Foundations of Physics, Vol. 8, Nos. 9/10, 1978

Comments on: "A Criticism of the 'Absolute Space-Time Theory' " S. Marinov 1

Received June 6, 1977 A rebuttal is given of points of criticism raised by Z. Vreelj against S. Marinov's absohtte space-time theory.

I have already answered (a) the very interesting comments of Dr. Vrcelj on my absolute space-time theory. (1~ To his present paper I should like to add also some short remarks (the items in my comments correspond to those of Dr. Vrcelj's in the preceding paper): (i) The assertion of Dr. Vrcelj that the equation of motion will have the form (2) in my paper (2) only if the potential energy U is velocity-independent is correct. I give the equation of motion in the traditional Newtonian form (2) since the changes in the velocities of the material points lead to very small changes in their gravitational energy, and the changes in the velocities are determined exclusively by the changes in the distances between the material points. As a matter of fact, the exact equation is (3') and its solution is given by Eq. (5); obviously, the solution of Eq. (2) must be given in the form (6). When solving the "Mercury problem," I proceed from the exact equation (Y), i.e., from the energy conservation law. (ii) In my monograph, (4) I show that the astronomical observations where traditional absolutists expect absolute effects to be registered (as in the quasi-Roemer (4) and quasi-Doppler (4) experiments) must give null results according to my theory, because of the mutual annihilation of the absolute effects. Only the quasi-Bradley(4) experiment must, as Poincar6 pointed out,

1 Laboratory for FundamentalPhysical Problems, ul. Elin Pelin 22, Sofia, Bulgaria. 801 0015-9018[78/100~0801505.00/0 © 1978 Plenum Publishing Corporation

802

Marinov

give a positive result, i.e., the major axes of the aberration ellipses of stars situated near the apex of the Sun's absolute velocity must be 0".16 smaller than those of stars situated near the antiapex. This effect, although very small, can be registered with today's observational technique. (iii) The right ascension of the Sun's absolute velocity registered with the help of the interferometric "coupled-mirrors" experiment ~4~ is c~ = 14h 17m ± 20 m. In Ref. 2, p. 581, in the preparation of the manuscript for the printer, a change was wrongly made from hours to degrees and time minutes to arc minutes. To the experimental data cited by Dr. Vrcelj I should like to add the following: (a) Vaucouleurs and Peters 15,61 measured the Sun's absolute velocity as 400 4-200 km/sec toward c~ = 14~ 4- 2 h, 3 = --20 ° 4- 20°; (b) Henry ~61 measured the Earth's absolute velocity (the epoch of the year is not given) to be 320 4- 80 km/sec toward ~ = 10t~.5 4- 4 h, 3 = - - 3 0 ° 4 - 25 °. Let me especially point out that Dr. Vrcelj's correctly asserts that the astronomical "distant galaxies," "microwave radiation," and "cosmic ray" observations cannot be considered as a direct violation of the relativity principle, while my "coupled-mirrors" experiment violates this principle in the most direct and unconditional way. Nevertheless, Dr. Vrcelj concludes his item (iii) with the statement: "... when properly interpreted, the experiment cannot distinguish between special relativity and the absolute space-time theory" (see on this topic also Refs. 7 and 8). I should like to comment on this statement in detail. I assert that with the "coupled-mirrors" experiment I measured the absolute velocity of my laboratory. However, as is clearly shown in Ref. 9, the "coupled-mirrors" experiment must give a positive result if the apparatus is mounted on a rotating disk, and many relativists agree with this conclusion (as was the case at the seminar organized for me by Prof. Speiser in the Louvaine-la-neuve University on the 27 October 1977). On the other hand, any terrestrial laboratory takes part in many rotational motions (daily rotation about the Earth's axis, yearly rotation around the Sun, rotation around the galactic center, and so on). Thus, say the relativists, with the "coupled-mirrors" experiment one measures, not the absolute velocity of the laboratory, but only its resultant linear rotational velociO,, and the theory of relativity is saved since it manipulates only inertial (but not rotational) frames. Thus we come to a very amusing situation: During the last years I have been attacked with the claim that the effect in my "coupled-mirrors" experiment is due to thermic, seismic, and other causes; now I am attacked with the claim that, even if the effect, indeed, is due to a motion of the laboratory, this is not at all interesting because this motion is a certain rotational motion, a type of which was registered by Michelson, Gale, and Pearson in 1925. The problem is clear, but not a single relativist will make the effort to understand

Comments on: "A Criticism of the 'Absolute Space-Time Theory'"

803

it and to accept the failure of the relativity principle. Michelson, Gale, and Pearson measured the diurnal angular velocity of their laboratory. But the effect measured by them included also the Earth's yearly angular velocity (which is 365 times smaller than the laboratory's diurnal angular velocity) and the Sun's galactic angular velocity (which is 200 millions times smaller than the Earth's yearly angular velocity). With the help of the "coupledmirrors" apparatus I measured the vector sum of all these linear rotational velocities. But the Earth's yearly linear rotational velocity is 100 times greater than the laboratory's diurnal linear rotational velocity, and the Sun's galactic linear rotational velocity is ten times greater than the Earth's yearly linear rotational velocity. My results show that the Sun's galactic velocity includes also the rotation of our galaxy about the center of the cluster of galaxies, because the velocity established by me is not equal to the velocity of the Sun about the galactic center, which is known well enough from astronomical observations. This resultant linear rotational velocity I call the absolute velocity of the laboratory. Thus, I think that an authoritative relativist should state in the press: According to the theory of relativity, can this resultant linear rotational velocity be measured in a laboratory or not ? If it can be measured, then, all right, there are no differences between special relativity and my absolute space-time theory. But why, then, almost three years after the performance of my interferometric "coupled-mirrors" experiment, can I not get my results published, having sent the paper to five different journals? And why have the referees of all these journals asserted: "'How can one measure something which does not exist ?" (iv) The terminology of my absolute space-time theory is treated in Ref. 3. (v) I hypothetically introduce the magretic energy, i.e., a gravitational analog to magnetic energy (here the copyeditor wrongly changed on p. 573 of Ref. 2 the term "'magretic" to "'magnetic"). Only experiment can show whether a magretic energy really exists, but at the present time I hardly see practical possibilities for the performance of relevant experiments. In my opinion the observation of the deflection of light beams touching the Sun's limb does not represent a pure experiment, because of the unknown refraction in the Sun's atmosphere. The relativistic perihelion displacement of Mercury cannot be experimentally estimated before knowing the Sun's quadrupole moment. The visual measurement of the Sun's oblateness cannot give relevant information for the quadrupole moment. Indeed, it can easily be shown that the oblateness of a liquid (or gaseous) sphere whose internal layers rotate with larger velocities than the external layers must be smaller (not larger, as commonly assumed) than the oblateness of a sphere rotating uniformly with the angular velocity of the external layer.

804

Marinov

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Z. Vrcelj, lnt. J. Theor. Phys., to be published. S. Marinov, Found. Phys. 6, 571 (1976). S. Marinov, lnt. d. Theor. Phys., to be published. S. Marinov, Eppur Si Muove (Centre Belge de Documentation Scientifique, Bruxelles, 1977). G. de Vaucouleurs and W. L. Peters, Nature 220, 868 (1968). P. S. Henry, Nature 231, 516 (1971). R. Mansouri and R. Sexl, Gen. Rel. Gray. 8, 497 (1977). R. Mansouri and R. Sexl, Gen. ReL Gray. 8, 515 (1977). S. Marinov, Found. Phys. 8, 137 (1978).

Printed in Belgium