Physics Essays
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
Abstract
The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer, is shown
to be invalid.
Key words: special theory of relativity, Roemer, Doppler, Einstein’s law of light
propagation, principle of the constancy of the velocity of light
The “principle” of the constancy of the velocity of
light is not merely “ununderstandable,” it is not
supported by “objective matters of fact”; it is un-
tenable…. – Herbert Ives(7)
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the foundational principles of modern phys-
ics, which Rindler(1) refers to as “Einstein’s Law of
Light Propagation,” can be stated thus:1 The speed of
light in free space is constant and independent of the
motion of the source and the observer. This principle
was enshrined by Albert Einstein in his special theory
of relativity (STR) (Ref. 2, p. 45; Ref. 3, p. 27; Ref.
4, p. 369) and is today considered sacred. It is listed
in almost every physics textbook discussing the
STR as one of the two postulates on which the
theory is based (the other being Einstein’s principle
of relativity).
Light speed invariance for a moving source and
fixed observer is not surprising, as it is consistent
with wave motion in a medium, the speed of the wave
being determined by the properties of the medium.
This aspect of the principle has in fact been experi-
mentally confirmed.(5) The aspect of the principle that
defies common sense and logical reasoning is light
speed invariance relative to a moving observer.
According to Tolman,(6)
This is the assumption which has forced the the-
ory of relativity to its strange conclusions…. A
simple example will make the extraordinary na-
ture of [Einstein’s Law of Light Propagation]
evident (Fig. 1). S is a source of light and A and
B two moving systems. A is moving towards the
source and B away from it. Observers on the
systems mark off equal distances aa′ and bb′
338
volume 17, number 3, 2004
along the path of the light and determine the time
taken for light to pass from a to a′ and b to b′
respectively. Contrary to what seem the simple
conclusions of common sense, [Einstein’s Law of
Light Propagation] requires that the time taken
for the light to pass from a to a′ shall measure the
same as the time for the light to go from b to b′.
Such a conclusion makes the path obvious by
which the theory of relativity has been led to
strange conclusions as to the units of length and
time in a moving system.
We note that there is no experiment that directly
verifies this aspect of the principle even though many
textbooks imply otherwise. In this regard, Ives(7)
expressed the view that “[t]he assignment of a defi-
nite value to an unknown velocity by fiat, without
recourse to measuring instruments, is not a true
physical operation, it is more properly described as a
ritual.” He in fact showed analytically, assuming
Poincaré’s principle of relativity, that the one-way
velocity of light as defined by Einstein for a relatively
moving observing frame is not equal to a constant c
and therefore concluded that Einstein’s light speed
invariance postulate is untenable.(7) This result has
been ignored.
In the elementary analysis to follow, consistent with
this result by Ives, we show that the variation in the
period of a planetary satellite such as Jupiter’s Io
observed from Earth as it orbits the Sun (“Roemer
effect”) and the change in frequency of light from a
fixed source seen by a moving observer (Doppler
effect) are direct manifestations of the variation in
light speed relative to the moving observer, and this
variation directly contradicts Einstein’s law of light
propagation.

Figure 1. Tolman’s example.
2. ROEMER EFFECT
Consider the planetary arrangement shown in
Fig. 2. As Earth revolves around the Sun at speed v,
Roemer observed that Io, the innermost satellite of
Jupiter, undergoes a regular variation in its period To.
Since Io, as seen at Earth, is periodically eclipsed by
Jupiter, this eclipsing source emits what may be
described as “pulses of darkness” traveling at speed c
to Earth as Io revolves around Jupiter. The distance
between successive pulses is fixed at o, where
λo
To = . (1)
c involve variable light speed, along with (4), have in
Based on classical velocity composition, when the
Earth is at position A moving away from Jupiter, the
speed of light relative to Earth is (c – v) and not c as
required by Einstein’s law of light propagation.
Because of this reduced speed, the period TA (the time
between pulses) recorded at A is greater than To, as is
observed, and is given by
λo
TA = > To . (2)
c−v
Similarly, when Earth is at position B moving toward
Jupiter, the speed of light relative to Earth is (c + v)
and not c as required by Einstein’s law of light
propagation. Because of the increased speed, the
period TB recorded at B is less than To, again as is
observed, and is given by
λo
TB = < To . (3)
c+v
Using (1), the change ∆To in the period, TA – To or
To – TB, is to first order given by
Stephan J.G. Gift
Figure 1. Roemer effect due to motion of Earth.
v
∆To = To , v << c. (4)
c
Since this is a first-order (v/c) result, it is essentially
unaffected by the second-order (v2/c2) effects of
length contraction and frequency reduction, which at
the speeds involved (v = 30 km/s) are four orders of
magnitude smaller. Relations (2) and (3), which
fact been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy,(8)
thereby invalidating Einstein’s law of light propaga-
tion.
3. DOPPLER EFFECT
Consider the situation in Fig. 3. For a stationary
observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at
speed c, wavelength o, and frequency fo given by
c
fo = . (5)
λo
If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again
based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to
the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by
Einstein’s law of light propagation. Hence the observer
intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than fo, as is observed, and is given by
c+v
fA = > fo . (6)
λo
If the observer moves away from S at speed v, then
the speed of light relative to the moving observer is
339
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics

Figure 3. Doppler effect due to the motion of the observer.
(c – v) and not c as required by Einstein’s law of light
propagation. Therefore the observer intercepts wave-
fronts at a frequency fB, which is lower than fo, as is
observed, and is given by
c−v
fB = < fo .
λo
Using (5), the observed change fo in the frequency
fo, fA – fo or fo – fB, is given by
v interesting debate with McCausland. We therefore
∆f o = f o .
c believe that the case against STR is settled.
The frequency change (8) is referred to as the Doppler
effect, and this, along with (6) and (7), which involve
variable light speed, has been experimentally con-
firmed.(9) It is well established for the case of a fixed
star and the moving Earth at which speed it is im-
mune to the effects of second-order changes in
frequency and length.(10) Einstein’s law of light
propagation is therefore invalid.
4. CONCLUSION
In his canonical work The Meaning of Relativity,
Einstein made the following statement, which led to
his law of light propagation: “all experiments have
shown that electro-magnetic and optical phenomena,
relatively to the earth as the body of reference, are not
influenced by the translational velocity of the earth,”
citing the Michelson–Morley experiment in support
of this claim (Ref. 3, pp. 26–27). This statement is
wrong. In this paper it has been shown that in the
Roemer experiment, changes in the speed of light
relative to the moving Earth, (c – v) at A and (c + v) at
B, do occur and that these changes result in the
variation in the period of Io as measured on Earth.
Light speed changes also occur in the Doppler
experiment with a moving observer and stationary
light source S, (c + v) toward S and (c – v) away from
S, and result in changes in the light frequency as seen
by the moving observer. This light speed variation,
exhibited in the Roemer and Doppler effects, directly
contradicts Einstein’s law of light propagation, which
must therefore be invalid. As a result, STR, which is
based on this principle, collapses! The invalidity of
STR has been argued by many others,(11–16) but the
(7) scientific establishment has strenuously resisted these
claims using all kinds of rebutting arguments. The
invalidating arguments presented here are, however,
not based on self-consistency, reductio ad absurdum,
or philosophical considerations but strictly on physi-
cal observations as demanded by Good(17) in his
(8)
In light of this elementary result invalidating STR,
it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has
been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100
years. It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light
speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives,
and return to the Lorentz–Maxwell ether-based theory
elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson.(18)
Received 4 December 2003.

Résumé
On montre que le principe sur lequel la physique moderne est fondée et qui pose
que la vitesse de la lumière est constante et indépendante de la motion de la
source et de l’observateur est nul.

340

Endnotes
1
In his original paper, Einstein (Ref. 2, p. 41) stated
this postulate as follows:
Any ray of light moves in the stationary system
of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body.
He referred to this postulate as “The Principle of the
Constancy of the Velocity of Light.” Later in the
paper (p. 45), by applying his principle of relativity,
Einstein extended the postulate to include, “light is
also propagated with velocity c when measured in the
moving system.” This extended postulate in which the
observer can be either stationary, as in Einstein’s
original postulate, or moving, was referred to by Ives
(Ref. 7, p. 126) as “The Principle of the Constancy of
the Velocity of Light,” the same name that Einstein
used for the original postulate. However, in order to
distinguish between Einstein’s original postulate and
his extended postulate, Rindler (Ref. 1, p. 8) referred
to the extended postulate as “Einstein’s Law of Light
Propagation” and stated it thus:
Light signals in a vacuum are propagated rec-
tilinearly, with the same speed c, at all times,
in all directions, in all inertial frames.
This extended form is required in the derivation of a
substantial part of STR, as noted by Hayden (Ref. 4,
p. 369), who stated it in the following succinct
manner:
Light speed is isotropic in all inertial frames.
Perhaps because it is a necessary part of the deriva-
tion, it is the extended postulate, stated in various
Stephan J.G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of the West Indies
St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies
e-mail: sgift@eng.uwi.tt
Stephan J.G. Gift
forms, that is presented in most modern textbooks
as one of the postulates of STR, and not the original
postulate.
References
1. W. Rindler, Introduction to Special Relativity
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991).
2. A. Einstein, in The Principle of Relativity, by
H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H.
Weyl (Dover Publications, New York, 1952), pp.
35–65.
3. Idem, The Meaning of Relativity, 5th edition
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1974).
4. H.C. Hayden, Phys. Essays 8, 366 (1995).
5. A.P. French, Special Relativity (Nelson, London,
1968).
6. M. Casper and R.J. Noer, Revolutions in Physics
(Norton, New York, 1972).
7. H.E. Ives, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 95, 125 (1951).
8. F. Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology (Freeman,
San Francisco, 1975).
9. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Fundamentals of
Physics, 2nd edition (Wiley, New York, 1981).
10. M. Zelik and E. Smith, Introductory Astronomy
and Astrophysics, 2nd edition (Saunders College
Publishing, New York, 1987).
11. H.E. Ives, Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. 26, 163
(1952).
12. G. Burniston Brown, Bull. Inst. Phys. Soc. 18, 71
(1967).
13. H. Nordenson, Relativity, Time and Reality
(George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1969).
14. H. Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (Martin,
Brian and O’Keeffe, London, 1972).
15. R.A. Monti, Phys. Essays 9, 238 (1996).
16. I. McCausland, Phys. Essays 12, 438 (1999).
17. I.J. Good, Phys. Essays 11, 248 (1998).
18. H. Erlichson, Am. J. Phys. 41, 1068 (1973).
341