A Brief Self-Introduction. Thanks go to Mr. Volk, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Acheson and all other organizers Name: Guangjun ( 广军 ) Cao ( 曹 ) Employer ： Georgian College ， Ontario ， Canada Date and place of birth ： June 15 ， 1966 in China ’s Henan Province Citizenship: Canadian
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Thanks go to Mr. Volk, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Acheson and all other organizers
light speed (constancy); principle of relativity; non-locality; ECI; SSBCI or SCI.
(1) c=1/√(ε0*μ0); ε0permittivity and μ0permeability of the vacuum; and c=299792.458 m/s.
(2) As a medium property; its independence of source motion yet dependence on observer motion.
(3) Equation of light propagation; 1-D idealized situation:
|()-()|=c|-|; , signal emitting and observing times, , source and observer positions.
(4) A direct consequence of (3): A measured light speed of c±v relative to observer.
(5) Dynamic simulations: Cases 1 (alternative 1), 2 (alternative 2).
(1) Formulation: Uniform motion is not detectable if (a) the inertial frame in concern is a means of transportation and (b) if the experiment used is strictly confined within this frame.
Example 1: Radio signals sent between two planets in the solar system do not reveal this system’s motion relative to the Milky Way.
Example 2: Radio signals sent between an Earth-born antenna and an Earth-born receiver do not reveal the Earth’s motion relative to the Sun.
(3) Other equivalent formulations: Motion is purely relative; the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames of reference; there is no preferred inertial frames, etc.
(1) Definition: An interaction or influence that goes beyond a local space-time region; existence of superluminal influence.
(2) Examples: (a) quantum correlations of entangled particles; (b) interference patterns in a double-slit experiment; (c) the way how objects are physically connected.
(3) Comment: Non-locality directly contradicts special relativity.
A non-trivial assumption; an example
An implicit assumption, also a disproof of relativity simultaneity.
Basis for fundamental ephemerides of Sun, Moon, and all planets.
Non-detectable orbital motion but detectable self-rotational motion
The GPS-RME explains the null result of the MMX within first order accuracy (referred to Sagnac effect).
The IP-RME explains the astronomical phenomenon of stellar aberration.
GPS-SE and traditional SEs are believed to be of the same origin and nature.
Simulation 1 (alternative 1)
Simulation 2 (alternative 2)
Principle of relativity; apparent conflict between stellar aberration and MMX; the origin of Moon; ether.
(a) The need of revising the concept of inertial frame to properly formulate it ([Cao11]);
(b) The need of introducing the concept of physical connection to understand it ([Cao11]).
According to earlier Comment 2, IP-RME explains stellar aberration, while according to Comment 1, GPS-RME explains the null result of MMX, thus non-locality explains both phenomena at the same time.
Pure fission; capture; giant impact.
Key observations: (a) If Earth and moon formed separately and then came together into their common orbit around the Sun, then this orbital information is discernible through radio signals sent between them; and (b) if Earth and Moon formed together as a physically connected whole in their common orbit around
the Sun and then somehow separated (fission, impact, etc.), then this orbital information is not discernible through radio signals sent between them. So from the non-locality perspective, the capture theory is clearly favored.
If the argument in this presentation is sound, then ether is nothing less and nothing more than vacuum itself.
Example 1: All planets within the solar system carry the same orbital information around the Milky Way as
(Example 1 cont’d) the Sun, and that’s why radio signals sent between any two of them could not reveal this orbital information.
Example 2: All Earth-originated, Earth-orbiting artificial satellites carry the same orbital information
as the Earth, and that’s why radio signals sent between any two of them could not reveal this orbital motion around the Sun.
Example 3: When antenna A sits on Earth and spaceship S on the Moon, radio signals sent between them do reveal their common orbital motion around the Sun; but when spaceship S departs from the Moon and comes to and descends on Earth, radio signals between A and S can no longer reveal this orbital motion, since now both and A and S carry the same orbital information of the Earth.
Not a problem, if we allow two adjacent groups of scientists to successfully test GPS-RME and IP-RME, separately and along roughly the same direction.
In Reference  it implicitly assumes that the IP-RME applies to an Earth-born antenna and an Earth-originated but Moon- or planet-missioned spaceship; however, according to this paper, either this assumption is wrong or it is true but the experimenter has a role in setting which one of the ranging equations into effect. Note that non-locality is still true in the latter case but the role of the experimenter has to be summoned.
This author believes not; challenges include:
(1) What evidence unequivocally supports an ether that is more than just vacuum?
Note: The classical idea of inertia or the modern idea of non-locality successfully explains all current light speed data.
(2) If ether is assumed to remain stationary relative to a local gravitational field or an inertial frame that is associated with such a field, then why do radio signals sent between the Earth and Moon reveal instead their common orbital motion around the Sun? See here for what Moon-Earth ranging data say.
(3) How does the idea of ether explains the (envisioned) fact that the Moon and an Earth-originated,
Earth-orbiting satellite of roughly the same height show fundamentally different quantum properties?
(4) Assume that the GPS-SE had never been known to you, would you still predict that the ether is carried by the Earth’s orbital motion but not by self-rotation?
(5) How does the idea of ether explain the simultaneous truthfulness of both the GPS-RME and IP-RME?
If we serve the wrong “guy”, we are almost certain to end up with the wrong destinies.
If we allow prejudice and/or stubbornness dominate us, we are sure to miss many subtle truths.
If we are not willing, and able, to challenge ourselves by admitting and correcting a mistake, then there is no effective way to make sure that we are on the right track.
Facts are the life of science.
Reference: [Cao11] Guangjun Cao, Physics Essays 24, pp. 381-394 (2011)