Ignored factors on speed of light

It is an excepted fact that speed of light is constant in vacuum. It's it correct? I find following factors are ignored. In physics the word speed is rarely mentioned accept in special relativity. The usual word is velocity. Velocity is speed with direction. Speed of a car is mentioned when the car travels in an irregular route, dividing the distance traveled from the time taken. Speed is a loose concept, most physics equations have velocity.

It is an accepted fact that speed of light varies with the medium. It is slower in air than in vacuum, then much slower in water. According to quantum theory vacuum is not wholly void. Dark matter and dark energy can also be present. To use in an universal theory like special relativity, it should be more constant.

So far all accurate measurement of speed of light was done by measuring light from a fixed source and a fixed observer, with no displacement between the source and observer. Michelson interferometer is used to prove nonexistence of a medium to transport electromagnetic waves. It also proves that light had a fixed velocity when the source and observer are fixed, but both moves in unison.

It is a fundamental mistake to jump into the conclusion that speed of light is  constant everywhere. For instance light coming from the sun when it moves towards us may be faster than when it moves out. These need to be checked before coming to a conclusion.

Red shift of stars may be explained by time dilation and length contraction, but a simpler explanation may be variance of velocity of light. (It may not be exotic, it may be mundane, and it may be correct)

In explanations of special relativity observer and source of light are very loosely defined. For instance in the explanation of lightning striking at two ends of the train, the source can be fixed to the platform or may be moving with the train. These two factors are irrelevant to the outcome of the thought experiment.
Further the observer on the platform sees the two lighting strikes are simultaneous, but for the observer on the train the lightning in front occurs before the lightning the rear. This can be explained by light from front travels faster than the light from rear. Special relativity uses time dilation and length contraction to explain this. But is it necessary? There can't be a correlation between the two observers because each observer sees different set of photons in there respective observations.

Velocity of light may be constant with respect of the source, irrespective of it's movement. But in special relativity it is loosely defined, that it is constant both to source and observer irrespective to the movement between the observer and source. The reason that it will give contradictions is, it is possible to have multiple observers that move relative to each other and observing the same source(say different persons who move about each other looking at the sun ). Then how can it be speed of light is constant between each pair?

It may be difficult but not impossible to measure velocity of light that come from moving stars. This measurement should be pure. In this measurement you cannot use mirrors, because the source can shift to the mirror. A photon is emitted when electron changes it's obit. This photon is related to the atom that emits it. We need to see velocity of this photon by a moving observer. If the photon is disturbed in any way the source might shift, therefore we need to be careful in this measurement. I feel most of the measurements done up to now has ignored this factor.

Measuring speed of light

From all hetero known phenomena that travels, light is the fastest. Therefore it is not possible to measure speed of light using other methods. Only light can be used to measure it. What can be done is to mirror back a bean of light and measure the time taken to travel the known distance. This is the usual methods employed in all scientific measurement of speed of light. This is employed in the famous Michelson Morally experiment that predicts speed of light is constant everywhere irrespective of your moment at constant speeds.

But there is a contradiction in applying this. Say a light ray coming from sun, if it travels towards me at constant speed c, that ray before reaching me need to know me speed. Say I am traveling at speed v at the time the ray started to be emitted from sun, then the ray should be traveling at speed c irrespective me speed v. Suppose all is good so far, but if I change my speed to v', how does the ray know to travel towards me at speed c without knowing I have changed my speed. Forget reference frames and special relativity for a moment, my change of speed from v to v', should bring out some sort of change in the photon to keep it at the same speed c, before and after the change. The photon need to know the change I made to my speed, or else it is not to change it's speed. So a signal at infinite speed need to communicate the change to the photon.
It is important to point out that in all light measuring apparatus, an observer is involved at the time the photon is emitted and when the final measurement is made. That way the message of observer speed is indirectly passed on to the photon. So we may be able to assume that whenever an observer is involved in measuring speed of light, it has a constant speed c relative to the observer.

Then what can we say about a ray of light coming from the sun. What we can say is that it is un-measurable.

Observer

In special relativity there is no traveling observer. They is only stationary observer. Traveling observer leads to twin paradox. Special relativity treats the twin paradox trivially. This is a mistake. Because of this mistake, all sorts of mythology has crept into science, or rather physics. It's like alchemy to chemistry. Time travel, many worlds theory etc. These leads to lot of contradictions. It may be good for fiction but not for science. What we need are good solid answers, these concepts are really flimsy. They are not practical no experiential proof is available.

Special Relativity treats both stationary observer and traveling observer as same. That they have same qualities, this is done without any proof. For instance first proof of special relativity mu-meson falling from the sky, it trys to treat that their is an observer in mu-meson, as well as the stationary observer sitting on earth. This is not practical, there is no clock that falls with mu-meson.

Special relativity treats as there are clocks everywhere, each point do space have a different clock and worse than that these clocks are all synchronised. Then the traveling observer also have a different set of clocks that travels with him, and each point in space has a different clock and they are all synchronised with the traveling observer. These assumptions are not practical, and don't have experimental proof, which results in twin paradox.

According to quantum theory when an observer is present things behave very differently. Photons when we observe behave like particles, when not behaves like waves. Special relativity is based on velocity of light, so, the same theory should be applied. Moving observer with a light clock, observing the stationary observer, will not see the same as the, stationary observer. One observer sees waves - with special relativity, other observer sees particles - without relativity. Therefore traveling clock will run slower to a stationary observer. But when the traveling clock also have an observer, either light behaves completely like a particle and light will not have constant velocity to both observers or to one of the observer (more study necessary to find out the circumstances) it behaves like a wave and particle to the other observer. Another important factor is it is known that doplar effect is seen in living light sources. This also should be taken into account.

This explanation can explain twin paradox.

Without rigid bodies Relativity cannot exist

How can special relativity exist if there are no rigid bodies throughout the universe? We need breadth to have the Michelson Morley experiment. We can't do it if there is no breadth and no rigid bodies. The present concept of our Universe is that it consists of only point particles. Though assemblies of point particles make rigid bodies, those are not perfect rigid bodies. Because particles vibrate in rigid bodies depending on the temperature. 

The same can be said about straight lines. For ages, we assumed that light travel in straight lines. Wave theory of light, uncertainty principals and quantum physics has proven it is not so. According to General Relativity, light does not travel in strait lines. Even straight lines do not exist in reality. Nevertheless, Special Relativity is built on straight lines and rigid frames.

Special Relativity Flawed

It can be proved that Special Relativity Flawed.
Take the basic example of a photon emitted in a frame:
Frame example

Moving Observer
a frame AB moves at a velocity v, emits a photon -- photon is more accurate than a light signal. After time t the photon arrives at D since the frame has now moved to CD. All this activity is relative to an observer standing on the frame AB/CD, that moves at velocity v with the frame.

With respect to the observer on the frame
We can safely state r = c * t where c is the velocity of light (r - size of the frame). Since light travels at velocity c for any observer -- Michelson Morly Experiment.

With respect of the stationary observer standing outside the frame
Here again velocity of light is the constant c. Light photon will be moving from point at Aο and reach point Bο after time tο. Though at the same time, point B will start moving to D, this needs to be disregarded, since point B or D has no bearing or relevance to the stationary observer. This important phenomena, is missed by Special Relativity activists, they assume that, light coming from point Aο, is going to point D, moving at velocity c with respect of the stationary observer.

The mistake
This is wrong. Light travels at constant velocity c to the stationary observer, but not in respect to moving point B--as said earlier, point B is irrelevant to stationary observer. The Special Relativists argue that according to the stationary observer light will travel from A with velocity c, while point B of the frame  will move to point D, independent of the in coming light photon. Therefore the light photon will have to travel additionally a distance s to reach D. This is an unnecessary assumption. While traveling observer can consider light travel from A to D the stationary observer sees the same photon -- or with quantum theory different photon emitted almost at same time-- traveling from point A to B.

This mistaken argument results, either velocity of light should be c+v or frame AB need to contract or time need to dilate. But since velocity of light is constant the frame should contract and time need to dilate. Therefore moving frames contract. And time tο for stationary observer will be different from time t of the moving observer.

(It may look strange but putting the arguments to language is really difficult)

Mirror Example
A frame consisting with two parallel mirrors that has a light source directed up--this is a light clock, will be moving forward at velocity v

Scenario 1  c & d - invariant and t -variant (The normal accepted principal of Special Relativity)

2d = c tο ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                     _____

c tο/2 = tc/2√1-v²/c²

          ______

tο = t √1-v²/c²      ------ (accepted time dilation formula in Special Relativity)

 Scenario 2  t & d - invariant and c -variant (velocities greater than c exist Principal )

2d = cο t ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                     _____

cο t/2 = tc/2√1-v²/c²

            ____

  cο =  √c²-v²
  cο² =  c²-v²
        _______
c = √ cο²  + v²       -----------(velocities greater than c exist Principal )

 Scenario 3  t & c - invariant and d -variant (Space Contraction Principal)

2dο = c t ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                        _____

d = (2dο/c)c/2√1-v²/c²

             ______

 d = dο √1-v²/c²    ------ (Space Contraction Principal)
 

Scenario 1 accepts Special Relativity time dilation formula. It assumes that velocity of light is the same to all observers and goes beyond by assuming the stationary observer will not calculate c - v as the photon approach velocity towards mirror(photon moving in at c  mirror moving out at v)  but just as c. The stationary observer thinking  that, the photon moves towards the mirror at c. This is how the formula             

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4   is derived. 

There is a problem with Scenario 1 because it leads to multiple paradoxes like twin paradox, grandfather paradox, ladder paradox, train on a bridge or tunnel paradox etc. Though some of these are said to be avoided by stating the shift from initial to non-initial frames looks like callous disregard to these paradoxes.
You get paradoxes because something is wrong or you cannot explain something. Then you need to give careful considerations to the assumption you have made and try to find the lapses. Another major defect of this theory is melding with time. The concept of time is one of the least understood. However, special relativity has made drastic changes to the concept of time. For instance we use phrases like "trillionth of a second after big bang" commonly. These phrases brings out pure absurdity because where was such a clock to measure time at that epoch. This shows how flimsy our understanding of time is.

Scenario 2  accepts that though light will have constant velocity with respect to any observer, velocities higher than light exist. Take for example the Frame Example above, a stationary observer will see that photon emitted at point A moves towards point D at c. But the stationary observer will also see that point D is moving at v. Therefore the stationary observer should say that photon moves towards D at c-v. And if the frame moves the other way c+v. Therefore velocities greater than c exist.

However, the two speed theory may run to problems if we consider a hole in the mirror allows light to fall on a screen of the stationary observer and how it is possible to have the same light photon or very near two photons to have two velocities of light. The observer moving with mirrors will see velocity c while the stationary observer will see velocity √ c²  + v²

Still, higher than c velocities may explain, quasars with z > 4 traveling at velocity greater than 4c.

Scenario 3  may give us very interesting explanations for hitherto unexplained phenomena.Here the distance between the mirrors will contract. This contraction will compensate the longer distance that the light beam need to travel when the mirror moves. The practical implication will be when the photon moves the space around it will contract.

We may be able to construct a new transformation (space contraction transformation) by the following formulas:                                                ______                                           _____
               x = xο                             y = yο √1-v²/c²                               z  = zο √1-v²/c²

These formulas will give out further interesting explanations to other phenomena. For instance say v > c then the space will become negative space. Whatever inside this space will be invisible like black holes. But this whatever inside can interact in other ways other than electromagnetic waves. For instance gravitation

When we observe a galaxy in the sky we know it's velocity by the red shift. Then we should know that the size will appear smaller depending on the red shift. Dark Mater and Dark Energy may be the result that these entities are inside a negative space created by it moving faster than light towards us.

These concepts will create a host of new hypothesis that can be tested by scientists in future to give us better explanation of what is around us.

see also twin paradox  and Observer in Einstein's Train thought experiment

Twin paradox

paradox is: say there are two twins A and B. A takes a space ship and travels near the speed of light. B remains on earth. After some time A returns to earth. A will be younger than B. A, since it travels near speed of light will experience time dilation and his clocks including his biological clock will run slow compared to his earth twin B- Scenario X

.
It becomes a paradox why the same thing don't happen to B. Why only A gets younger and not B. B also will be traveling in the other direction compared to A.

The explanation given is, A first starts to accelerate to attain the required speed. Then after traveling it will decelerate to stop, it will turn and accelerate again coming back to earth, then it will travel to earth and decelerate to stop. When accelerating and decelerating A ceases to be in initial frames. But B always is in an initial frame. Therefore A and B are different.

This is a very lose explanation.It is very strange this explanation is accepted so long. Maybe success of time dilation experiments or a sham, obscured the correctness of the thought experiment.

Consider the same experiment - Scenario Y. After A makes the outward traveling and stops at some place, B will make the same travel to teach A. It is very obvious that now both A and B should be of the same age now. 

If we compare B's outward travel in Scenario Y,  to A's inward travel in Scenario X, there's only one difference, only the direction has changed. Because acceleration f, velocity v and declaration -f are same for both

Therefore this paradox cannot be explained by non-initial frames that A undergo. The same can be said of the grandfather paradox - you travel faster than light and go back in time to kill your grandfather, you cannot be born though you exist now.

Special Relativity was intended to solve the problem created by the Michelson Morley Experiment that light does not travel in a preferred reference frame. Therefore, logically, in one reference frame, one twin grows older than the other twin in a different reference frame cannot be true, because either twin cannot be in a preferred reference frame than the other.