Join us on Real Science Radio as we wrap up our enlightening interview with Dr. Clifford Denton and Dr. Pete Moore, delving into the groundbreaking Michelson-Morley experiment. Discover how these brilliant minds provide a fresh perspective on Einstein’s theory of relativity and why the speed of light remains a constant in every scenario. In this detailed discussion, we explore the logical and mathematical evidence that suggests time itself may not be as relative as we once thought.
Hi, I’m Fred Williams, and if you enjoy Real Science Radio, please check out Colorado Right to Life. You can find them online at CRTL.org. That’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G. They’ve been fighting against abortion without compromise for the last 50 years. Now with the fall of Roe, they need your help more than ever. Join them in the fight against abortion right here in Colorado. That’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G. Again, that’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G.
SPEAKER 03 :
The abandonment of the concept of a medium in space is perhaps the greatest mistake of physics in this century.
SPEAKER 05 :
Scholars can’t explain it all away.
SPEAKER 06 :
Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God.
SPEAKER 1 :
Tune in to Real Science Radio.
SPEAKER 06 :
Turn up the Real Science Radio. Keeping it real.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Real Science Radio. We’re continuing and wrapping up our discussion with Dr. Clifford Denton and Dr. Pete Moore about the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and the assumptions behind Einstein’s theory of relativity. In the first two parts of this conversation, Dr. Denton, a former Royal Air Force pilot who earned his PhD from Oxford, walked us through the background of his research and then presented the mathematical argument that he developed with his colleague Francis Pym. Their work shows that the constant measured speed of light and the results of experiments like Michelson-Morley can be explained without making time itself relative. Hence, the effects Einstein attributed to changing time may actually be due to physical changes in clocks and measuring instruments as they move through the structure of space. Now, the Michelson-Morley experiment didn’t just test light in the direction of motion. It also tested light traveling at a right angle to that motion. So in this final part of our discussion, Dr. Denton addresses that transverse direction, and we’ll bring back Dr. Pete Moore into the conversation to talk about how these ideas connect with Professor Simhoni’s EPOLA model. So let’s jump back into that discussion.
SPEAKER 02 :
The speed of light is not constant. If you’re moving, you’re moving with the light or against it. So that actually affects how light is moving in relation to yourself. But you’ll always get the same measurement C because of this reason. So you have to analyze it allowing for the variables if reduced time and length. But you don’t know that when you’re moving. It all comes out in the equations, but obviously, trying to put them through quickly, a mist occurs. And that was the mist that disappeared from my head on that day when I could do the equations in my head. Because it’s all about who’s measuring what. And can you really believe it? So… We’ve laid it down that you can see the calculations, but the broad, simple logic is there. We could have stated that simple logic without explanation. Then you’d have to say, that sounds like a good idea. But in fact, you can show it mathematically. So we have clear evidence of why Einstein, though he didn’t, for some reason he didn’t see it. That great mind didn’t, if he saw it, he didn’t tell anybody. He didn’t see this. But it’s as simple as some school algebra to show it, if your mind is clear enough. But based on this, we can go back to absolutes. We can say that Einstein, we doubt your axioms because they lead to some things which are totally illogical. But let’s go back and think about an absolute term and explain why you got the results you did. But now let’s go back to absolutes because we’ll end up exploring truth. rather than distorting truth into some model of the universe which doesn’t really exist. So the best thing is to go through the equations for yourself and realize that it’s as simple as making a two-way passage of light measurement and finding the speed of that two-way passage, and you’ll always find the same answer, however you’re moving. That is just the simple conclusion.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, you’ll always find C, the speed of light. So the Michelson-Morley experiment, based on this, they should have known that they’re going to find the speed of light, C. You would have thought they’d see it.
SPEAKER 02 :
They weren’t daft.
SPEAKER 04 :
They were good scientists. And that brings us back to one thing you said earlier that got my attention. It’s as if it were a spiritual deception. It’s hard to believe Einstein didn’t see this.
SPEAKER 02 :
It is. I mean, I’m sure that, like you, Doug, there’ll be listeners and those who are looking at it the first time and think, oh, you’ve lost me. That’s the natural conclusion. But the fact is, it is easy to follow the logic. I think you need to pray before you read the paper. But the logic is as simple as high school maths.
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, when I first looked at your math several weeks ago, I realized that when you have an observer with one velocity and you put it into your math, eventually velocity cancels out and you still get C. So you can put in half the speed of light and you go through these equations, they cancel out and you still get C. No matter what you do, velocity kind of cancels itself out in these equations and tells you that the observer cancels
SPEAKER 07 :
is uh going to be shocked but it always gets to be c yeah yeah and let me let me read genesis chapter one verse one i’m sure many of us are familiar with that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth and time oh wait that last part isn’t in there but yet there’s a lot of creationists who believe that god created time itself as a material thing on day one God created the heavens and the earth, and you’ll also see time in there. So there is the spiritual element, in my opinion, of Einstein that somehow made it popular that with time as relative, that God, in fact, created time itself just by that, you know, starting, you know, creating the heavens and the earth. So I always objected to seeing the word time in there, because it’s not in the Bible. I just checked.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, he put the sun in the sky and said that’s going to be a measurement of time. He did. This is the Creator who determined how we measure time. Exactly. He didn’t necessarily want us to fine-tune it down to milliseconds and so on. We’re dabbling with things in fine-tune that maybe we’re supposed to live simpler lives. I don’t know. But this is where we are.
SPEAKER 04 :
I like that. And Dr. Denton, I might be able to follow it, but I know Einstein. Einstein should have been able to follow this.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. If you go over it, I might have been a bit quick with equations, but if you go over it, it’s simple math. And But yet what has come out of it is the most complicated view of the universe. And even some of the best creationists, particularly when they’re looking at starlight and time, there are books written on that in creationist view, they will accept the special theory of relativity in their appraisal of the passage of light from the stars. and try to explain the six days of creation, incorporating relativistic thinking. I think it’s all got to be ditched. Go back to the absolutes, and you’ll find, because this comes out and gives this result, it’s only a contribution, it’s not the whole story. The contribution to the result says, have confidence to go back to the absolutes and build the picture again, if you need to. I just think God will show us so much, but he won’t show us everything. And maybe he wants to show us some more because there are those who are still deluded, who it’s better if they’re not his own people, actually. So I think there’s some more to be done. And little works like this are some encouragements to go forward. in absolute terms rather than relativistic. People have to rewrite their books. If they’ve got humility, they will, with joy. But if they hold on with pride, they’ll still believe a lie and stick to it. It’s no wonder that those who are given to teaching in the body of believers have got such a great responsibility. You either teach people the truth or you mislead them into error. It’s a massive responsibility. So I hope with humility, we can begin to make the case for relooking it more broadly.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, Dr. Denton. You had done the analysis based on the direction of travel and things shortening and a clock slowing. But one of your readers of the Journal of Creation wrote a letter to you indicating, but you didn’t do what Michelson-Morley did as far as you didn’t add the transverse direction in the other 90 degree direction. and he wrote a letter to you in the next Journal of Creation volume. Would you like to address what he did as far as the transverse direction?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, that is true. Thank you. We just, for this paper, we had looked at this too, but for this paper, we just wanted to look at the velocity of light as we’ve described a two-way travel and the results you get. that was sufficient for the paper. But yes, and it was very encouraging that one of the readers then wrote in and said, well, what about light that is going at right angles to the direction of motion? Because after all, the Mitchell-Solmoli experiment was to do with a ray of light split in two directions and then recombining. So Richard, his name is Richard Ward, wrote in, and I think that’s really very encouraging for a number of ways. Number one, he’d understood the article. Number two, he was clear thinking to write in. And number three, in a way, that other people must get involved. It’s good that if… this sparks off interest. So Richards was very, very encouraging. And so it was put in as a letter in the following journal. It’s just worth looking at the next diagram, which explains roughly his logic. We can look at the maths, but perhaps we leave that for another time. But what he realized is if a ray of light was shining vertically from the direction of motion, then really that that light ray was not going vertically up and down as it seems to be when you are when you’re moving with it. But in fact, it’s going diagonally. The light goes up to the reflector, but it has to go diagonally and then come down diagonally because we’re all moving. And so he did a calculation based on that and realizing that length contraction was not relevant in the vertical, because there’s no motion relative to the aether vertically, and yet time dilation was. And his calculation was based on Pythagoras’ theorem, that’s all. And he ends up with the same result, that if you shoot off a light at right angles to the direction of motion, guess what? You get the same answer every time too. Whether it’s in the direction of travel or at right angles, the light comes back. You feel at an average speed of C. You’ll always get the same measurement. So he contributed that. And there’s a little bit of the maths to get you there.
SPEAKER 07 :
So ultimately, he comes up with C also.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep. He comes up with C for the right angle beam of light.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yep. And, you know, it’s not complicated maths. Yeah. And, you know, I recognize that, you know, the Lorentz equation in here. And Lorentz, he thought there was an ether, right? He was an absolute time guy, if I’m not mistaken.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think, as I say, that I hope if people just spend some time going over the maths, convince themselves it’s valid, as the peer reviewers did for the journal. We then rethink about absolutes and we get on with it. We look at things that Dr. Moore is looking at and maybe others, and you end up with a new phase of investigating the universe on absolutes again. That’s what we’re proposing.
SPEAKER 03 :
Also, Dr. Denton, it looks like Mr. Ward, his equations do something very similar to yours, because what you see as you get the development going, the velocity of the observer finally just cancels out completely. And that allows it then to completely collapse down to C. So his conclusion at the end is the same as yours, is that any moving observer, even if you’re looking in a transverse direction, all of that observer movement cancels out. And what he really sees is he just sees the apparent speed of C every time.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. So he just confirmed the other experiment that Michelson-Morley had. They had the transverse in addition to the one forward, right? Correct. Yep. Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so this is the elegance that I was, even though someone like me can’t understand the maths, we have to trust people like you to understand the maths. And by the way, we’ve done that for Einstein, right? So I’m totally comfortable doing that with you because I know there are other people who know the math who are going to check your math and it better end up being elegant. And Einsteinian relativity has never struck me as elegant.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Yep. I think that the Christian creationist world has gotten more mature over the last couple of decades or so. To have a journal like the Journal of Creation, which is peer-reviewed, as you say, check the maths. And if you look at most of those articles, most of us will say, I can’t follow it, because you’re dipping into a field that you haven’t got any foundations in. People are talking about things that I hadn’t even started on. But as a group of people, if we can trust one another and check one another, we can contribute more together than we can alone.
SPEAKER 07 :
This episode of Real Science Radio was brought to you by Door County Coffee. A few years ago, one of the friends I watched football with on Sunday turned me on to this coffee, and I have to admit, it may have been the best thing he ever contributed to the group. Now, if you love great coffee like I do, you’ve got to check him out. Some of my favorites are Chocolate Raspberry Truffle, which blends rich dark chocolate with fresh raspberry flavor, Highlander Grog, which I believe is their most popular coffee, and then Turtles in a Cup, which my wife and I just love, and we’ve already started this bag. It tastes like chocolate, caramel, and toasted pecans all in one mug. So if you want to upgrade your morning coffee or your afternoon coffee, or let’s be honest, your evening coffee, head over to doorcountycoffee.com and grab a bag or two. Absolutely. Okay, so, Dr. Moore, I’d like to hear your take on what Dr. Denton just went through, which is really kind of, you know, he’s confirming that time is not relative, it’s absolute. And now, how does this play into the model that you presented on Ebola from Professor Simoni? and how this all ties together. Do you have any issues with Dr. Denton’s work?
SPEAKER 03 :
No, actually he has a scenario. This scenario that he has presented, including the transverse direction, you might call it the scenario where the Lorenz factor works. slowing a clock, actually slowing the clock and slowing and shortening distances using the Lorenz factor. So I call that scenario the full Lorenz. There’s another assumption you can make that will also work and that’s the half Lorenz. and then you can do the equations there. And I’ll kind of go through that as we go through my slides. First of all, Dr. Denton postulates that there is an ether. Now in his paper, he doesn’t, his paper is not written to identify what it’s made of or its internal structure, but he just says there is an ether. And if there is, then the ether can be the mechanism of reaction to things moving through it. whether it’s the clock or whether it’s a yardstick that’s going to be used for measuring. So that was the first thing. He gets us to an ether. And he’s in good company by assuming there is an ether. Newton, Maxwell, Michelson, Lorenz, Tesla, Einstein, Thomas Barnes, and Simhoni all do this. So if they can do it, Dr. Denton can do it. He’s in good company. The fact is there most likely is an ether. He has proven that the Lorenz factor works perfectly, but it’s only here in this particular presentation if it’s assumed that that the movement through the ether mechanically slows the time clock and shortens material objects like the yardstick. Yeah. So if those two things are assumed, which you can, then all of this will say, then the observer will, his velocity through the ether will cancel, and you’re always going to get C. Right. So that’s his conclusion, is that it doesn’t matter what the velocity of the observer is, you should expect it to always result in measuring a constant speed of light. I’d like to say, we need to go back and remember again, Newton warned us, don’t confuse time with measured time. And so Dr. Denton has straightened that out. He’s gone back to absolutes. Because if you’re sloppy with your language, You get unusual and purely mathematical, and they do strain the sacred writings. But you know, Tesla said almost the same thing. He said, today scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they’ve wandered off through equation after equation, and eventually they built a structure which has no relation to reality. So, again, another warning about being too mathematical and not fixing things to absolutes. Another man we want to remember that gave us some warning, and we do well to remember that, is Dr. Thomas Barnes, a creationist. He’s now deceased. But in his book, Space Medium, he actually said, I’m going to take a stab at what is the ether, or at least how would it work? And so he, in his book, Space Medium, Key to the Unified Physics, on page 9, he says, this is one of his conclusions, says, The abandonment of the concept of a medium in space is perhaps the greatest mistake of physics in this century. I just wished More creationists would read his work and consider his warning here.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, that’s Dr. Thomas Barnes. And wasn’t he the president of the Creation Research Society? At one time, yes. Yes, he was. Yeah, so again, he says the abandonment of the concept of a medium, the ether, in space is perhaps the greatest mistake of physics. Boy, we couldn’t agree more.
SPEAKER 03 :
Now there are additional comments that I have. You could do an alternate scenario, which I call the half Lorenz. And that is the MMX experiment did not measure the speed of light. They did not actually measure, have a clock and measure time. Those mostly were the, when you do the equations, you assume time and you assume a constant speed, but they did measure the arm lengths, the distances. And they did it in two directions. Thus, if link contraction in the direction of travel alone, let’s suppose that the clocks are okay, they don’t get affected. If they don’t, and only the length contraction is going to control our perception, then that would have a new factor, a gamma that we have to calculate. Now, when I did this to see if the clocks are okay, what kind of a gamma would you have? Amazingly, I got the same gamma as the Lorenz gamma. Now, it took a lot of algebra to get to that point. And so I’m gonna tag this right now, preliminary, because the ink’s still drying on the paper that I did just day before yesterday. I was not expecting this. I thought when I take the clock out of it and do just length, Well, what happens is the clock cancels itself. When you take it out, the parts of the clock cancel out, and you’re just left with length. But the length works if you use that gamma. Then with this gamma, things work again, and you would expect then to get a constant value of C if you’re the observer. Then there’s a third alternative, and that’s the one where we have the clock is considered not slowed and the length is not contracted. How would you then, if you say, no, the links in the clock, they don’t really do that. Well, that’s an assumption. If they didn’t do that, then how could you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment? And that’s where we turn to Peter Beckman, who said, you know, if that’s the case, then the proposed gravitational field ether, it’s this ether that’s distorted by the mass of the Earth, and it’s following the Earth because the Earth creates it, and it follows with the Earth. So that particular ether is standing still with respect to the Earth. It’s dragging along with the Earth. And then when you do the Michelson-Morley, it’s like you’re standing still. And that’s the other one. So all of these scenarios come up with the fact that it’s expected that these things would happen. However, we have now a mechanic. We have explained this mechanically in absolute measurements rather than resorting to the strange, unproven declaration that time itself slowed down. So here’s three scenarios. Dr. Denton has done a really masterful job to bring this to our attention. And Mr. Ward helped him and just completed that. But there are other scenarios that also would lead to that. The question is now, which one of those is the right one? Well, that’s where future experiments about the ether are. might very well tell us and finally point to, oh, this is the one that’s really working, or it’s this one over here. Does the ether really slow a clock? If it slows a clock, like a cesium clock, which is the vibrations of electrons that are dropping from a higher energy level down to the lower and back and forth, back and forth, and they do that at a certain frequency, versus a mechanical clock that you wind up, will the ether slow it down too? We don’t know. Have you done the experiment? No. Maybe in the future we could. But to do those experiments, you somewhere have to start saying, I think there’s an ether. As long as we keep saying there is no ether, why would you do the experiment? So I think that’s kind of where I’m coming from.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, the professor Eason, if I have his name right, he’s the inventor of the atomic clock. But he thought that he didn’t believe in time as relative. Uh, and he opposed some of the experiments they were doing with clocks, you know, flying in airplanes and this and that, and how motion could affect the clock itself, not time itself.
SPEAKER 03 :
Now there are different models of the ether. Uh, Thomas Barnes took a stab at one. Uh, I liked Simhoni’s because in addition to just talking about something that might be, he said, this one, I can improve what it’s made of. And then when he identified what it’s made of, I said, oh, you can put math on that because those are electrical attractions of electron to a positron. That’s electromagnetic and kind of attraction math that is well known. So, dive in and then we found that it then meets the rigorous criteria for a natural physics ether model. So just what we did even in the last one, there are a number of things that a rigorous model would do. And I’m just kind of putting them on the screen. We talked about that in the last one, so I’m not going to go into detail.
SPEAKER 07 :
Again, you can go back to the videos we have last summer on special relativity and the replacement video, the second video. The replacement for Einstein’s relativity, we have a lot of good details there.
SPEAKER 03 :
So I just would point out, I mean, it too gets E equals MC squared. It gets the speed of light. Why does light go that speed? So it gets all of that. It does all of these. And then here’s the 12th one. It should be able to explain or predict the gravitational constant. Well, out of these 12, the only one that has not yet been completed is is that number one. No one has actually derived why the gravitational constant is the particular number that it is. In fact, on one of the internet YouTubes, the scientist said, this right now is the greatest mystery in all of physics. It’s the one low-hanging fruit, and we don’t seem to be able to get it.
SPEAKER 01 :
Stop the tape, stop the tape. Hey, this is Dominic Enyart. We are out of time for today. If you want to hear the rest of this program, go to rsr.org. That’s Real Science Radio, rsr.org.
SPEAKER 05 :
Scholars can’t explain it all away.
SPEAKER 06 :
Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God.
SPEAKER 1 :
Tune into Real Science Radio. Turn up the Real Science Radio.
SPEAKER 06 :
Keeping it real. That’s what I’m talking about.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, I’m Fred Williams, and if you enjoy Real Science Radio, please check out Colorado Right to Life. You can find them online at CRTL.org. That’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G. They’ve been fighting against abortion without compromise for the last 50 years. Now, with the fall of Roe, they need your help more than ever. Join them in the fight against abortion right here in Colorado. That’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G. Again, that’s C-R-T-L dot O-R-G.
