Michelson & Morely + More
Date: 07/07/2007 (1st Edition) - 04/23/2010 (2nd Edition)
by Ken More
Concepts expressed in Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (SR) may soon be needed to solve real world 21st century problems. How can computer systems engineers predict response time between platforms that are moving at high speeds in outer space and how can they predict the computational power of these platforms when moving at high speeds? Also, how proactive must they be to feel comfortable that they can apply relativity theory in future interplanetary confrontations where space crafts travel at extreme speeds and are armed with speed-of-light weapons such as laser guns? The response time between two points at rest can be predicted by conventional queuing equations and mathematical models. However, the distance between two points moving at very high speeds (relativistic speeds) is significantly shortened. Also, SR implies that the power of a fast moving computer platform is significantly reduced relative to an observer at rest. Therefore, conventional models may not be accurate or reliable enough for some real world 21st century engineering problems. The shortening of the distance between two moving points is known as length contraction. The reduction in speed of a moving clock and the reduction in computational power of a moving computer platform is caused by time dilation as described in the theory of Special Relativity.
The generalized model, named the M/M/+M® Model, can be used for simulation of light mechanics as described in the theory of Special Relativity (SR). The M/M/+M® Model can also be used for “What If” simulation of modifications to SR to test different assumptions about length contraction. The M/M/+M® Model reliably simulates the critical elements of Special Relativity Theory and is a Research and Development (R&D) test bed for the development and testing of alternative hypotheses / theories. For brevity, the R&D test bed M/M/+M® Model will also be referred to or pronounced as “the MM+M Model”.
This story “Michelson & Morley + More” is an introduction to the M/M/+M Model. The background of Special Relativity and birth of the M/M/+M Model will be discussed and the reader will be introduced to some basic concepts of queuing theory. Also, these basic queuing theory concepts will be applied in “An Interplanetary Wars Science / Fiction Short-Story” about speed-of-light transmissions. In the Part I and Part II pages you will find a description of the Relative Response Time (RRT) Hypothesis and a description two modes of operation for the M/M/+M Model
The stories to be told are part science and part fiction; therefore, whatever the stories or characters elucidate will not be taken as necessities of thought or a priori givens that achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens as it would be if it were advocated by an icon of the scientific community. Thereby, the reader is free to focus upon the believability of the stories and is free to decide which story is more logical, which story is more scientific, if either, and which story appears to be more fictional. Knowledge is dynamic, it is relative to its place in space and time, it is built up by story tellers - be they scientists, philosophers, theologians, or science fiction writers - standing upon the shoulders of their forefathers. In other words, scientific theories have historically been part science and part fiction. However, we should treat our forefathers who have played the “risky game” of theoretical science with the respect they properly deserve, not for their genius but for sharing their vision, thereby making it possible for future generations to build upon their vision. We should not make disparaging, derogatory or defamatory remarks about scientists and their stories because they are usually not their stories but are visions from other scientists that they have built upon. Instead, we should have the intestinal fortitude, as did they, to play the “risky game” of building upon the visions that they have likewise built upon. During 2007 the stories in Parts I and II were posted on this R&D web site; these stories will be periodically updated and will generate derivatives in time and this web site will be updated to report developments that will improve our range of vision and understanding. In the future we will see additional web pages as additional information and test results become available and we may see parts of the original two stories change from science / fiction to more science and less fiction.
If you do not have a background in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics or the physical sciences the stories posted at the R&D web site may be difficult to understand. If you are well versed in Special Relativity and believe it to be an unalterable given and prefer to do the SR math yourself rather than use a model that will do-the-math for you then you may as well stop reading here. However, if you are in an SR box but would prefer to use a model that will do the math for you and reliably produce the same results as SR you should continue reading. Many physicists who are in the SR box may be tempted to uncompromisingly tear the RRT straw-man apart despite the fact that it can give the same results as the SR Model when executed in SR mode just because it does not use the same equations that they have accepted as unalterable givens. Therefore, the following quotes from Albert Einstein are directed to the out of hand “naysayer”.
“Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as necessities of thought, a priori givens, etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason”.
A vigorous defense of the boundaries of the SR thesis against change is a good thing because it will keep systems engineers and programmers from making serious errors. However, SR will eventually undergo change; if not in the 21st century or 3rd millennium AD it will change in a later century or millennium. SR’s obituary has already been written by the father of SR (what physics looks like without gravitation), Einstein himself, as evidenced by the following two paragraph quote:
“All attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are in accordance with general relativity from the beginning. This situation makes it difficult to use our empirical knowledge, however comprehensive, in looking for the fundamental concepts and relations of physics, and it forces us to apply free speculation to a much greater extent than is presently assumed by most physicists.
I do not see any reason to assume that the heuristic significance of the principle of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately on the basis of special relativity, with the hope that later on the whole may be fitted consistently into a general relativistic scheme. I do not think that such an attitude, although historically understandable, can be objectively justified. The comparative smallness of what we know today as gravitational effects is not a conclusive reason for ignoring the principle of general relativity in theoretical investigations of a fundamental character. In other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to ask: What would physics look like without gravitation?”
The question then is not whether the SR thesis will eventually join with an antithesis and become reborn as a more useful synthesis for whatever reason. But the question is when will SR undergo this synthesis and for what practical reason. An introduction to the real concepts of theoretical physics known as Special Relativity and an introduction to a new R&D test bed model that simulates SR as well as other “What If” scenarios will be given in the following section.
Background: Birth of the M/M/+M® Model
The M/M/+M® Relative Response Time Model, Version 1 (V1) has been born in the Computer Performance Measurement (CPM) and Capacity Planning (CP) environment. CP uses scientific tools (mathematics, statistics and various computer program products including queuing and analytic models) to predict an outcome based upon a given premise or hypothetical “What If” assumption about the future. A primary reason for this is that as a mainframe or server approaches its capacity utilization limit of 100% response times become very long and can put a company in a seriously disadvantaged competitive position. Another reason for capacity planning is for budget planning. Over the past 30 + years, changes in platforms have required long lead times and have been large budget items for most companies. For these reasons, the capacity planner must be proactive and apply the most useful scientific tools available (known as best practices) in order to most reliably determine when upgrades will be needed from one to three or more years in the future. Capacity planners use mathematical models to estimate response time and other performance parameters such as throughput for various “What If” assumptions, or allowances for hardware and software configuration scenarios as well as for workload growth projections. The best practices models used have evolved over time due to the dynamics of Hegel’s Dialectic Process. The Dialectic Process is the process of developing a useful tool (or model) by starting with a thesis that has been a believable or useful theory for a period of time, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining or resolving them into a synthesis that becomes a more believable or more useful theory (or model) than the original thesis. Similarly, many scientific theories are not truths; they are only models of reality that may “order things easily” and may be believed or found useful by an individual or a group of individuals for a period of time until changed by the dialectic process.
Due to changes in the CPM and CP environment dialectic changes in the mathematical models and other scientific tools used by capacity planners and performance analysts are very important. These changes are important to planners and performance analysts because their credibility depends upon the reliability and accuracy of the scientific tools they use to do their job. This fact makes life difficult for IT planners and performance analysts because they must adjust to the changes in the tools of their trade as well as to the changes in the hardware / software environment. However, those who have managed to survive these changes over a long period of time have learned that they must quickly adjust to having their world turned upside down every few years.
This background can naturally lead to speculation about the ability of our modeling tools to accurately predict response times for potential 21st century as well as 3rd millennium problems such as to accurately predict response time between systems or networked platforms that are moving at high speeds relative to each other. At first blush, this does not seem to be such a monumental task because it is commonly accepted that the Principle of Relativity and the Theory of Special Relativity lay out all of the fundamental logic and mathematics needed. However, after trying to apply the three fundamental equations of SR for building a relative response time model it becomes obvious that a single more generalized equation (or algorithm) is needed. Two of the three SR equations are fairly straight forward and not very difficult to understand. These two equations deal with the concepts of time dilation and length contraction.
The concept of time dilation is that a moving clock as well as the “time” (T’) of a traveler (the Traveler) shrinks relative to the clock and “time” (T) measured by a stationary observer (the Observer) by the factor (1 - (v/c)2)1/2 that is, T’ = T(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 where v is the velocity of the Traveler and c is the velocity of an electromagnetic signal that moves vertically to the direction of motion of the Traveler according to the Traveler.
The concept of length contraction is that the path length (L) of a signal moving in the direction of motion will appear to be shorter than it would appear at rest (L0) by the ratio (1 - (v/c)2)1/2, that is, L = L0(1 - (v/c)2)1/2. After trying to apply the concept of length contraction in a response time model, it eventually becomes clear that a more generalized model is needed that can be used as an R&D test bed to test alternative assumptions about length contraction. One reason for this conclusion is that L = L0(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 applies only to a signal that is moving in the direction of motion of the Traveler. Other more compelling reasons will be discussed at the R&D web site that has been built to provide information about the M/M/+M Model and to support research and development of the M/M/+M Model.
The third equation of SR deals with the Concept of Simultaneity. This concept asserts that a clock at the moving point where a signal starts runs out-of-sync with the moving clock at a point where the signal ends by an amount of time determined by the equation: Out-of-sync Time = (v * L0) / c2. In this primer, you will not be “dragged through the bushes” of the various and confusing explanations of the Concept of Simultaneity. However, the simple mechanics of synchronizing moving clocks will be explored and developed beyond the confines of SR.
Finally, there is a problem with the meaning of time (T and T’) or (t and t’) in the SR vernacular. After trying to map these time concepts into a model that can predict response time, it becomes clear that T is “response time” or “elapsed time” as measured by the Observer in seconds (sec). In the general case, T’ as measured in seconds’ (sec’) can be shown to be more akin to the concept of service time as measured in seconds (sec) by the Observer’s clock. Response time as measured by the Traveler is measured in seconds’ (sec’) and response time as measured by the Observer is measured in seconds (sec) in the M/M/+M Model. This convention is will facilitate the use of the M/M/+M Model for simulation of SR concepts. In the M/M/+M Model Response Time = Service Time + Queuing Time, and each of these three variables are measured in sec and are, therefore, fungible. The concepts of response time, service time and queuing time may be difficulty to understanding for those who have not studied queuing theory and they may be skeptical and critical of any suggestion that these concepts could lead to a new SR synthesis. However, one should be knowledgeable before he is qualified to be a critic. Therefore, critics of using queuing theory terminology and equations as a basis for developing a special relativity model should at least attempt to understand the meaning of queuing theory variable names and functions before they criticize their potential relevance. Once critics understand the meaning of the terms queuing time, response time, and service time and once they understand how queuing equations can be applied in an SR synthesis then they may gain some appreciation that these terms and relationships can “connect the dots” and “order things easily” regardless of whether there is any empirical evidence that queuing theory as traditionally understood is relevant or whether it has been used in the past to describe the behavior of light in a moving inertial frame.
So, we find ourselves in a predicament – “our empirical knowledge, however comprehensive, in looking for the fundamental concepts and relations of physics” to be applied to the construction of a relative response time model, is no longer useful and this empirical knowledge must undergo dialectic change. This predicament “forces us to apply free speculation to a much greater extent than is presently assumed by most physicists”. Seven years of free speculation and testing transpired before the first version (V1) of the M/M/+M Model V1R0 (R0 is a beta release) was completed and the Relative Response Time Hypothesis was derived. It is likely that several more years of free speculation and testing will transpire before a Relative Response Time Model can be built that will be useful for predicting relative response times between points with significantly different gravitational effects. Also, it is likely that an even longer amount of time will be required before a Relative Response Time Model can be built that simulates the effects of electromagnetism as well as the effects of gravity. When this has been accomplished, a General Relative Response Time Hypothesis will have been expressed and a General Response Time Model can be built.
The M/M/+M® Relative Response Time Model was developed by starting back at the beginning before the SR Model was developed. The M/M/+M Model is based upon findings that have resulted from the Michelson-Morley (MM) Experiment by A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley in 1881. The basic idea of the MM Experiment was to detect the time difference between light traveling in an ether stream going "upstream then back downstream" and light going "across to a shore and back" that is described in a configuration of three mirrors moving upstream together as shown at this MM Experiment link.
The finding of the MM Experiment was that there is no difference in the time required for light to go "upstream then back downstream" and time required for light going "across to a shore and back". The MM experiment has been thoroughly tested with the mirrors configured at various angles to the direction of motion, and with the configuration of mirrors moving towards the light source as well as away from the light source. A conclusion that there is no change in diffraction patterns and no difference in response times (signal transmission delays) across the two paths has been supported by these experiments. To account for this, F. G. Fitzgerald postulated and H. A. Lorentz extended what became known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction in 1892. This postulate was that the length (L) of the moving horizontal arm, as measured by the Observer, contracts to its length at rest (Lo) divided by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Factor (l) = 1/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 with respect to the vertical arm to account for the results of the MM Experiment. This formula was revised and expanded to express equations for transformation of four dimensional space-time coordinates from those of the Observer to those of a traveler in the Lorentz Transformation Equations. According to Henri Poincare in his 1905 paper, the Lorentz transformation equation [t’ = (t – (v*Lo/c2))/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2] applies only when a light particle travels in the direction of motion of its path. Poincare added the equation [t’ = (t + (v*Lo/c2))/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2] that applies when the light particle travels opposite to the direction of motion of its path. Albert Einstein, in his 1905 paper, apparently accepted the Fitzgerald-Lorentz equation L = Lo*(1 - (v/c)2)1/2, but rejected the Poincare equation [t’ = (t ± (v*Lo/c2))/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2]. Einstein’s most important contribution to relativity theory may have been his ability to visualize and comprehend how mechanical systems work. This ability was no doubt cultivated by his experience as a patent clerk. He could, perhaps, see that the factors in Poincare’s equation for computing t’ could not be explained as a coherent system of working parts. Therefore, in his theory of Special Relativity, he apparently broke out the factor ± (v*Lo/c2) / (1 - (v/c)2)1/2 from the Poincare equation [t’ = (t/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2) ± ((v*Lo/c2)/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2)] that is measured in the Observer’s seconds and applied the conversion factor t’/t = (1 - (v/c)2)1/2 sec’/sec to derive the term ±(v*Lo/c2) sec’ that he visualized as a clock synchronization factor. He could see that the Traveler’s clock must run slower than the Observer’s clock, therefore, according to his special relativity mathemagic logic T = t2 – t1 = T’/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 where T is the time measured by a stationary clock and T’ is the time measured by a moving clock - see Time Dilation tab in Lorentz Transformation Equations. Finally, he put these three pieces together to describe a coherent system of working parts that was lucid enough for most physicists to visualize as a complete working model that was useful in “ordering things easily”. Einstein was such a well practiced “mathemagician” that mainstream physicists are convinced that SR Theory is scientific fact. If it is not scientific fact, then Einstein’s mistake may have been that in his hurry to win the race in the “risky game” of describing the mechanics of light transmission between moving bodies, he failed to reject the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and tried to quickly construct a model that was built around the assumption that L = Lo * (1 - (v/c)2)1/2.
Mainstream physicists apparently believe that a model that reliably predicts the behavior of the MM Experiment does not have a burden of experimental proof because the experiments have already been done. The M/M/+M® Model R1V0 test bed model shows that the length contraction assumptions made in Phi Mode as well as the assumptions made in SR Mode reliably predict the behavior of the MM Experiment. The “What If” assumptions simulated in the M/M/+M Model Phi Mode story are that the vertical arm of the Michelson and Morley Experiment does not contract and that an arm parallel to the direction of motion contracts to a length L = T (c - v) instead of Lo / l and where T = Response Time between points ‘b’ and ‘d’ (RTbd) = (Lo * l) / c. RTbd as well as T are measured in seconds not seconds prime because T and RTbd are Elapsed Time (ET) as seen by and measured by the Observer in his own inertial frame. Does this Phi Mode story have a burden of experimental proof? Yes, it most definitely does! Also, the SR Mode assumption that the arm pointed in the direction of motion contracts to a length L = Lo(1 – v2/c2)0.5 = Lo/ l must be proven because the M/M/+M Model shows that two different sets of assumptions reliably predict the same Traveler’s end-to-end response time (RT’) of light transmission in the MM Experiment. Phi Mode is more logical because it does not require the counter-intuitive clock synchronization “fudge factor” and there are fewer paradoxes in Phi Mode. Does this mean that Phi Mode is right and the SR Mode is wrong? No! No! No! It does not! It only means that both modes should be tested. It means that you cannot claim that one is right without a fair experimental test that will confirm that one mode is right or that both modes are wrong. Why were 20th century physicists complacent about exhaustive and thorough experimental testing of SR assumptions? Did they think such an investigation would be a “huge money burner” and may only prove that Einstein’s SR theory was correct and the expense would be for nothing”? Did it ever occur to them that billions of dollars have been spent and will continue to be spent on dead end research that is based upon unproven theories? Do they believe that the length contraction and one way travel time assumptions in SR Theory can never be tested experimentally because of some “principle of uncertainty”? The path of scientific progress can be made impassable for many generations by such errors in judgment. Was their ken so limited that they could not see more than one set of assumptions that would work for the MM Experiment (i.e. the SR assumptions)? Was their vision poor because they did not have an M/M/+M test bed model to improve their vision? Was the vision of the 17th century high priests poor because they were too lazy to learn how to use one of Galileo’s telescopes or did the conservative mainstream of the Catholic Church suppress the dialectic process for over 100 years? Did 20th century physicists think it could not be possible for more than one model to exist that could reliably simulate the behavior of the MM Experiment? Will this complacent attitude about having fair and open competition for competing models and experimental proof in theoretical physics prevail in the 21st century? Will 21st century mainstream physicists continue to refuse to learn about new measurement concepts and continue to suppress the dialectic process by peer review for another 100 years? Will this defensive suppression by mainstream physicists be taken to the point of an organized repression of left wing physicists and “insidious underground science / fiction” or will scientists have a multi-party political system with “equal air time” made available to all parties?
In the interest of “equal air time” for queuing theory, this paragraph explains how “time” is dependent upon service time and utilization. Let’s assume a single server computer that can process one transaction in 1 second. By definition, this server has a one second service time. Now let’s assume that one such transaction arrives 0.25 seconds after a first identical transaction arrives at the server; this 0.25 seconds is called the inter-arrival time. A single server cannot process both these transactions at the same time; therefore, the second transaction must have a queuing time of 0.75 seconds, that is, it must wait 0.75 seconds for the first transaction to complete. In a queuing system that has a single server and arriving transactions with a random inter-arrival time distribution and random or constant service time requirements, the average Response Time (RT) or average “time” to complete a transaction is equal to Service Time (ST) divided by (1 – U). That is, RT = ST / (1 – U) where U is the utilization of the server and U is equal to the total service time for all transactions executed during a steady-state processing period divided by the duration of this steady state period. This equation is known as the M/M/1 queuing equation.
If we compare the M/M/+M® Model equation RT = ST / (1 – U) with the SR equation T = T’/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 when applied to the vertical arm of the MM Experiment then T = RT (in seconds) while the value of T’ (in sec’) = ST (in sec). Since the equation T = T’/(1 - (v/c)2)1/2 (same as T = T’ * l) was derived from a mechanical model of light transmission in one direction (one-way trip) along a path that is perpendicular to the direction of the path’s motion, then this equation is valid only for the vertical arm in the MM experiment. However, T = RT = ET = ST / (1 – U) and ET = RT’ * l; but T is not = T’ * l except for an arm that points perpendicular to the direction of it’s motion or for the round trip time for light to travel from the back of the arm to the front and back. This is evident because as a global variable, T’ does not contain the same value as the global variable RT’ except for an arm that points perpendicular to the direction of it’s motion or for a round trip. When the arm is perpendicular to the direction of it’s motion ((1 – U) * l) = 1, then T/ l = ST/((1 – U) * l) = ST = T’. Therefore, it is easy to see that the “time” variable T’ has the same meaning as Service Time (ST) and does not have the same meaning as the Traveler’s one-way Response Time (RT’) as measured by the Traveler’s clock. In Phi Mode, RT’/ST = Lo/L = 1/( l *(1 – U)), therefore, RT’ = ST * (Lo/L) for an arm pointed in any direction while the SR equation T’ = T/ l is valid for one-way transit time along an arm that is perpendicular to it’s direction of motion only. Also, the fact that SR uses the equation T’ = (T/ l) - (v*Lo/c2) for a one-way upstream send along an arm pointed in it’s direction of motion is further evidence that as a global statement T’ is not = T/ l, therefore, as a global statement T is not = T’ * l. The M/M/+M® Model general equation T = RT = ET = ST / (1 – U) = RT’ * l and its ultimate Phi Mode form RT’ = ST*(Lo/L) are valid global statements that describes one-way light transmissions along a path that is pointed in any direction relative to it’s direction of motion. In other words, the Special Relativity equation T = T’ * l is indeed a Special case statement while the M/M/+M® Model general equation RT = ET = ST / (1 – U) = RT’ * l and the Phi Mode statement RT’ = ST * (Lo/L) are global statements.
Now, a science / fiction short-story will be told to describe how the M/M/1 queuing equation is applied in the M/M/+M® Relative Response Time Model. This short-story will also discuss some of the derivatives that will fall-out from a “What If” assumption that the horizontal arm in the MM Experiment will contract to the length L = T(c - v) instead of to the length L = L0(1 – v2/c2)0.5 as assumed by SR.
An Interplanetary Wars Science / Fiction Short-Story:
It is the year 2101, an Observer in a Democratic-Free-States-Alliance (DFSA) space craft at a stationary point ‘a’ at the stationary inertial frame’s coordinates x=0, y=200,000 km, z=0.01 km sees a space craft from the Brutal-Dictatorships-Alliance (BDA) at a moving point ‘b’ chasing another DFSA space craft at point ‘d’ in the straight line y=200,000 km, z=0 in the stationary inertial frame. A traveler at ‘d’ calls ‘a’ and reports she is being chased by ‘b’ and that she has measured the distance to ‘b’ at Lo = 150,000 km and that she has pointed her reflection shield at ‘b’. Then at time t=0 on a stationary clock at ‘a’ the Observer sees ‘b’ shoot a laser blast toward ‘d’ at the instant it passes ‘a’ at location (x) = 0, y = 200,000 km, z=0 and time (t) = 0. The Observer’s radar at ‘a’ measured the speeds (v) of ‘d’ and ‘b’ at 150,000 km/sec as they passed beside point ‘a’. The Observer at ‘a’ also calculates the time that will be on his stop watch when the blast gets to ‘b’ as Response Time (RTbd) = (Lo * l) / c = (150,000 km * 1.1547) / 300,000 km/sec = 0.57735 sec. Then he calculates the Path Length between ‘b’ and ‘d’ (PLbd) = L = RTbd * (c – v) = 0.57735 sec * (300,000km/sec – 150,000km/sec) = 86,602.54038 km. Figure A is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the blast reaches ‘d’.
Upon close examination of a slow motion film taken from ‘a’s inertial frame by an omnipresent Observer at ‘a’ he could see that the laser blast was like a small blue ball that rolls along the moving path between ‘b’ and ‘d’. The blue ball rolled on the path at a velocity of (c – v); however, since the path was moving at velocity v then the Observer at ‘a’ sees that the ball is moving across his space coordinates at a velocity c = ((c - v) + v) even though it is rolling relative to the path at velocity (c – v). After further observation of the film, he could see that when the blue ball hit the reflection shield at ‘d’ it instantly bounced back and rolled toward ‘b’ at velocity (c – v) on the moving path. He also observed an image of the blue ball rolling on an extension of the moving path behind the mirror at the same velocity (c – v) relative to the moving path. Then it was clear to the omnipresent Observer at ‘a’ that the image of the blue ball behind the mirror rolled away from the mirror at ‘d’ at the same velocity along the path that the reflected blue ball rolled away from the mirror at ‘d’ on its way back to ‘b’; just as it would if the path between ‘b’ and ‘d’ were not moving. Therefore, the omnipresent Observer at ‘a’ will see the rolling blue ball and its reflection roll the same distance on the path in the same amount of time. The Travelers at ‘b’ and ‘d’ will also see the rolling blue ball and its reflection roll the same distance on the path in the same amount of time. Figure B is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the reflected blast reaches ‘b’. Figure B shows the location of the image of point ‘b’ (Point Image) behind the reflection shield (see blue mirror) that is attached to ‘d’. The Observer at ‘a’ could see that the returning blue ball was moving relative to his space coordinates at a velocity of (c – v) – v = c – 2v = 300,000 km/sec – 2 * 150,000 km/sec = 0 km/sec without momentum. In other words, it is not moving at all in ‘a’s space coordinates even though it is rolling at a velocity (c – v) on the moving path. However, the Observer at ‘a’ can see the image of the returning blue ball moving behind the mirror at velocity c on his time continuum and moving in the direction of the moving path. Figure B shows that the location of the image of point ‘a’ is at the same point as the image of point ‘b’ (Point Image) but the Observer at point ‘a’ sees an image of the reflection shield at point ‘e’ (see red mirror) that is half way between point ‘a’ and the image of point ‘a’ (Point Image) behind the red mirror. A human Observer at ‘a’ could not have seen the rolling blue ball that is stationary in his own time continuum without the aid of the omnipresent Observer’s pictures because the returning blue ball is moving in the Travelers’ space-time continuum, not in the Observer’s space-time continuum. If the velocity (v) of the moving path were greater than c/2 (c/2 < v < c) the reflected blue ball will move in the direction of motion of the path but slower than the path motion and if v were less than c/2 (c/2 > v >= 0) then the blue ball will move in the opposite direction of the path motion; but, the image of the returning blue ball will appear to be traveling at velocity c behind the mirror and in the direction of motion of the path. The human Observer at ‘a’ will see this same image traveling at velocity c behind the mirror but he will not see the stationary blue ball. He will see a red ball that was un-entangled from the blue ball when it hit the reflection shield and he sees this un-entangled red ball traveling at velocity c on its way from ‘d’ to ‘a’. This extraterrestrial clash can be emulated by the M/M/+M® Model as illustrated in this Blast flash file (for best results, view - full screen). The blue DFSA space craft at ‘b’ appears to be chasing the red BDA spacecraft at ‘d’. The initial blast from ‘b’ and the returning reflection from ‘d’ are represented as a small blue dot that appears to be moving from ‘b’ to ‘d’ and then back to ‘b’ at velocity c with respects to the Traveler’s space-time coordinates. On its trip to ‘b’ the blue ball does not move with respect to ‘a’s x coordinate, however, the un-entangled red ball does move with respect to ‘a’s x coordinate at velocity c. Therefore, the un-entangled blue ball and the un-entangled red ball moving to their respective x=0 coordinate will have the same momentum in their respective space-time coordinates just as was the case when they were entangled as a blue ball moving from ‘b’ to ‘d’. The image of the returning reflection is a small blue dot with a yellow outline and is marked Image; this image can be seen to move at velocity c with respect to ‘b’s coordinates as well as with respects to ‘a’s coordinates. The Blast flash file can be played multiple times by the sequence right mouse button, play. The flash file can be incremented backwards or forward by the sequence right mouse button, b and right mouse button, f respectively.
The Observer will see the path between the two points shrink from a length Lo to length L when accelerated. However, before you can believe that L shrinks from 150,000 km to 86,602.54038 km as measured by the Traveler at a velocity of 150,000 km/sec and that the reflected blast reaches ‘b’ at ‘a’s stop watch time = 2 * RTbd you will need more evidence and more ken. The following paragraph will provide some theoretical evidence and will point to the ken-more.com web site for additional theoretical evidence as well as future experimental evidence.
The M/M/1 queuing equation RT = ST / (1 – U) is an equation that is commonly used to calculate the Response Time (RT) for transactions arriving at a single server with random inter-arrival time distributions and random or constant (identical) execution times. The average execution time for transactions that enter the system during a steady-state processing period or Elapsed Time (ET) is called average Service Time (ST). The Utilization (U) of a server is the server’s total service time divided by ET of the steady state period. Another Response Time equation that applies to M/M/1 queuing systems and all other First-In-First-Out (FIFO) queuing systems is RT = ST + QT where QT is the average Queuing Time for transactions waiting in a queue for service. Since RTbd is the send time component of end-to-end response time then we can express the M/M/1 equation as STbd = RTbd * (1 – U). As applied in the M/M/+M® Model, Utilization (U) is a measure of the percentage of the maximum attainable speed (c) or the capacity utilization percentage (U) that is attained by the moving path, where U = PVbd / c and PVbd is the same as v when the path is parallel to the direction of motion as described in the first paragraph of this interplanetary wars short-story.
Using the numbers from the first paragraph of this interplanetary wars short-story, STbd = RTbd * (1 – U) = RTbd * (1 – v/c) = 0.57735 sec * (1 – (150,000 km/sec / 300,000 km/sec)) = 0.28868 seconds. Also, as applied in the M/M/+M® Model, STbd = PLbd / c. This means that STbd is the amount of time that an Observer at ‘a’ would calculate as the time for the laser blast to travel the contracted path length (L) if it could travel at the velocity of light (c) along the moving path but it cannot unless the path is not moving because the speed barrier of 300,000 km/sec causes queuing. Therefore, it must take the laser blast more than the 0.28868 sec to reach ‘d’ as represented by Service Time (STbd) when the path is moving in the direction of ‘d’. It will take 0.57735 seconds to travel between ‘b’ and ‘d’ as calculated by the RTbd equation (as a function of Lo and l) in the first paragraph of this story. The missing time is defined as queuing time (QTbd) in the M/M/+M® model and is equal to RTbd - STbd = 0.28868 seconds. Since PLbd = L, then STbd = L / c = 86,602.54038 km / 300,000 km/sec = 0.28868 sec for a path that is parallel to the direction of motion. Therefore, the laser blast takes RTbd = STbd + QTbd = 0.28868 sec + 0.28868 sec = 0.57735 sec to travel from ‘b’ to ‘d’. We now have a new more generalized and completely consistent rational that is useful in ordering things easily. This rational supports the Relative Response Time (RRT) Hypothesis and the M/M/+M® Model’s Phi Mode algorithms for calculation of length contraction (L = T(c - v)) and the send response time component (RTbd = STbd / (1 – U)) for a signal traveling on a path that is pointed in the direction of motion. The M/M/+M® Model in Phi Mode assumes that the returning reflected blast moving along the path ‘d’ to ‘b’ will be identical and symmetric to its image seen moving behind a mirror along a path from ‘d’ to an image of point ‘b’. Also, all of the equations above in paragraphs 1 and 2 will be the same for the return reflection except the subscripts db will replace the subscripts bd. The rational for a return reflection that is symmetric to the send signal with respect to the Observer in Phi Mode will be expanded upon in two additional science / fiction short stories posted at a R&D web site. Also, the simulation of signal transmission on a path pointed at a 90% angle to the direction of motion as well as a transmission on a path in the direction of motion will be described in greater detail for SR Mode as well as Phi Mode simulations at the R&D web site. To summarize this Phi Mode story, the Observer sees the blast start at ‘b’ at x=0, y=200,000 km, z=0 and t=0, then reach the reflection shield at ‘d’ at x=173,205.08076 km and t=0.57735 sec. He then sees the image of the reflected blast travel from ‘d’ at x= 173,205.08076 km to ‘b’s image at 346,410.16151 km and t=1.15470 sec and at this time the BDA space craft at ‘b’ will be illuminated by the blast but this event will not be seen at ‘a’ until time = 1.73205 sec. The total distance traveled by the blast that was seen by the Observer was 173,205.08076 km and the elapsed time (ETa) was 1.15470 sec, therefore, the total distance traveled was 346,410.16151 km and he calculates that c = 346,410.16151 km / 1.15470 sec = 300,000 km/sec.
The SR Model as well as the M/M/+M Model in SR Mode assume that the value of L = Lo(1 – v2/c2)0.5 = 150,000 km (1 – (150,000 km/sec / 300,000 km/sec)2)0.5 = 129,903.8106 km (except, SR uses km’). Therefore, the send transmission ETa = RTbd = L / (c – v) = 129,903.8106 km / (150,000 km/sec – 300,000 km/sec) = 0.866025 sec instead of 0.57735 seconds predicted by Phi Mode. Figure C is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the blast reaches point ‘d’ according to SR theory. The receive transmission (or the reflection) will take Eta = RTdb = L / (c + v) = 129,903.8106 km / (300,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec) = 0.288675 sec or significantly less time than the 0.57735 seconds predicted by Phi Mode. Figure D is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the reflected blast reaches point ‘b’ according to SR theory. The SR Model predicts an end-to-end response time value ETa = 0.866025 sec + 0.288675 sec = 1.1547 seconds that is the same as the time value predicted by Phi Mode. SR Theory accounts for the difference in the send and receive response times as measured by the Observer with the argument: “The Observer’s measurements will confirm that a ball going from ‘b’ to ‘d’ covers a longer distance and takes a longer amount of time than the reflected ball bouncing from the mirror at ‘d’ back to ‘b’; but since the clock at ‘d’ is running out-of-sync with and behind the clock at ‘b’ then the two time components are the same.” Figure E following shows the configuration of ‘a’ and ‘b’ with a flash source at point ‘c’ that is half-way between ‘b’ and ‘d’. Points ‘b’, ‘c’, and ‘d’ are moving at velocity (v) in the direction from ‘b’ to ‘d’. According to SR assumptions, a clock at ‘b’ can be synchronized with a clock at ‘d’ by a flash from the light located at point ‘c’. When synchronized by this method the two moving clocks will be out-of-sync by the amount (v * Lo) / c2 = (150,000 * 150,000) / 300,0002 = 0.25 sec’ from the point of view of the Observer. SR explains that the reason for this is that the light flash reaches ‘b’ before it reaches ‘d’ due to the velocity of the path in the direction from ‘b’ to ‘d’.
Let’s now look at this Interplanetary Wars story through the eyes of a fictional character named Al. Al was a creative left wing physicist who changed many things that mainstream physicists believed at the dawn of the 20th century. We will call this very short story, told in the following paragraph, “Al’s Story”.
Al says that Figure A is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the blast reaches ‘d’. In this configuration, Al believes the distance (L) between ‘b’ and ‘d’ is 86,602.5404 km and he derived this answer as follows: L = RTbd * (c – v) and since RTbd = (Lo* l)/c, then L = ((Lo* l)/c) * (c – v) = (Lo* l) – (Lo* l *v)/c = l *Lo*(1 – (v/c)) = 1.1547005 * 150,000 km * (1 - 150,000 km/sec / 300,000 km/sec) = 86,602.5404 km. He says that Figure B is a snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ that shows ‘b’ and ‘d’ to be 86,602.5404 km apart when the reflected blast comes back to ‘b’. Al believes that his telescopic brown eye (shown in Figure B) at the stationary point ‘a’ where the blast had originated at his Elapsed Time (ETa) = 0 sec will see its own reflection at the Point Image behind the red mirror attached to an image of ‘d’ at the stationary point ‘e’. Al affirms that this image of his brown eye must always be on the moving front of the transmission originating from ‘a’ at ETa = 0 sec (see solid blue circle); therefore, he would see that his watch in the reflection will read 0 sec while at that same moment his clock at ‘a’ would read 1.1547 sec. Al believes that he will also see the telescopic blue eye of a Traveler named Bea at point ‘b’ beside his brown eye as they were when ‘b’ passed ‘a’ at ETa = 0 sec. Al asserts that the Traveler’s telescopic blue eye (shown in Figure B) at the moving point ‘b’ at his ETa = 1.1547 sec and her Elapsed Time (ETb’) = 1.0 sec’ will see her own reflection and a reflection of his brown eye side-by-side on the z-axis behind a blue mirror attached to ‘d’ at the stationary point ‘j’ (shown as a transparent blue eye and a transparent brown eye that overlap to be a grey eye). Al states that the images of the eyes as they were at ETa = 0 sec must also be on the moving front of the original transmission from ‘a’ at ETa = 0 sec (see solid blue circle); therefore, the Traveler at ‘b’ would see that her watch in the reflection will read 0 sec’ while at that same moment her clock at ‘b’ would read 1.0000 sec’. Al then concludes that the Traveler’s blue eye must always see the images of the blue and brown eyes at a distance of 150,000km’ behind the blue mirror just as she would see if ‘b’ and ‘d’ were at rest and she will see the blue mirror at 150,000 km’ in front of her and attached to ‘d’ just as she would see if ‘b’ and ‘d’ were at rest. Al believes that this version of what would be seen by the Observer and the Traveler is consistent with the physics of mirrors and the Principle of Relativity. Al affirms that, the Principle of Relativity implies that if a Traveler sees her reflection (point image) on the moving front of the original transmission (see solid blue circle) when at rest then it must be seen on this front (solid blue circle) when in motion. To conclude, Al confirms that if the blue mirror is seen attached to the actual point ‘b’ when the points are not moving then it must be seen attached to the actual point ‘b’ when ‘b’ and ‘d’ move at the same speed and direction due to the Principle of Relativity.
Finally, let’s look at this Interplanetary Wars story according to Ken who is a mainstream physicist. We will call this very short story “Ken’s Story”. At the dawn of the 21st century Ken says that he thinks “Al’s story” is naively simple and orders things much too easily and elegantly. He declares that you don’t even need a PhD in physics to understand Al’s story. He proclaims that even boy’s who don’t have any degrees at all can understand such a simple minded story. Ken believes that the real physics of relativity is much more complex stories that only physics PhD’s can understand. Ken says that Al is wrong about length contraction. He says every physics professor “fit for his office” knows that the real length contraction equation is L = Lo/ l = 150,000 km / 1.154700538 = 129,903.8106 km. Ken also claims that Al is dangerous because he is spreading propaganda that could potentially cost mainstream physicists billions of dollars in relativity research contracts over the next few years. “Ken’s Story” in the following paragraph is his attempt to explain the reflections seen by the Traveler and the Observer. As you may know, all mainstream physicists agree with SR Theory but there are not two of them who completely agree with each other in their interpretations of SR Theory.
Ken says that Figure C is the correct snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’ when the Blast11 reaches ‘d’. In this configuration, Ken claims that the distance between ‘b’ and ‘d’ is 129,903.8106 km according to the equation L = Lo / l. Therefore, he says Figure D is the correct snapshot of the configuration of the two spacecrafts at ‘b’ and ‘d’. Ken avows that Al, the Observer, thinks ‘b’ and a blue image of the mirror attached to ‘d’ are 86,602.5404 km apart when the reflected blast comes back to ‘b’ as seen by the Traveler’s telescopic blue eye at ‘b’ (see derivation of 86,602.5404 km at bottom of Figure E). Ken expects that Al’s telescopic brown eye (shown in Figure D) at the stationary point ‘a’ where the blast had originated at the Observer’s “time” (t) = 0 sec will eventually see its own reflection behind the red mirror attached to an image of ‘d’ at a point image directly behind the red mirror. Ken admits that this image of Al’s brown eye must always appear on the moving front of the transmission originating from ‘a’ at t = 0 (see solid blue circle); therefore, Al would see that his watch in the reflection will read 0 sec while at that same moment his clock at ‘a’ would read 1.7321 sec. Ken claims that at t = 1.7321 sec, Al will also see the Traveler’s telescopic blue eye beside his brown eye as they were when ‘b’ passed ‘a’ at t = 0 sec. Ken then argues that the Traveler’s telescopic blue eye (shown in Figures D and E) at the moving point ‘b’ at the Traveler’s “time” (t’) = 1.0 sec’ and t = 1.1547 sec will see its own reflection and a reflection of Al’s brown eye (shown as a transparent blue eye and a transparent brown eye that overlap to appear as a grey eye at the Point Image) behind an image of the blue mirror attached to ‘d’ at the stationary point ‘e’. Ken agrees that the images of the eyes as they were at t = 0 must also be carried by the moving front of the original transmission from ‘a’ at t = 0 (see solid blue circle); therefore, the Traveler at ‘b’ would see that her watch in the reflection will read 0 sec’ while at that same moment her clock at ‘b’ would read 1.0000 sec’. Ken insists that this is proven by the Out-of-sync Time (OT) consequence shown in Figure E as follows. Since Al, the Observer, must think the clock at ‘d’ in Figure E is 0.25 sec’ (OT = Lo*(v/c2)) behind the clock at ‘b’ (see OT in Figure E) then he must think the image of ‘d’ is Out-of-sync with its real location by an Out-of-sync Distance (OD) of 75,000 km’ (OD = OT*c = Lo*v/c) behind ‘d’ (see OD in Figure E). Also, since Al must think the Traveler’s blue eye sees its image behind the blue mirror at the Point Image on the blue send circle, then he must think the distance from ‘d’ to the Point Image is 75,000 km’ because he must think the distance from ‘e’ to the Point Image is equal to (‘e’ to ‘d’) + (‘d’ to the Point Image) = 150,000 km’. Consequently, Al must think that ‘b’ is also 150,000 km’ in front of the blue image of the mirror and he must think the Traveler at ‘b’ sees the image of her blue eye and Al’s brown eye the same distance (150,000 km’) behind the blue image of the mirror overlapped at the Point Image (shown as a grey eye in Figures D and E). Finally, since Al thinks the distance from ‘b’ to ‘e’ is 150,000 km’ and 86,602.5404 km despite the fact that 86,602.5404 km * l km’/km = 100,000 km’, then he must think the distance from ‘b’ to the image of d’ is 150,000 km’ and 86,602.5404 km. Al must then conclude that the Traveler’s blue eye must always see the images of the blue and brown eyes at a distance of 150,000 km’ behind the blue mirror just as she would see if ‘b’ and ‘d’ were at rest and Al must think the Traveler will see the blue mirror at 150,000 km’ in front of her and attached to an image of ‘d’. Ken acknowledges that the Principle of Relativity implies that if the Traveler must see her reflection (point image) on the moving front of the original transmission (see solid blue circle) when at rest then it must be seen on this front (solid blue circle) when in motion. Ken claims that, just because the blue mirror is seen attached to the actual point ‘d’ when the points are not moving is not sufficient reason for the Observer to think the Traveler must see the mirror attached to the actual point ‘d’ when ‘b’ and ‘d’ move at the same speed and direction because of the extenuating circumstance that Simultaneity supersedes the Principle of Relativity. Ken says that Simultaneity is the concept that two moving clocks and the distance between them are warped out of sync from the perspective of the Observer. Ken adds that only a few omniscient and omnipresent icons of theoretical physics are capable of truly understanding why the Observer must think that the moving clocks at ‘b’ and ‘d’ are out of sync with each other. Finally, Ken declares that a physics professor is “unfit for his office” if he does not profess that simultaneity is “truth” and does not teach that the Observer must think the distance between the out of sync clocks at ‘b’ and the image of ‘d’ must also be out of sync with the distance L = Lo/ l.
Do you believe Ken’s story or Al’s story about what a Traveler at point ‘b’ will see in the mirror attached to point ‘d’? Ken insists that professors must think and teach that “Ken’s Story” complies with the physics of mirrors laws and that Simultaneity supersedes the Principle of Relativity. Will professors now teach “Ken’s Story” or “make-up” their own story about what a Traveler at point ‘b’ will see in the mirror attached to point ‘d’? Of course, they will do neither, they will just ignore the whole issue of what would be seen in the mirror and tell the “interested student” that understanding the concept of Simultaneity separates the men from the boys.
Conclusions:
If the Observer at point ‘c’ in Figure E were not moving, as the Observer he will think the flash passes point ‘b’ at 0.25 sec’ before it arrives at ‘d’ in according to SR. However, if the Observer at point ‘c’ were attached at the midpoint between ‘b’ and ‘d’ and moving with the moving path, he will see the flash pass ‘b’ at the same time that it passes ‘d’ according to SR. Where’s the Proof that the Observer at ‘a’ must think a "circular" flash that moves the same distance (km) in all directions during a given time (sec) in the Observer's space-time continuum will synchronize the Traveler's clocks? The survival of SR depends upon such proof. Without such proof we will have an endless and narrowly focused argument about clock synchronization. Will it be possible to remove the blinders of this synchronization fixation so that we may see a bigger, more axiomatic and more creative and work of art in the nature of light propagation?
Figure F describes the synchronization assumption of Phi Mode. The Phi Mode Synchronization Assumption is that the Observer will see that the green circular synchronization flash seen by the Traveler will have the appearance of the cross-section of a biconvex lens (i.e. a "biconvex" flash) made up by joining two spherical sections. The cross-section looks like two circular sections joined at a perpendicular bisector through the center of the shape (similar to the lower case Greek letter Phi [f]) in the Observer’s coordinates. The Observer can also see that the region of the f shape (or Phi-light Zone) will appear to spread out from point ‘c’ after it started at Elapsed Time (ETb’) = 0.75 sec’ just as it would if he were attached at point ‘c’. This green perimeter of the Phi-light Zone must actually move the same distance (km’) in all directions during a given time (sec’) in the Traveler's space-time continuum as it spreads towards ‘b’; that is, it appears to spread out as a green circle according to the Traveler. The Observer must measure and, therefore, must think that the moving clocks will be synchronized by the Phi-light Zone’s perimeter when its height is 2Lo and its width is 2L. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the Observer must think that the Traveler's clocks are not synchronized by a circle with a radius = L km. It is likewise axiomatic that the Observer must think that a circle centered at a stationary point with a radius = L km can only synchronize stationary clocks. The Observer can also envision that the edge of the Phi-light Zone will actually synchronize the Travelers’ clocks at points ‘b’, ‘d’, and ‘e’ at ETb’ = 1.00 sec’ and these clocks will not be synchronized out-of-sync from the viewpoint of a stationary observers or a traveler at ‘b’ and ‘d’.
Now, let’s see if we can summarize the SR story. First, SR theory claims that the time to get from ‘b’ to ‘d’ takes longer than its reflection takes to get back from ‘d’ to ‘b’ as measured by the Observer’s clock. That is, he sees the flash starts at ‘b’ at x=0, y=200,000 km, z=0 and t=0, then he sees it reflects from ‘d’ at x=259,807.62114 km and t=0.866025 sec back to ‘b’ at x=173,205.08076 km and t=1.15470 sec. Therefore, he calculates the total distance traveled as send distance + (return distance) = 259,807.62114 km + (259,807.62114 km - 173,205.08076 km) = 259,807.62114 km + (86602.54 km) = 346,410.16151 km. SR Theory also claims that since the clocks at ‘b’ and ‘d’ are out of sync, from the Observer’s point of view then the time to get from ‘b’ to ‘d’ is really the same as the time to get from ‘d’ to ‘b’, when measured by the clocks at ‘b’ and ‘d’. The mainstream physics professors may say: “Understanding the logic of clock synchronization separates the men from the boy’s!” But the boys (i.e. the students) have one simple question: “What is the amount of time that will pass between the time that ‘b’ fires his shot and it reaches the reflection shield at ‘d’ as measured by a stationary observer’s clock; is it 0.57735 seconds as predicted by Phi mode, is it 0.866025 seconds as predicted by SR Theory?” No matter what the professor answers the boys will have two more very simple questions: “Where’s the proof? Where’s the Proof?”
Let’s be clear about the central issues in the interplanetary wars short-story. Central issue #1 is about the length of the path traveled in km and the time in seconds taken to travel the path from ‘b’ to ‘d’ as measured by clocks in the Observer’s inertial frame. Central issue #2 is about the correct Length Contraction equation. A third central issue will be introduced below that is about the correct signal aberration equation. Let’s concede that SR correctly predicts Time Dilation and the number of ticks of the Observer’s clock divided by the number of ticks of the traveling clock is equal to l during a given Elapsed Time (ETa). The new “physics of moving mirrors” introduced by “Al’s story” that obeys the Principle of Relativity and “Ken’s story” that pleas an extenuating circumstance for violation of the Principle of Relativity will not be considered as a central issues because these issues will be difficult to prove to anyone who does not have a leak-proof grip on the Principle of Relativity as well as on the old physics of stationary mirror’s. Also, the central issue is not simultaneity or clock synchronization; let’s allow that the assumption that clock’s run out-of-sync cannot be proven or disproven experimentally; however, it can be shown theoretically that the out-of-sync assumption is not needed if L = T(c - v). As will be explained in the remainder of this Conclusions section, non-central issues deal with concepts that are apparently beyond the ken of those who are not God fearing and only want to be “fit for their office” or to “make a name for themselves” or to establish a haven, or possibly an icon’s heaven, for themselves on earth. The central issues that can be proven are:
(1) Does SR reliably predict the length of the path traveled by the send signal according to the Observer? That is, does SR reliably predict the path length between the origin at ‘a’ and the point ‘e’ where the blast reaches ‘b’ as described in the above Interplanetary Wars scenario (see example in Figure C for distance from ‘a’ to ‘e’ when v=150,000 km/sec and Lo = 150,000 km)?
(2) Does SR reliably predict the apparent length from point ‘b’ and ‘d’ traveled by the send signal according to the Observer? That is, does SR reliably predict the path length between the stationary point ‘g’ and the stationary point ‘e’ as described in the above Interplanetary Wars scenario (see example in figure C for distance from ‘g’ to ‘e’ when v=150,000 km/sec and Lo = 150,000 km).
(3) Does SR Theory or the M/M/+M Model more accurately predict the aberration of starlight that has been observed and recorded by astronomers since it was discovered by James Bradley between 1725 and 1727?
What is the intent of the foregoing science / fiction stories? What is the intent of a scientific theory? They both intend to suggest as a hypnotist attempts to suggest and often succeed depending upon the suggestibility of his subjects. What are the parts of the Phi Mode story that are science and what are the parts that are fiction? What are the parts of the SR story that are fiction? Is “Al’s story” about reflections science or fiction? Is “Ken’s story” about reflections science or fiction? No one can really know what parts of these stories are science until their predictions are verified by observations. Some may believe that one or these stories is a science story and the other is fiction if they are suggestible enough. Are you interested in the truth? Where’s the proof that you are truly interested in the truth? This is a 3rd Millennium “wake-up” call. We need a new awakening for 3rd Millennium science. Untested concepts in science are science / fiction; we cannot tell the science from the fiction until verified by observations, regardless of whether they “order things easily” and seem to “connect the dots”. We must not “forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens”. We can be faithful believers in God but we should not be faithful believers in untested creations of any man. Theories and models are only as good as the reliability of their predictions. Do you count yourself among the scientists who are faithful believers in SR Theory but also think it would be foolish for a private company or a government agency to try to prove that “SR is right” about length contraction due to the cost of the experiment and the risks that SR will be proven wrong? If you do count yourself among these “faithful believers” but do not truly trust that “SR is right” and think it would be too risky to bet high stakes that “SR is right” about length contraction and/or one-way travel times; then you are not truly a “faithful believer”; you are “acting” under a post-hypnotic suggestion or you are “acting” out of fear that you may be considered “unfit for your office” as a physicist.
In conclusion, the only reasonable prospect for getting a definitive test of the SR predictions of one-way travel time, length contraction and signal aberration would be that at some future date a contracting official at a governmental agency will become convinced that the reliability of SR’s predictions should be based upon observation and statistical inference and not based upon the judgment of 20th century physicists. The cost of such an experiment may be hundreds of millions of dollars if conducted by the United States because of the “pork-barrel” mentality of scientific researchers’ in the U. S.; therefore, a U. S. government agency may not be willing to pay the costs of doing exhaustive and credible testing of SR theory in outer space. A foreign country with physicists who do not have their heads buried in the sand of the SR box and where labor is relative cheap may be willing and able to finance a space probe dedicated to the verification of SR’s predictions about length contraction and starlight aberration. However, you could expect that this government would conduct this test in secret and would not share the results with any
You can envision more about length contraction and what SR and Phi Mode elucidate about one-way elapsed travel times and signal aberration if you run M/M/+M model simulations to give you a clear picture of the mechanics of light transmission. The M/M/+M Model visually simulates the transmission delay of a send signal after pressing a send control key and visually simulates the transmission delay of a return signal after pressing a receive control key. The model for the send signal differs from the model for the receive signal in Phi Mode because the returning signal is treated as a reflection as is actually the case in the MM Experiment. SR Mode modeling does not treat the return signal as a reflection and this is an essential difference between SR Mode and Phi Mode, instead SR Mode uses the concept of simultaneity to account for a clock synchronization paradox that will be apparent in SR Mode modeling. Admittedly, reflections and the physics of mirrors are fine distinctions, but only phantomlike distinctions could slip through the fingers of one such as Albert Einstein who had a firm grip on reality most of the time. The physics of mirrors and the Principle of Relativity must be upheld by SR Theory and if the phantomlike distinction of reflections cannot be modeled in SR Mode or adequately explained in SR theory then SR concepts would appear to be too superfluous. Then by Einstein’s own words, “concepts that have proven useful in ordering things --- will be changed if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason”. Some words of caution to the overly suggestible before you dare to access the R&D web site and travel the road through Special Relativity and beyond. Beware the road blocks - ”the speeding-photon paradox” and “the spooky-mirror paradox”. Watch for the detour around the road blocks - there’s a signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Phi-light Zone. Beware the hook of science / fiction writers; and remember -- “Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts” – Albert Einstein.
Some readers may say: “This area of science is not a property of measurement standards institutions or systems engineers in the IT community; it is a property that is owned by the physics community and a problem that must be and can only be solved by the physics community”. Mainstream physicists “with the attitude” think that it is impossible, not just improbable, that a mere computer systems engineer could find a flaw in the Theory of Special Relativity; just as some 19th century physics PhD’s “with the attitude” thought that it was impossible that Madam Qurie, a mere woman and not Dr. Qurie, could discover and isolate a new element. Such reactions have nothing to do with physicists doing the job they are being paid to do; that is, to make discoveries not to uphold effective barriers to discoveries. These barriers are only unconscious ego defense mechanisms and mechanisms of self glorification; just as the territorial imperative and the ethnocentricity hormone controls “the attitude” of the dominate male gorilla.
Unfortunately, the physics community does not have a need to change SR because they are not interested in response time modeling or Computer Performance Measurement. The physicists have no feeling of obligation to solve computer systems problems. They will say: “We own relativity theory and are obliged to solve proven relativity problems, but problems that involve computer networks are for systems engineers in the IT community to solve”. Mainstream physicists will expect systems engineers to prove that SR theory cannot correctly predict response time components. Of course, it is impossible, not just improbable, to prove anything to the mainstream of the physics community because of their defensive self preservation hormone. They will not even give you their undivided attention long enough for you to get anything through their thick reflective defense shield. Finally, mainstream physicists would not accept any help or suggestions from inept outsiders who do not have advanced degrees in physics and appropriate experience in theoretical physics. They would not accept such help (or is it meddling) even in consideration of the unlikely event that systems engineers would pay them to do research in response time component prediction. Systems engineers are not likely to give money to physicists’ “pork-barrels” for development of a relative response time model without meddling because physicists do not have the appropriate experience that systems engineers have in Performance Measurement, queuing system model development or cost containment.
Have scientists built another "Tower of Babel" to make a name for themselves? As one multi-disciplinary group speaking the same language, can nothing they plan to do be impossible for them? Is this thought abhorrent to the Lord? Has the Lord now made it impossible for highly specialized factions of the scientific community to communicate and work together as one group to reach the treasures they seek? Our insight, knowledge and understanding of the path that will lead us through Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and beyond may indeed depend upon the depth of our knowledge and fear of God. Fools (i.e. the morally deficient) who want to glorify themselves through the discovery of God’s secrets with no regard or glorification to God himself may not be able to work in a world-wide-web of united scientists to find the key to unlock the treasures of science that they seek until they learn to deeply fear the consequences of irreverence, disrespect, and disobedience of God. Must they first become knowledgeable of God and become God fearing obedient servants of the Lord?
If you think you can participate in R&D of the M/M/+M Model without the negative attitude of mainstream physicists and if you think you don't "know it all" and can improve your vision and understanding of SR Theory, you are invited to read the science / fiction stories posted on the web site. The first science / fiction story in Part I on the R&D web site is “Simulation of Light Transmission in SR Mode”. The second science / fiction story in Part II on the R&D web site is “Simulation of Light Transmission in Phi Mode”. Part I, Chapter 1, presents the Relative Response Time (RRT) Hypothesis that describes algorithms that are the basis of the R&D test bed model. Part I also introduces a hybrid time step and queuing visual emulation model that predicts response time based upon given information on the starting point of two points as well as their velocity and direction of motion relative to the Observer. The M/M/+M Model offers two photon clocks as interfaces from which a general model may be developed to simulate path length (or space) as well as time warps due to changes in gravity and possibly other forces such as magnetism. A general model would be useful for practical 21st century IT problems such as in Global Positioning Systems (GPS) that must take into account the changes in signal transmission path length and time due to changes in gravity as well as changes in velocity. Such a model may also be useful for practical third millennium quantum mechanics problems that deal with electromagnetism and nano-technology. If you consider the measurement of response time between bodies that are moving at high speeds an important or interesting subject and would like to learn more or participate in R&D for the M/M/+M Model you are invited to read the two more advanced science / fiction stories in Part I and Part II pages at this web site.