rest*’ beside the current Postulate of ‘*constant
light speed*’; and it should be obvious at once what the overthrow of the
latter assumption means for the future of modern astronomy.

In its current stage of development, astronomy has become increasingly cluttered with useless kludges and artificial hypotheses to such a degree that the Ptolemaic astronomy, in comparison, looks like a paragon of science and rational thinking itself. And so a second revolution may not be out of the question. But again, the tenacity of the astronomers is proverbial. And so it should come as no surprise, if they still have enough inertia left in them to keep astronomy on its status-quo trajectory for the next 1,500 years.

By then, however, the idea of developing general consensus around one single theory could become obsolete. Such a development has occurred already in the field of politics, which at present is far more advanced than any other field in this regard. Likewise, it may well be found necessary, in the long run, that the optimal arrangement and the best mechanism for advancement, in the field of astronomy and science in general, is to have two or more opposing schools take control of shared resources in a periodic and organized fashion. That is, of course, still a long way off, perhaps 1,500 years or more! For the time being, let’s examine next the fundamentals of the Emission Theory of light, and hope that this theory is destined to rule over physics someday.

**2.
****Change of Velocities upon Reflection**

**The Stewart-Thomson Law:**

*In the reference
frame of the laboratory, light is always reflected from a moving reflecting
surface with the resultant velocity of its relative velocity with respect to
the reflecting surface and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to
the laboratory,* [**Ref. #1**].

This important law is a generalization of the law of reflection. And it plays an important role in the treatment of optical phenomena on the basis of the Emission Theory. In its precise mathematical form, the Stewart-Thomson law can be derived and formulated by treating reflection of light as a special case of elastic collision and applying the conservation laws of linear momentum and kinetic energy, for moving bodies, to the incident light and the reflecting surface.

The quantitative treatment of this subject can be significantly simplified by assuming that the ratio between the mass of the incident light and the mass of the reflecting surface is infinitesimally small and practically equal to zero. And therefore, the recoil caused by the incident light on the reflecting surface can be neglected without affecting the exactness and precision of the quantitative treatment.

Consider the simple case of a plane mirror approaching or
receding from a stationary light source along the normal to its reflecting
surface with a uniform linear velocity, *v. *If the angle of incidence with the
normal, *i*, is measured
counterclockwise with respect to the velocity vector of the mirror, then the
magnitude of the relative velocity of the incident light, *c'*, can be computed by applying the law of cosines:

** c' = [ c^{2} + v^{2} + 2vccosi ]^{1/2}** [

Where c is the Maxwellian speed of light in vacuum.

The direction of this relative velocity, *i'*, can be obtained by applying the law
of sines to the above arrangement:

** sini' =
[c/c' ]sini**
[

The angle *i’* is the true angle of incidence as
measured in the reference frame of a moving mirror.

From the law of reflection, the angle of reflection for
reflected light, in the reference frame of a moving mirror, must be equal to
the direction of the relative velocity of the incident light, *i'*, and as a result:

*cosi' = [
1 -
sin ^{2}i' ]^{1/2}
= [ 1 - c^{2}/c'^{2}
sin^{2}i ]^{1/2}*

And by applying the law of cosines once more to compute the
speed of the reflected light in the reference frame of the laboratory, we
obtain *c'':*

* *

** c'' =
[ c'^{2} + v^{2} + 2vc'cosi' ]^{1/2}** [

By combining equations [2.1], [2.3], & [2.4], we obtain for the general case:

** c'' = c[1 + 4v^{2}/c^{2} + (4v/c)cosi]^{1/2}**
[

The direction of this relative velocity, i*”*, can be obtained by applying the law
of sines once more:

*sini” =
[c’/c” ]sini’ = ** [c/c” ]sini**=
sini / *** [1 + 4v^{2}/c^{2} + (4v/c)cosi]^{1/2}** [

The angle i*”* is the true angle of reflection as
measured in the reference frame of the laboratory.

When a mirror approaches directly a light source along the normal to its reflecting surface, Equation #[2.5] is reduced to:

** c'' =
c + 2v**
[

And when it recedes from the source along the same line, we obtain:

* *** c'' = c - 2v**
[

If one insists on taking account of the vanishingly small recoil of an approaching or receding mirror under the effect of incident light, the following exact equations of linear elastic collision should be used for both cases:

** c'' =
c[(m_{m} – m_{c})/(m_{c} + m_{m})] +
v[2m_{m}/(m_{c} + m_{m})]** [

* *

** c'' =
c[(m_{m} – m_{c})/(m_{c} + m_{m})] -
v[2m_{m}/(m_{c} + m_{m})]** [

Where
*m _{c}* and

Equation #[2.5] can be generalized further, through the rotation
of the normal to the surface of the plane mirror by an angle, *j*, around the velocity vector of the
mirror and applying the laws of cosines and sines in each case.

One important case is when j* =* *90 ^{o}*.

Consider the case of a plane mirror approaching or receding
from a stationary light source along its reflecting surface, i.e. j* =* *90 ^{o}*,
with a uniform linear velocity

We, now, compute the resultant of (*c & v*) in the
case of approach:

*c' = [ c ^{2} + v^{2} +
2vccos*

*sin**q**’
= (c/c' )sin*** q** =

Using *q’*,
we obtain the angle *q’’*
between the velocity vector of the reflected light and that of the mirror:

*q”
= 180 ^{o} - *

Then we use (*c’ & **q”*)
to obtain the velocity of the reflected light *c”* with respect to the
reference frame of the laboratory:

*c” = [ c’ ^{2} + v^{2} +
2vc’cos*

From equations [2.12] & [2.13], we calculate *cos**q”*:

*cos**q**” = - cos**q*** ’
= -[(csini + v)/c’]** [

Inserting the values of (*c’ & cos**q“)*
in Equation #[2.14], we obtain *c”*:

*sini’ =
(c’/c”)sin*** q** “ [

By using equations [2.12], [2.16], & [2.17], we obtain:

** sini’ = cosi**
[

To obtain the angle of reflection i*”* with respect to
the normal to the mirror surface, we use the relation (i*” = i’ - 90 ^{o}*)
& Equation #[2.18]:

** sini” = sin(i’ – 90^{o}) = cosi’ =
sini
** [

Where i” is the angle of reflection as measured in the reference frame of the laboratory.

Thus, in the case of (approach & j* =* *90 ^{o}*), we
have (

Finally, to calculate the resultant of (*c & v*) in
the case of a receding mirror whose (j* =*
*90 ^{o}*), we use the relation
(

*c' = [ c ^{2} + v^{2} +
2vccos*

*sin**q**’
= (c/c' )sin*** q** =

Accordingly, *cos**q’ = -[(csini - v)/c’].*

By the use of *q’*,
we obtain the angle *q’’*
between the velocity vector of the reflected light and that of the mirror:

*q”
= 180 ^{o} - *

Then we use (*c’ & **q”*)
to obtain the velocity of the reflected light *c”* with respect to the
reference frame of the laboratory:

*c” = [ c’ ^{2} + v^{2} +
2vc’cos*

From equations [2.21] & [2.22], we calculate *cos**q”*:

*cos**q**” = - cos**q*** ’
= (csini - v)/c’**
[

Inserting the values of (*c’ & cos**q” *)
in Equation #[2.23], we obtain *c”*:

*sini’ =
(c’/c” )sin*** q** “=

By using equations [2.21], [2.25], & [2.26], we obtain:

** sini’ = cosi**
[

To obtain the angle of reflection i*”* with respect to
the normal to the mirror surface, we use the relation (i*” = i’ - 90 ^{o}*)
& Equation #[2.27]:

** sini” = cosi’ = sini ** [

Hence, in the case of (recession & j* =* *90 ^{o}*), we
have (

As it is clear from Equations #[2.7] &
#[2.8], the speed of reflected light, each time, is increased by twice
the speed of a directly approaching mirror, and decreased by twice the speed of
a directly receding mirror. The process can be repeated indefinitely. This, in
fact, is one of the most astonishing predictions of the theory under
discussion. In principle, at least, it implies no less than the complete
control over speed of light by increasing or decreasing it to any desirable
level through the use of multiple reflection from moving mirrors in the
reference frame of the laboratory. Because of the high speed of light, the
desired results can be achieved by the use of this mechanism, even in the case
of slowly moving mirrors, in a fraction of a second. Consider, for example, a
mirror moving directly with velocity of (100 ms^{-1}) towards a
stationary mirror 20 m away. By making multiple passes, through this optical
loop, light can reach a superluminal speed of 2c in less than 0.2 of a second.

In practice, however, for superluminal speeds over *2c*, Doppler effect presents a serious
problem. As it will be shown later in this discussion, each time the speed of
the reflected light is doubled, its frequency is doubled as well due to Doppler
effect on light whose speed is boosted to a superluminal level by the use of
multiple reflection from approaching mirrors. In practical terms, this Doppler
shift to higher frequencies means that every part of the visible light will be
shifted to the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; by the time its
superluminal speed is close to *3c*.

Ordinary mirrors are inefficient ultra-violet reflectors; and so the process of speed boosting through the use of multiple reflections from those mirrors must fail for speeds greater than 2c. Is there a way out of this Doppler-boosting problem?

Despite their horrific miasma of “*Tunneling*”, “*Exiting-before-entering”*,
and similar theoretical nonsense, experimenters of the so-called 'Photonic
Revolution’ have, in the last decade or so, amassed an impressive array of
experiments, techniques, and data on superluminality, through the use of
anomalous dispersion in carefully-prepared materials.

Their finding, in itself, is undoubtedly one of the most
striking discoveries in experimental physics in recent years, and most
certainly bound to sweep away, in due time, long-held false beliefs and errors
in this field. See, for instance, [**Ref. #9**].

Nonetheless, neither anomalous dispersion, nor photonic crystals, nor specially prepared refractive media, have any potential use within the context of the Doppler-boosting problem encountered here. Refractive indices, simply, cannot be used to boost speed of light outside their artificially prepared media. That is because light, upon exiting the prepared medium, very simply, restores its standard Maxwellian speed in vacuum.

It’s possible, however, that the superluminal speeds of light, in those experiments, are caused by multiple reflections from moving layers of atoms inside the artificial media. If that is indeed the case, then upon exit, light can retain its superluminal speeds in vacuum. But this possibility, of course, does not solve the Doppler-boosting problem.

In a nutshell, multiple reflection from approaching mirrors is the only technically feasible method for achieving long-range superluminal speeds of light in free space. But Doppler boosting to higher frequencies and the unavoidable absorption of light by the materials of mirrors, impose severe limitations on the practicality of this method.

Suppose, for a moment, that a perfect mirror capable of reflecting electromagnetic radiation of any frequency repeatedly and with 100% efficiency is practically feasible.

Can the superluminal speeds of light produced by that mirror be used in long-range communications?

If such a perfect mirror can be found, and if the Emission Theory is correct and universally applicable, then the answer to the above question is, absolutely and unequivocally, ‘yes’.

Not only that, but one also can be absolutely sure that advanced civilizations, across the cosmos, are talking to each other over our heads. But thanks to the Einsteinian slumber of our physics, we, Homo sapiens, are completely oblivious of their communications!

So let's hope that, someday, our Homo sapiens shall live up to their illustrious name! And let us try to figure out how superluminal signaling can be achieved in practice.

Given a perfect mirror, it's quite possible to start with the radio portion of the spectrum; and to code your message using standard methods in radio communications.

After that, you can use the perfect mirror to boost the speed of the coded radiation to the desirable superluminal level.

To minimize the effect of the Inverse Square Law on the coded radiation, maser and laser techniques have to be used. However, to maximize the chances of reception, the Inverse Square Law must be allowed to work as required, during travel time, to make the cross section of the carrying beam large enough to encompass the entire targeted area by the time of its arrival. In brief, your tasks as a sender, in superluminal telecommunications, are to code, boost, collimate, and send.

Receivers of superluminal signals must, in turn, be equipped with a perfect mirror, as well, to be able to tune in. The mirror, here, is used to convert the received superluminal radiation to its original Maxwellian form, which can be fed to a regular radio receiver to decode the sender's message in a standard fashion.

It should be mentioned, in this context, that a team of the
Italian Council of Research reported, recently, achieving superluminal speeds
in air by bouncing a microwave beam off a mirror, [**Ref. #6**].
From the viewpoint taken in this section, their experiment is very interesting,
although it is not clear from their report how exactly and how efficiently a
microwave mirror works.

**3. ****The
Characteristics of the Corpuscular Photon**

** **

The concept of the Corpuscular Photon
is an integral part of the Emission Theory of light. In the published
literature, the Corpuscular Photon is defined in two different ways:

[**A**] The Corpuscular Photon is defined as one single corpuscle whose mass
is in direct proportion with frequency across the electromagnetic spectrum.
This concept of the Corpuscular Photon is extremely rigid and inadequate in
dealing with the wave aspects of light. For this reason, it is often used as a
'straw-man' argument against the Emission Theory. How on Earth, its opponents ask, can it account correctly for
interference and diffraction phenomena?
However, this old objection sounds increasingly hollow after the
discovery of similar phenomena related to electrons and other subatomic
particles. Nevertheless, the inadequacy of the 'One-Corpuscle Photon’ is
obvious. And its fundamental flaws cannot be weeded out by merely pointing out
more serious flaws in the concept of the Conventional Wave Photon.

[**B**] The Corpuscular Photon can, also, be defined as a group of corpuscles
whose number and spatial separation (wavelength) vary in direct proportion with
frequency across the electromagnetic spectrum. The total number of corpuscles,
in a photon, is determined only by its frequency and the duration of its pulse
during the time of emission. Its energy and momentum, in turn, depend solely on
the number and the speed of its corpuscles. For a non-polarized photon, the
linear trajectories of its corpuscles form randomly its cross section. Thus, it
should be clear that a corpuscular photon whose cross section consists of only
one single geometrical point, though appealing, is a fictional idealization
that cannot be realized in actual situations.

The
Corpuscular Photon, when defined in terms of distinct groups of corpuscles on
the basis of their frequencies, is a versatile and powerful concept. It,
literally, transforms the Emission Theory from a weak and timid hypothesis to a
revolutionary tool of the first order. It, no longer, suffices for the critics
of this theory to throw on it Poisson's ‘*Bright Spot*’, de Setter's ‘*Circular
Orbits*’, and similar obsolete objections to score a point. The table has,
really, been turned on them. And this is how:

(**1**) The notion of distinct groups of corpuscles allows the theory, under
discussion, to account for interference, diffraction, polarization, and related
phenomena, in a natural and satisfactory manner, and to dispose of the old
objections, along with the Wave-Particle Duality, at once.

(**2**) Since subatomic particles emit photons, and since photons consist of
corpuscles, it follows as a natural consequence of this theory that the
subatomic particles themselves are structured aggregates of corpuscles. The
idea of particles composed of aggregates of corpuscles, analogous to aggregates
of stars in galaxies, has the potential of restoring order to the current
chaotic state, opening new avenues for probing deeper into the nature of
matter, and revolutionizing the stagnant field of elementary particles.

(**3**) The concept of corpuscular photons enables the Emission Theory to
include precise formulae for the Doppler effect, the Fresnel Convection, and
the Law of Aberration derived on a basis more solid and intuitive than that of
any other theory in this field.

(**4**) This concept of photons, in conjunction with the Stewart-Thomson Law,
enables the Emission Theory to explain clearly and correctly the
Michelson-Morley Experiment and related experiments, giving it a decisive edge
over a variety of unrealistic kludges such as the notorious Lorentz-Fitzgerald
Contraction Hypothesis.

(**5**) Redefining the photons in terms of distinct groups of corpuscles leads
to the inclusion of the J. G. Fox ‘*Re-radiation*’
hypothesis as a special case, and disposing, at the same time, of its
undesirable consequences, [**Ref. #4**].
Notwithstanding its success in the special case, the application of the
Re-radiation hypothesis, generally, has the misfortune of making no prediction
at all. That is because the re-radiation mechanism, as used by Fox in his
Extended Ritz Theory, leads to de-facto constant speed of light, banishes
superluminality, and renders the application of the Galilean Transformations to
electromagnetic phenomena useless. See [**Ref. #7**],
and, [**Ref. #8**]. Furthermore, except in the special
case, where the refractive medium absorbs and re-emits the incident light with
different frequencies, the Re-radiation hypothesis is in contradiction with the
conservation laws of energy and momentum. Where does the truncated portion of
the initial energy and momentum go? The Re-radiation hypothesis gives no
answer. It’s true that the Conventional theories, in the field, have violated
these same laws at more basic levels. But that is no excuse for committing
another clear violation of them. In brief, the Re-radiation mechanism must be
restricted and its unwarranted generalization has to be abandoned, in order to
apply the Galilean Equations in a productive and self-consistent manner.

(**6**) The definition of photons, as independent groups of corpuscles,
enables the Emission Theory to give a clear and natural explanation of the
Cosmological Red-shift of distant galaxies and to do away with the hypothesis
of ‘*Expanding Universe*’ along with its bizarre and absurd consequences.
By merely taking accelerations of the light source into account, one can easily
obtain the exact formula of the Hubble Law as a natural consequence of this
theory. And as a bonus, the ‘*Big Bang*’ can more readily be consigned to
the dustbin of history along with its monstrous offspring.

(**7**) This is the most controversial part of the Emission Theory.

The exact
quantitative details of this topic have been elaborated elsewhere.

See [**Ref. #1**]. Here, it suffices to restate the
main problem in more general terms. Without doubt, the empirical classification
of stars on the basis of their luminosity, size, and spectral type, is the most
concrete part of modern astronomy. In addition, it's the foundation upon which
Stellar Evolution; one of the most attractive theories in astrophysics has been
built. The Emission Theory does not contradict outright the Theory of Stellar
Evolution. It, simply, creates, on purely kinematical grounds, an exact replica
of its foundation. It's easy to see that systematic and continuous variations
in the velocity of a light source, lead to systematic and continuous variations
in the velocity of its radiation output. These variations in the velocity of
the output, inevitably, lead to changes in the spectrum and the radiant flux of
the source, which vary linearly with distance. Thus, it's possible to produce
the entire phenomena included in stellar classification by merely using a '*hypothetical
sun*' and varying its orbital configurations at various distances from the
observer. Take, for instance, the spectacular phenomenon of Supernova
Explosion. As spectacular as it is, the
Supernova Phenomenon is the easiest to duplicate using nothing more than our '*hypothetical
sun*'. Increasing its velocity by an extremely tiny but continuous amount,
which the far half of its orbit around some distant galaxy can do, our '*hypothetical
sun*' can pour its output of radiation, during one hundred million years, in
just only few days, and fools naive Einsteinian observers that they have just
witnessed a stellar explosion on a gigantic scale! In the same way, the variability of speed of light can make out
of our '*hypothetical sun*' every star of every size and spectral type in
the Hertzprung-Russel Diagram. And it can replicate every star in the Variable
Stars' Catalogue. In short, the observational basis of modern astronomy has
been undercut. And serious doubts have been cast upon its dynamical reality.
This, of course, does not mean that all the stars are identical to the sun, nor
their classification is physically baseless. All what the above considerations
imply is that if speed of light is variable in accord with the Emission Theory,
then a thick cocoon of mirages and optical illusions must be removed first,
before the real dynamical phenomena underneath can be unveiled. Then, and only
then, a true understanding of the physical universe can follow the observation.

** **

** **

**4. **** The Doppler Effect**

** **

As discussed earlier, the Corpuscular Photon of the Emission Theory is composed of a finite number of corpuscles whose primary source emits them one after the other at regular intervals of time. This definition makes the task of deriving the exact formulas of the Doppler Principle straightforward and simple. Compare the following easy steps with the convoluted methods of deducing the Doppler Equations on the basis of the One-Corpuscle Emission Theory or on the basis of Einstein Theory:

[**1**] **The Case of Direct Approach:**

Consider the simple case of a light source approaching
directly with velocity v_{s} an observer at rest in the reference frame
of the laboratory. Let the period of
the emitted corpuscles of a photon be *T*
as measured in the inertial frame of their source, and T’ as measured in the
reference frame of the laboratory.

Since the frequency *f*,
by definition, is the reciprocal of the period *T*, we obtain:

*f = 1/T ** *[**4.1**],

*f’ = 1/T’ ** *[**4.2**].

Where *f* and f’ are
the frequencies in the inertial frame of the source and the reference frame of
the laboratory, respectively.

Since the source is approaching directly, then the velocity
of its light *c’*, relative to the
laboratory:

*c’ = c + v _{s}*

Where *c* is the velocity
of light in the inertial frame of the source.

Next, we use *T*,
vs, and c’* *to compute *T’*:

*T’ = [T(c + v _{s}
) - T v_{s} ] / *

From Equations #* *[**4.2**] and #* *[**4.4**], we obtain the Doppler
formula for this special case:

*f’ = 1/T’ = f[1
+ v _{s}/c] *

If the observer approaches with velocity *v _{o}* a stationary source of
light, we obtain:

*T’ = (Tc - T’
v _{o} )/ c *

*f’ = 1/T’ = f[1
+ v _{o} /c] *

Where *f’* is the
frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

[**2**] **The Case of Direct Recession:**

Repeating the above steps, we obtain for a source receding directly from an observer at rest:

*f’ = f[1 - v _{s}
/c] *

And we obtain for an observer receding directly from a source of light at rest:

*f’ = f[1 - v _{o} /c] *

[**3**] **The**** General Case:**

In order to obtain the Doppler formula in the general case,
let the angle i*,* between the line of
sight and the velocity vector of the source *v _{s}*,
be measured counter-clockwise.

Let the angle *j*
that the velocity vector of the observer *v _{o}*
makes with the line of sight be measured clockwise and corrected for Light
Aberration. Since the line of sight is the direction of the resultant velocity
of light

*c' = c[1 - (v _{s}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{s}cosi*

For light emitted with period *T* and frequency *f* in the
inertial frame of the source, we compute the period as measured by the
observer:

*T' = [Tc' - Tv _{s}cosi - T'v_{o}cosj] / c' = T(c' -v_{s}cosi) / (c' + v_{o}cosj)*

By taking the reciprocal of *T'*, we obtain the general formula for Doppler effect in the
reference frame of moving observer:

*f' = f[1 + {(v _{s} /c)cosi + (v_{o}/c)cosj}
/ {1 - (v_{s}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]*

Let's now compare the Doppler formulas for the first two simple cases of direct approach and direct recession, according to the Emission Theory, with the Doppler formulas for the same two cases according to Maxwell's Theory and Einstein's Special Relativity, respectively.

[**A**] **Maxwell’s**** Theory:*** *

**1.** For a source approaching directly an
observer at rest, the theory gives:

** f' = f[1 + v_{s}/(c - v_{s})] ** [

By comparing this equation with Equation #[4.5], we find
that the Doppler shift of approaching sources i.e., (*f'* - *f)/f*, as computed on Maxwell's Theory, is always greater
than that of the Emission Theory by a factor of *[1 - v _{s}/c]^{-1}*.

**2.** For an observer approaching directly a
stationary source of light, the Maxwell Doppler formula is:

** f' = f[1 + v_{o}/c]**
[

By comparing this equation with Equation #[4.7], we conclude that the Doppler effect in this case is the same as calculated on both theories.

**3.** For a source receding directly from an
observer at rest, Maxwell’s Theory gives:

** f' = f[1 - v_{s}/(c + v_{s})] ** [

By comparing this equation with Equation #[4.8], we find
that the Doppler shift of receding sources, as calculated on Maxwell's Theory,
is always less than that deduced from the Emission Theory by a factor of ** [1 + v_{s}/c]^{-1}**.

**4.** For an observer receding directly from a
stationary source of light, the Maxwell Doppler formula is:

** f' = f[1 - v_{o}/c]**
[

By comparing this equation with Equation #[4.9], we conclude that the Doppler effect, in this case, is the same as calculated on both theories.

[**B**] **Einstein’s ****Special Theory:*** *

This theory has two different sets of equations for computing Doppler effect:

[**1**] **According to
Einstein:**

Special Relativity, as expounded in Einstein’s 1905 paper,
takes the Maxwellian Doppler formulas for the moving observer, and divides them
by the factor *{1 – v ^{2}/c^{2} }^{1/2}*, where

** f' = f[(c + v_{s} ) / (c
- v_{s})]^{1/2}
** (for directly
approaching source) [

** f' = f[(c + v_{o} ) / (c
- v_{o})]^{1/2}
** (for directly
approaching observer) [

** f' = f[(c - v_{s} )/(c +
v_{s})]^{1/2} ** (for directly receding source) [

** f' = f[(c - v_{o} ) / (c
+ v_{o})]^{1/2}
** (for directly
receding observer) [

** f' = f[{1 - (v/c)cos**f

Where *v* stands for *v _{s}, v_{o}, *or both, and f

[**2**] **According to
Ives & Stilwell:**

Special Relativity, according to Ives & Stilwell, takes
the Maxwellian Doppler formulas for the moving source, and multiplies them by
the factor *{1 – v ^{2}/c^{2}
}^{1/2}*,
where

*f' = f[{1 – v ^{2}/c^{2} }^{1/2 }*/

Where f
stands for *i, j**,* or both [**Ref. #5**].

The Einstein and the Ives-Stilwell general formulae give the
same numerical results at f
= 0^{o} and f =
180^{o}; but they make contradictory predictions at f = 90^{o}
with regard to the transverse Doppler effect.

Now by comparing the above
equations with those of the Emission Theory, we obtain:

** f'_{E}/f'_{R} = [1
- v_{s} ^{2}/c^{2}]^{1/2}** [

Where
f'_{E }& f '_{R}
are the observed frequencies as predicted by the Emission Theory and Einstein's
Relativity, respectively.

Therefore,
we conclude that in all cases of approach, Einstein’s Theory predicts Doppler
shift i.e. (*f'*-*f)/f *greater
than the one predicted by the Emission Theory. And in all cases of recession,
it predicts Doppler shift less than that predicted by the Emission Theory.
Thus, from the perspective of the Emission Theory, Einstein’s Special Relativity
makes the correct Maxwell formulas of the moving observer erroneous by a factor
of *{1 – v ^{2}/c^{2}}^{-1/2}*, but, at the same time, it restores
the symmetry and reduces the error in the case of the moving source by using
the same formulas for both the source and the observer.

**5. ****The Law of
Aberration**

Within the framework of the Emission
Theory, Light Aberration is defined as the angle between the true position of
the source, at the time of emission, and the direction of the resultant relative
velocity of the velocity of the incident light, from that source, and the
velocity of the observer, at the time of reception.

Thus, if
the direction of the resultant relative velocity of the incident light and the
observer is *j*, and the true position
of the source, at emit time, is *j'*,
then the Light Aberration *b* is the
difference between *j'* and *j*:

*b = j' -
j = **D*** j** [

Notice that
the angle *j'* can be computed, but can
never be observed in the inertial frame of a moving observer.

Two forms
of the Law of Light Aberration will be discussed here:

**[1] ****The
Standard Form of the Law of Light Aberration:**

Let's
consider, first, the simple case of a stationary source of light and an
observer moving with uniform linear velocity *v _{o}*. By applying the law of sines to this case, we obtain
the well-known form of Bradley's Law of Aberration:

*sin**D*** j
= (v_{o}/c)sinj** [

Where *c* is the speed of light with respect to
the reference frame in which its source is at rest.

For small
values of *D**j*:

*D**j **»***
(v_{o}/c)sinj**
[

Within the
context of wave theories of light, the phenomenon of Light Aberration is
decidedly asymmetrical. That is because the shift, in the true position of the
source, caused by the motion of the observer, and the shift, in the same
position, caused by the motion of the source, are not equal. And as a result,
the symmetry of relative motions is shattered. See [**Ref. #2**].

By
comparison, on the basis of ballistic theories of light, the shift caused by
the Light Aberration is exactly equal to the shift caused by the Light Travel
Time introduced by a source moving with the same speed as that of the observer
but in the opposite direction. Consequently, the symmetry of relative
velocities is retained. This conclusion can be illustrated by comparing, for
example, Maxwell's Theory with the Emission Theory, in this regard.

Take, for
instance, the case of *j = 90 ^{o}.*

Let *v* be the velocity of the observer, with
respect to a source of light at rest.

Using Equation
#[5.2], we obtain the shift of Light Aberration *D*** j_{o}**, on both theories:

*sin**D*** j_{o} = v/c**
[

Now let *v* be the velocity of the source with
respect to an observer at rest.

Light,
emitted by the source at Emit Time, takes time *t *to reach the stationary observer at receive time. By then, the
source has moved, at right angle to the line of sight, a distance *vt*.
From the right triangle of *ct*
and *vt*, we obtain, on Maxwell's
Theory, the Light-Travel-Time shift ** D**j

*tan*** D**j

From
trigonometry:

*sin*** D**j

Combining
Equation #[5.5] and Equation #[5.6], we get:

*sin*** D**j

By
comparing ** D**j

Let's turn
next to the Emission Theory of light. According to this theory, light, emitted
by a moving source, moves along the line of sight with the combined velocity *c'*. Since the source, in the case under
discussion, is moving at right angle to the line of sight, then

*i = 90 ^{o}.* Using
this value of

** c' =
c[1 - v^{2}/c^{2}]^{1/2}**
[

From the
right triangle of *c't* and *vt*, we obtain, on the basis of the
Emission Theory, the Light-Travel-Time shift ** D**j

*tan*** D**j

From the
equations #[5.6], #[5.8], & #[5.9], we obtain:

*sin*** D**j

Therefore,
by comparing this equation with Equation #[5.4], we conclude that the shift of
Light Aberration is always equal to the shift of Light Travel Time, as both
computed on the basis of the Emission Theory of light.

**[2]**** ****The General Form of
the Law of Aberration:**

Now, we
consider the case in which both the source and the observer are in motion.

Let the
velocity vector of the source *v _{s}* make an angle

And let the
velocity vector of the observer *v _{o}*
make an angle

** c' = c[1 - (v^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{s}cosi** [

Applying the
law of sines to the above case, we obtain:

*sin**D*** j
= (v/c')sinj** [

From
Equations #[5.11] and #[5.12], we obtain the general form of the Law of
Aberration:

*sin**D*** j
= v_{o}sinj / { c[1 - (v_{s}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{s}cosi}**
[

Where *D*** j** is the shift of Light Aberration.

Finally, it
should be pointed out that the shift, in the source position due to Light
Aberration,** **represents only an instance of apparent rotation. And so the
source image, at receive time, remains as it was at emit time. No aspect of the
image at emit time is hidden, and no new aspect of the source is revealed at
receive time, by this apparent shift, in the source position, due to Light
Aberration. More importantly, the rotation of the line of sight, in the forward
direction, by an angle Dj, does not affect the angle

**6.
****Velocities Relative to Absolute Space**

Having discussed the essentials of the Emission Theory, we can, now, proceed to examine its predictions with regard to uniform motions relative to absolute space. It should be mentioned at the outset that, from the standpoint of kinematics, the space motion of any physical body can have potentially an infinite number of components in an infinite number of directions. But, at any instant, those components can only have one instantaneous resultant in only one direction.

The term '*absolute velocity*' will be used throughout
this discussion to refer to the instantaneous resultant of the various velocity
components of a moving object with respect to immobile space.

The Doppler Principle, the Law of Aberration, and the Concept of Relative Motion, are the only required input for determining absolute velocities through the use of the Emission Theory of light. The basic method of inference, used here, is to calculate the Doppler shift and the Bradley shift for a given value of relative velocity of two or more objects on the assumption of common absolute velocity equal to zero, and to compare the final results with the results obtained by assuming non-zero common velocity relative to absolute space. In its broad aspects, this procedure is analogous to the methods used in dynamics to infer rotation relative to absolute space from the effects of the Coriolis force and related phenomena. As stated at the start of this discussion, in order to deduce the values of absolute velocities from the given quantities, the absolute value of the given relative velocity of, at least, two parts of the moving system, must be greater than zero. In other words, if all the components of the system in question are at rest relative to each other, then the absolute velocity of that system cannot be determined on the basis of the Emission Theory. Any type of relative velocity can be used for this purpose. Here, we shall discuss the two important cases of uniform translational motion and uniform circular motion.

**[A]**** ****The Case of Uniform Translational Motion:**

Let an isolated system consist of two independent bodies in uniform linear motion relative to each other. And let the inertial frame of one of these two bodies be the reference frame in which the observer is at rest. In the context of the theory under discussion, this system can only be in one of three distinct states:

**(1)**** ****The Observer at Rest:**

Let the common absolute velocity of the system be *v _{A}*, and

Let the second body of the system be the light source, and
let its velocity *v _{s}* make
an angle

** f' = f[1 + {(v_{s}/c)cosi}/{1 - (v_{s}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]**
[

Where *f'* is the
observed frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Equation #[6.1] is the Doppler equation, in the special case
of moving source and observer at rest, for a system whose absolute velocity is
nil, i.e. *v _{A} = 0*.

Now let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity is greater than zero, i.e. *v _{A} *

And hence, *v _{o}*

* *

*f' = f[1 + {(v _{A}/c)cosj + ((v_{A }+*

Since *v _{A}*,
by definition, is the common velocity of the source and the observer, and by
the above configuration j

*f' = f[1 + {(** v _{s}/c)cosi } / {1 - ((v_{A }+ v_{s} )^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]* [

Where *f'* is the
observed frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Equation #[6.3] is the Doppler equation, in the special case
of moving source and observer at rest, for a system whose absolute velocity is *v _{A} *

Let *z* * = **D**f’/f*. And
compute *z _{o}* from Equation
#[6.1] and

*z _{A}/z_{o}*

Therefore, we conclude that the Doppler shift of a moving
source as measured in a system moving with a non-zero linear absolute velocity
is greater than the Doppler shift of the same local motion as measured in a
system at rest with respect to absolute space. Consequently, the ratio between
the observed Doppler shift *z _{A}*
and the Doppler shift expected theoretically

**(2)**** ****The Source at Rest:**

Let *v _{A} = 0*, and the velocity of the observer

*sin**D**j
= (**
v _{o}/c)sinj*
[

Where D*j* is the shift of Light Aberration.

From Equation #[6.5], we obtain the true position of the
source *j _{0}’*, where

*f' = f[1 + (v _{o}/c)cos*

Where *f'* is the
observed frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Equation #[6.6] is the Doppler equation, in the special case
of moving observer and source at rest, for a system whose absolute velocity is
nil, i.e. *v _{A} = 0*.

Now let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity is greater than zero, i.e. *v _{A} *

And hence, *v _{o}*'

*sin**D**j
= [( v _{A}*

Where c’ = *c**
{1 - (v _{A}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}* +

* *

And then we use *j _{A}’*

_{ }

** f' = f[1 + {( v_{A} + v_{o})cosj_{A}’
+ v_{A}cosi } / c{1 - (v_{A}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]** [

Since *v _{A}*,
by definition, is the common velocity of the source and the observer, and by
assumption

*f' = f[1 + (** v _{o}/c)cosj_{A}’
} / {1 - (v_{A}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]* [

Where *f'* is the observed
frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Equation #[6.9] is the Doppler equation, in the special case
of moving observer and source at rest, for a system whose absolute velocity is *v _{A} *

Let *z* * = *D*f’/f*. And
compute *z _{o}* from Equation #[6.6]
and

*z _{A}/z_{o}*

Therefore, we conclude that the Doppler shift of a moving observer as measured in a system moving with a non-zero linear absolute velocity is greater than the Doppler shift of the same relative motion as measured in a system at rest with respect to absolute space.

Let us, now, compare the shift of Light Aberration in
Equation #[6.5] to that in Equation #[6.7]. For an observer and light source
moving with a common absolute velocity *v _{A}*,
the shift of Light Aberration is exactly cancelled out by the shift of the
Secular Parallax. To demonstrate that is indeed the case, let the line joining
the source and the observer make a right angle with the vector of their common
velocity

Light emitted by the source, at Emit Time, takes time *t* to reach the observer, at Receive
Time. During that time, the observer has moved a distance *v _{A}t* parallel to that of the source image. From the right triangle

* **sin**D**j
= v _{A}*

Where D*j *is the angle of the Secular Parallax.
This angle is exactly equal to the angle of Light Aberration as calculated from
Equation #[5.13], but in the opposite direction. Light Aberration, therefore,
takes this shifted image of the source, in the backward direction, and shifts
it by an equal amount, in the forward direction, to coincide exactly with the
true position of the source at Receive Time. Thus the two effects of the
velocity component *v _{A}*
cancel each other out, and we obtain from

Equation #[6.7]:

*sin*** Dj = (v_{o}/c')sinj**
[

Let *Dj _{0}* =

*D**j _{A}/*

Where c’ = *c**
{1 - (v _{A}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}* +

Therefore, we conclude that the shift of Light Aberration as
measured in a system moving with a non-zero linear absolute velocity is greater
for (*j **£ 90 ^{o}*)
and less for (

It should be pointed out that, unlike the Light-Aberration shift,
the Parallax shift represents a true rotation of the source image with respect
to the observer. Accordingly, it changes the viewing angle and the angle ‘*i*’ that the velocity vector of the
source ‘*v _{s}*’ makes with the
line of sight. Since the Parallax shifts the source image to the opposite
direction to that of the observer motion, then

**(3) ****The Source and the Observer in Motion:**

Let *v _{A} = 0*,

*sin**D*** j
= v_{o}/c’)sinj** [

Where c’ = *c**{1
- v _{s }^{2}/c^{2}sin^{2}i}^{1/2}* +

From Equation #[6.14], we obtain the true position of the
source *j _{0}’*, where

*f' = f[1 +{ _{ }v_{o}cos*

Where *f'* is the
observed frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Next, let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity is greater than zero, i.e. *v _{A} *

*sin**D**j
= [( v _{A}*

Where c’’ =
*c**{1 - (v _{A +} v_{s
)}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}* + (

Since *v _{A}*
is the common velocity of both the source and the observer, the shift of its
Light Aberration cancels out in the above equation by the shift caused by the
Parallax and we rewrite Equation #[6.16]:

*sin**D*** j
= ( v_{o}/c’’)sinj** [

And then we insert *j _{A}’
= j + *D

_{ }

*f' = f[1 + {( v _{A}*

Since *v _{A}*,
by definition, is the common velocity of the source and the observer, and by
our assumption

** f' = f[1 + {v_{o}cosj_{A}’ + v_{s}cosi} /
c{1 - (v_{A +} v_{s )}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i}^{1/2}]** [

Where *f'* is the
observed frequency in the inertial frame of the observer.

Let *z* * = *D*f’/f*. And
compute *z _{o}* from Equation
#[6.15] and

*z _{A}/z_{o}*

Therefore, we conclude that the Doppler shift as measured in a system moving with a linear absolute velocity is greater than the Doppler shift of the same relative motion as measured in a system at rest with respect to absolute space.

Let us, now, compare the shift of Light Aberration in
Equation #[6.14] to that in Equation #[6.17]. Let b_{0} = sin*Dj*
for Equation #[6.14], and b_{A = }sin*Dj *for Equation #[6.17], and divide b_{A}
by b_{0}:

*b _{A}/ b_{0}*

Therefore, we conclude that the shift of Light Aberration as
measured in a system moving with a non-zero linear absolute velocity is greater
for (*j **£ 90 ^{o}*)
and less for (

**[B]**** ****The Case of Uniform Circular Motion:**

We have now to consider the important special case of uniform circular motion. The magnitude of the tangential velocity, in this case, is constant, but its direction is changing continually around the circular orbit. Let an isolated system consist of two independent bodies revolving clockwise in uniform circular motion relative to each other. And let the inertial frame of one of these two bodies be the reference frame in which the observer is at rest. In the context of the theory under discussion, this system can only be in one of the following states:

**(1)**** ****The Source in Motion:**

Let the common absolute velocity of the system be *v _{A}*, and

Now let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity *v _{A}*
is greater than zero, and

From the law of cosines:

*v _{s}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{s}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{s}cos*

From the given geometry above:

*cos*** a =
sinj**
[

Where *j* is the
direction of the observer velocity vector.

Substituting *j* for
*a *in
Equation #[6.22]:

** v_{s}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{s}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{s}sinj]^{1/2} ** [

The direction of *v _{s}*’
is the angle

** c’ = c[1- (v_{s}’^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{s}’cosi ** [

Where (*v _{s}*’)
is calculated from Equation # [6.24].

Since both
effects are equal in magnitude, Light Aberration can be used to determine the
Parallax shift of the velocity components of the source, D*j*, using
Equation #[5.13]:

*sin**D*** j
= (v_{A}/c')sinj**
[

Where *c'* is determined by Equation #[6.25].

Because *v _{A}* is the common velocity of
the system, the direction of the source velocity component

*z = **D**f/f
= [v _{s}sin*

Where (D*j*) is computed
from Equation #[6.26].

Hence, for
a source revolving clockwise, the maximum Doppler blue shift, as measured by an
observer at the centre of the orbit, is at *j
= 90 ^{o}*, and the maximum Doppler red shift is at

Therefore,
we conclude that in an isolated system moving with a linear absolute velocity *v _{A} *

**(2) ****The Observer in Motion:**

Let the common absolute velocity of the system *v _{A} = 0*, and let the observer revolve clockwise with a tangential
velocity

Now let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity *v _{A}*
is greater than zero, and

From the law of cosines:

*v _{s}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{o}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{o}cos*

From the given geometry above:

*cos*** a =
sini** [

Where *i* is the
direction of the source velocity vector *v _{A}*.

Substituting *i* for
*a *in
Equation #[6.28]:

** v_{o}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{o}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{o}sini]^{1/2} ** [

The direction of *v _{A}*
of the source is the angle

** c’ = c[1- (v_{A}^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{A}cosi ** [

Since both
effects are equal in magnitude, Light Aberration can be used to determine the
Parallax shift of the velocity components of the source, D*j*, using
Equation #[5.13]:

*sin**D*** j
= (v_{o}’/c')sinj**
[

Where *v _{o}*’ is calculated from Equation #[6.30] and

Because *v _{A}* is the common velocity of
the system, the direction of the source velocity component

*z = **D**f/f
= [v _{o}sin*

Where (D*j*) is
computed from Equation #[6.32].

Thus, for
an observer revolving clockwise around a source at the centre of the orbit, the
maximum Doppler red shift, as measured by the same observer, is at *i = 90 ^{o}*, and the maximum
Doppler blue shift is at

Therefore, we
conclude that in an isolated system moving with a linear absolute velocity *v _{A} *

**(3)**** ****The Source and the Observer in Motion:**

Let the common absolute velocity of an isolated system *v _{A} = 0*, and let the source and the observer revolve clockwise
with tangential velocities

Now let’s assume that the absolute value of the above
system’s absolute velocity *v _{A}*
is greater than zero, and

The effect of the Parallax, caused by the observer motion,
is to rotate the line of sight counter-clockwise by an angle of D*j*. Consequently, each angle, made to the
line of sight by the velocity vectors of both the source and the observer, is
increased, as measured in the inertial frame of the observer, by an angle D*j*, when the observer is revolving in the
direction of *v _{A}*, and
decreased by the same amount, when the observer is revolving in the opposite
direction. And hence,

From the law of cosines:

*v _{o}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{o}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{o}cos*

Where *v _{o}*’
is the resultant velocity of the observer.

*v _{s}’ = [v_{A}^{2} + v_{s}^{2} + 2v_{A}v_{s}cos*

Where *v _{s}*’
is the resultant velocity of the source.

The direction of the vector *v _{s}’* is the angle

** c’ = c[1- (v_{s}’^{2}/c^{2})sin^{2}i]^{1/2} + v_{s}’cosi ** [

Where (*v _{s}’)*
is computed from Equation #[6.35].

Since both
effects are equal in magnitude, Light Aberration can be used to determine the
Parallax shift of the velocity components of the source, D*j*, using
Equation #[5.13]:

*sin**D*** j
= (v_{o}’/c')sinj**
[

Where *v _{o}*’ is calculated from Equation #[6.34] and

Because *v _{A}* is the common velocity of
the system, the direction of the source velocity component

*z = **D**f/f
= [(v _{o } + v_{s}
)sin*

Where (D*j*) is
computed from Equation #[6.37].

Therefore,
for an observer and source revolving clockwise around a common centre, the maximum
Doppler red shift, as measured in the reference frame of the observer, is at *a _{o
}*

By considering, in the three cases above, a system whose two
components are in uniform circular motion with respect to each other, we
conclude that a system, moving with linear absolute velocity *v _{A} *

**7. ****Concluding Remarks**

No doubt, the Emission Theory of light, in terms of its explanatory and predictive power, is far more productive than and superior to any other theory in this field. The relative ease with which one deduces its logical consequences is immensely refreshing. Especially, if you recall the agony of deriving the meager and often logically untenable results of Einstein’s Relativity and its Siamese twin, the Quantum Theory.

One may argue that if the theory under discussion comes under severe criticism for a century or so, it will, eventually, become as complex and sterile as these two theories.

It may turn out that way, but if and only if it’s wrong from the outset. That is because in science, as in politics, if you start with the wrong assumptions, you will, eventually, in due time, take refuge, without even noticing it, in vagueness, complexity, and false distinction.

The problem of false starts is even more severe almost to
the point of incurability in the field of physics. Because in physics, no
matter how wrong your start point is, if you work hard enough, and if you don’t
lose sight of the experimental results, you will in the end have a set of
mathematical equations that can describe and save the phenomena, at hand,
reasonably well. The only penalty, for being qualitatively wrong, in this
regard, is to be quantitatively complicated. And since complexity per se does
not prove that a hypothesis is wrong, there is no such thing that can be, even
remotely, called ‘*decisive evidence*’
or a ‘*knockout*’ in physics.

It’s true that experimenters, in particular, love to think
otherwise. But with a bit of ingenuity and hard work on the part of the
theorist, even the most sophisticated experiment can be turned on its head and
used to support the theory in question. And so whenever you hear a historian or
some naïve onlooker talking about such and such a ‘*knockout*’ experiment,
or such and such an ‘*ill-fated*’ theory, you can be absolutely sure that,
either the proponents of that theory have been unfairly marginalized, or they
haven’t worked hard enough to modify their theory and meet the challenge.

Therefore, the correctness or falsity of any physical theory hinges entirely on its qualitative part. Is it true? Is it physically feasible? Is it logically consistent? These are the bothersome questions, which the proponents of erroneous theories wish to eradicate and bury forever, and always end up in having their theories and hypotheses buried by them instead.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the most enduring legacy of any scientific endeavor is its collection of facts and observational data. Theories and hypotheses don’t matter in the long run. Thus, if the use of some false hypothesis can add new facts to those collections, then so be it. Only if the fallacious hypothesis starts to be an obstacle in the way of progress and agent of stagnation and darkness, then it must be bombarded with criticism continuously until its proponents relent and get out of the way of new approaches and new methods in the investigation of the natural world.

At present, it’s glaringly obvious that the notorious pair
(*The Relativity & the Quantum*) have outlived their usefulness and
begun to corrupt the hard science of physics. Their twisted and absurd
interpretations of reality are insulting to rational thinking and reason. It’s,
therefore, the duty of every thinking individual alive to try to free physics
of their shackles and to have their dogmatists boxed up and tamed for
good.

**1.** **Cyrenika, A.A.**, “**Principles of Emission Theory**”:

__http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1CYR.pdf__

__ __

**2. Dogra, R.**, “**Apparent
Lack of Symmetry in Stellar Aberration and Euclidean Space Time**”:** http://www.rajandogra.freeservers.com/**

** **

**3.
Einstein, A., “****On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies****“:** http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

**4. ** **Fox, J.G.**, “* Evidence Against Emission Theories”*,
Am. J. of Phys, 33, 1, (1965).

**5. Ives, H.,
et al**, (1938). J. Opt. Soc. Am., 28, 215-226

**6.**
**Weiss, P.**, “**Light Pulses Flout Sacrosanct Speed Limit**”:
__http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp__

**7.** **Waldron,
R.A.**, (1980). Speculations in Science & Technology, 3, 4, 385-408.

**8.** **Waldron,
R.A.**, (1979). Speculations in Science & Technology, 2, 3, 303-312.

**9. Wang, L.J., et al**,
“**Gain-Assisted
Superluminal Light Propagation**”: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0_fs.html

[**1**] __Restricted Relativity____:____http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj3.htm__

[**2**] ** Fake Physics - A Dialogue**: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj.htm

[**3] **** Remarks
on Davidson's Apeiron Article**: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/faraj2.htm

[**4**] ** Superluminal Light:** http://www.wbabin.net/science/faraj8.htm