**5. Special relativity**

Relativity for light is indeed special because light is special. Unlike for objects with mass, light speed from its origin in space in the propagation direction is fixed in a given medium. Firing a bullet inside a lateral moving box similar to the light box example does not change the time required for the bullet to reach the top of the box. This is because for physical objects that have no fixed speed, the intrinsic muzzle speed provided by the source adds to the additional velocity provided by the moving box so that the total speed is greater. Thus the time to arrive at the top of the box, traveling the additional distance due to motion of the box, is the same as that required to reach the top of the box when stationary, **d/v** where **v** is the intrinsic velocity in the vertical direction for the bullet. Whether the box is moving or not, **v** in the vertical direction remains the same. The horizontal component is in addition to its intrinsic component in the vertical direction, so the bullet has more kinetic energy due to the added lateral velocity. Light however must travel at fixed intrinsic speed c = **E/B** which is always a constant in a given medium in the direction it propagates, regardless of motion of its source. Indeed, sunlight from the edge of the spinning sun that recedes from view is redshifted compared to light from the edge spinning toward the earth which is blue shifted, while the various colors of light all travel at the same intrinsic speed c. A forward moving light source produces light with greater energy but it is not kinetic energy and is rather intrinsic electromagnetic energy. Light reflected or scattered from physical objects, such as the well-known Compton scattering, loses some energy and departs with a lower energy and lower frequency but travels with a longer wavelength, again at required speed c. These properties of light mean that a light box would be a useful device for measuring relative motions of objects, such as during earthquakes or the ground motion associated with tidal drift, but would not be useful to measure time because light speed does not add to source speed.

## **6. General relativity**

General relativity usually centers on the notion that force fields can be indistinguishable in some experiments and attempts to explain the nature of gravity. But it is mistaken to extrapolate that force fields, whether due to gravity or due to contact forces, are identical and indistinguishable. For example, gravity requires no physical contact with the object being accelerated, as Newton wrote gravity generates forces

**47**

of **F** = Gm2

/**r** 2

*Clarifying Special Relativity*

expression E = mc2

that m = E/c2

because light has no mass.

**7. Nature of gravity**

gravity acts on masses, not light which is massless.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86401*

from great distances. Contact forces that replicate that magnitude of acceleration do require physical contact. If a box were accelerated laterally by either gravity or a physically applied force, then differences would be simple to notice. A weight hanging on a string from the roof for example would not accelerate together with the box if an applied force were responsible for accelerating of the box, while the ball and string would accelerate along with the box if gravity were the responsible agent.

The notion is also mistaken that light has mass and is subject to gravity. The

proven directly with the atomic bomb where annihilated mass in a nuclear reaction causes the release of vast amounts of energy per gram of matter. Radiant energy from the sun likewise is produced from the annihilation of mass due to nuclear fusion reactions. And in reverse, the formation of mass when the universe of matter was Created must have been from the conversion of massive amounts of energy. However the formula is not a statement of congruence, and rather is a relation expressing equal magnitudes but not necessarily quality of energy. For example, the radiant energy from the sun's mass becomes fast traveling light photons, and light is not mass. And mass is not light. So the relation is being misused when one assumes

though the relation was used properly by deBroglie to help prove that electrons with mass oscillate in orbitals around nuclei with wavelengths much like light has. Although the calculated deBroglie wavelengths for an electron in a hydrogen atom match the circumferences of orbitals in the hydrogen atom, mass is not light, just as light is not mass and is not subject to gravity as masses are. Light of course can be bent or refracted by the sun's corona matter, but gravity alone cannot act on light

Recent photographs of a structure in deep space referred to as a black hole is not a hole. The belief is that material inside it is so dense that light is prevented from escaping it, but if matter is in its center then it is not a black hole, but rather a black body. And there is no proof that light is absent in it since light is invisible unless it is detected by either an eye or a camera. The object appears to block light behind it much like an eclipse, and there is no proof that light is swallowed into it, rather than either being extinguished by absorption or blocked forming a shadow. Again,

Earlier work [7] discussed the uniqueness of gravity that is distinct from electric

where m is the mass of a neutron and G is the universal gravitation

or magnetic fields and from light. Gravity emanates from all objects with mass. Important characteristics of gravity are what it is not. Gravity is not energy, does not require loss of mass or loss of energy to exist around an object [8], is not a wave or a force, and is not spatially reducible. Gravity is an accelerating region in which masses produce a force. Gravity is not diffracted or reflected like light and is not attenuated or diminished by objects in its presence like electric fields are. Even a miniscule electron has gravity emanating around it because electrons have mass. Two neutrons separated by distance **r** have a gravitational force between them

constant. There is no region in space around one neutron where the other neutron is able to escape the gravitation from the other. This is found by experiment and indicates that gravity should not be considered a force field characterized with field lines since this could imply that at some distance **r** from the mass that there could be

a spatial position at that distance where that gravity might be absent.

reflects the fact that mass contains latent energy. This was

somehow proves that "light has mass." Likewise mass is not light, even

There is no solid evidence for general relativity that is non-classical.

#### *Clarifying Special Relativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86401*

*Progress in Relativity*

**4. Simultaneity is not relative**

simultaneously produced.

**5. Special relativity**

light speed does not add to source speed.

**6. General relativity**

A similar problem affects textbook examples attempting to prove that *simultaneity* is somehow dependent on motion of an observer [6]. Either two events occurred at the same time t, or they occurred at two different times. For example, two light waves or sound waves of fixed speed, produced at the same instant, arrive at an observer at different times if the observer is in motion and shifts from the midpoint. This is due to different distances for each wave to reach him. This does not mean that the waves were themselves produced at different times, but that they traveled different distances to reach him. The stationary observer directly at the midpoint between the two sources would of course conclude correctly that the waves were produced simultaneously. A moving observer must adjust the distance to the source origins by the amount he shifted from the midpoint during the wave travel time, to know whether they were

Relativity for light is indeed special because light is special. Unlike for objects with mass, light speed from its origin in space in the propagation direction is fixed in a given medium. Firing a bullet inside a lateral moving box similar to the light box example does not change the time required for the bullet to reach the top of the box. This is because for physical objects that have no fixed speed, the intrinsic muzzle speed provided by the source adds to the additional velocity provided by the moving box so that the total speed is greater. Thus the time to arrive at the top of the box, traveling the additional distance due to motion of the box, is the same as that required to reach the top of the box when stationary, **d/v** where **v** is the intrinsic velocity in the vertical direction for the bullet. Whether the box is moving or not, **v** in the vertical direction remains the same. The horizontal component is in addition to its intrinsic component in the vertical direction, so the bullet has more kinetic energy due to the added lateral velocity. Light however must travel at fixed intrinsic speed c = **E/B** which is always a constant in a given medium in the direction it propagates, regardless of motion of its source. Indeed, sunlight from the edge of the spinning sun that recedes from view is redshifted compared to light from the edge spinning toward the earth which is blue shifted, while the various colors of light all travel at the same intrinsic speed c. A forward moving light source produces light with greater energy but it is not kinetic energy and is rather intrinsic electromagnetic energy. Light reflected or scattered from physical objects, such as the well-known Compton scattering, loses some energy and departs with a lower energy and lower frequency but travels with a longer wavelength, again at required speed c. These properties of light mean that a light box would be a useful device for measuring relative motions of objects, such as during earthquakes or the ground motion associated with tidal drift, but would not be useful to measure time because

General relativity usually centers on the notion that force fields can be indistinguishable in some experiments and attempts to explain the nature of gravity. But it is mistaken to extrapolate that force fields, whether due to gravity or due to contact forces, are identical and indistinguishable. For example, gravity requires no physical contact with the object being accelerated, as Newton wrote gravity generates forces

**46**

from great distances. Contact forces that replicate that magnitude of acceleration do require physical contact. If a box were accelerated laterally by either gravity or a physically applied force, then differences would be simple to notice. A weight hanging on a string from the roof for example would not accelerate together with the box if an applied force were responsible for accelerating of the box, while the ball and string would accelerate along with the box if gravity were the responsible agent. There is no solid evidence for general relativity that is non-classical.

The notion is also mistaken that light has mass and is subject to gravity. The expression E = mc2 reflects the fact that mass contains latent energy. This was proven directly with the atomic bomb where annihilated mass in a nuclear reaction causes the release of vast amounts of energy per gram of matter. Radiant energy from the sun likewise is produced from the annihilation of mass due to nuclear fusion reactions. And in reverse, the formation of mass when the universe of matter was Created must have been from the conversion of massive amounts of energy. However the formula is not a statement of congruence, and rather is a relation expressing equal magnitudes but not necessarily quality of energy. For example, the radiant energy from the sun's mass becomes fast traveling light photons, and light is not mass. And mass is not light. So the relation is being misused when one assumes that m = E/c2 somehow proves that "light has mass." Likewise mass is not light, even though the relation was used properly by deBroglie to help prove that electrons with mass oscillate in orbitals around nuclei with wavelengths much like light has. Although the calculated deBroglie wavelengths for an electron in a hydrogen atom match the circumferences of orbitals in the hydrogen atom, mass is not light, just as light is not mass and is not subject to gravity as masses are. Light of course can be bent or refracted by the sun's corona matter, but gravity alone cannot act on light because light has no mass.

Recent photographs of a structure in deep space referred to as a black hole is not a hole. The belief is that material inside it is so dense that light is prevented from escaping it, but if matter is in its center then it is not a black hole, but rather a black body. And there is no proof that light is absent in it since light is invisible unless it is detected by either an eye or a camera. The object appears to block light behind it much like an eclipse, and there is no proof that light is swallowed into it, rather than either being extinguished by absorption or blocked forming a shadow. Again, gravity acts on masses, not light which is massless.
