Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Pastor Al’s
‘water sprinkler’
theory of light

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    1.0   The problem

    In another acclaimed thought experiment relating to time dilation, a passenger shines his flashlight in a mirror
    of a moving boxcar as illustrated in Fig. 1. According to relativists, light from the flashlight travels a distance d,
    reflects in the mirror, and backtracks, reaching the passenger at P. Since the mirror and the flashlight are
    moving with the boxcar, the passenger is not aware of any lateral motion of the beam of light. Therefore, he
    calculates the time for the round-trip beam traveling at the velocity of light c to be:





    This is straight forward distance-traveled. You throw the ball directly at the wall and it bounces back. The ball
    covered the distance to the wall twice.

Fig. 1   The mirror and the flashlight

    According to Einstein, however, a distant stationary observer arrives at a different conclusion. The reason for
    this is that the boxcar together with the passenger is moving past him at near-c. Therefore, the particles of
    light do not simply go forward and back. The photons describe an arc in space (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2   The distant observer’s perspective

    For the mathematically inclined, let’s also briefly review the relativistic math behind these claims. Imagine
    throwing a ball up in the air inside a moving car. If the pitcher is to catch it again, the ball could not have
    merely gone up and down. It must have described an arc in space to account for the motion of the car. This is
    what the distant observer sees. Therefore, he calculates the time it took the photon to do the round-trip a little
    differently than the passenger:









    where TimeP is the amount of time measured by the passenger
        and TimeO is the amount of time measured by the distant stationary observer.

    Therefore, if the object travels at near-c, Time0 is much greater than TimeP:












    As with length contraction and mass increase, the mathematicians encounter paradox when they plug
    extreme values into the equation. As the boxcar approaches the speed of light, the amount of time it takes for
    the observer to receive the signal approaches eternity. At exactly the speed of light, the denominator goes to
    0 and the numerator is in God’s hands. The signal never reaches our observer and he might as well be in
    heaven. Under these circumstances, our mathematicians prefer to tell the layman that time is ‘undefined’
    (whatever that means). This realization led Einstein to conclude that matter cannot travel at the speed of light.
    If it did, we could not give a rational physical interpretation to the equation.


    2.0   Math versus Phyz

    Again we have differences between Mathematics and Physics. A ball thrown inside a moving car either travels
    ‘straight’ up and down or describes an arc, it can’t be both. If the passenger in his frame of reference is
    unaware of this phenomenon, the passenger is simply wrong. What he perceives or believes is irrelevant in
    Physics. It only has importance to relativists, who exclaim with ignorant pride that relativity allows everyone to
    have diametrical opinions and also be right. The question in Einstein’s gedanken experiment is whether the
    distant observer is correct. Did light describe an arc in space?

    Einstein was obsessed with curvilinear trajectories and could never come around to believe that light travels
    ‘straight’. This is the source of his downfall. He died without hope, without understanding anything about the
    Universe. He believed that space was warped and that light traveled along this curved ‘surface’. In 1919, in
    reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, he remarked that his theory was correct.
    However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:

    “ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the
       answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick
       and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible
       that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures.
       In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory
       included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” (p. 467) [1]

    His disciples fail to see the painful lesson a lonely Einstein learned before he died. They regard his tenure at
    Princeton as the last days of a senile old man out of touch with science. Of course, the common folk out there
    aren’t particularly aware of this and continue to treat the name Einstein as a synonym of intelligence.

    In one of his ludicrous gedanken experiments of his better days, Einstein theorized that a beam of light
    traveling from one wall to another inside a rising elevator is deflected downward by the force of gravity. Again,
    he visualized light as being unable to travel rectilinearly. (Perhaps Einstein suffered from astigmatism.)

    In Fig. 3, I illustrate Einstein’s ‘curved light’ obsession and refer to it as the ‘water sprinkler’ theory of light.
    Think of what would happen to a photon emitted by one of the Sun’s atoms. The atom emits the lead particle
    straight-ahead. Since the Sun spins, the same atom sends a second photon right behind but a little to the
    side. A third photon rushes out a little further to the side, and so on. In other words, the entire beam of
    photons originating from a given atom describes a curved path in space irrespective of the presence of mass
    in the vicinity. This has to do with the spinning of the atom, the spinning of the Sun, and its orbit around the
    galaxy. An atom in the Sun has no way of sending a series of discrete particles ‘straight’ to Earth.

Fig. 3   Al’s water sprinkler mechanism of light

    3.0   Problems with Einstein's Water Sprinkler Theory of Light

    If light behaves anything like a water sprinkler, then the predictions of Einstein’s flashlight-in-the-boxcar will
    not materialize. Allow me to exaggerate the distance from the passenger to the mirror to make my point. Let’s
    assume that this distance is 5 light-seconds – the distance light travels in 5 seconds. (This implies that the
    boxcar is over 1,500,000 kilometers in length). If each photon emitted by the flashlight is affected by the
    motion of the flashlight, we will have a situation similar to the water sprinkler. The flashlight emits the first
    photon and the boxcar moves. Then the flashlight emits a second photon and the boxcar moves again. The
    series of photons should describe an arc rather than travel rectilinearly. The first photon should hit the side
    wall as the car travels to the right and never make it to the mirror (Fig. 4). Surely the passenger would notice
    that the beam never reached the mirror because he would not get a reflection. Therefore, the prediction of
    relativity did not materialize. We have the little d’s and c’s (quantitative stuff) in place, but no reflection
    (qualitative stuff). So what should the passenger or the observer conclude now?

    If Einstein’s water sprinkler theory of light has its way and the passenger wants to hit the mirror, he would
    have to point the flashlight obliquely to the region where the mirror will be in 5 seconds (Fig. 5). But then,
    Einstein’s ‘curvilinear’ light violates almost every basic experiment ever performed with light, beginning with
    the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PRR). The opticians routinely show in every one of their experiments that
    light travels rectilinearly. Therefore, relativists should settle their differences with the opticians before
    publishing further nonsense. Experimentation refutes relativity’s curved path theory of light.

Fig. 4  
Fig. 5   

The water sprinkler theory of
light applied to Al’s boxcar
experiment.
If light travels curvilinearly as
Einstein suggested (the water
sprinkler theory of light), you
would have to point your flashlight
to the region where the mirror will
be in 5 seconds if you want to
receive a reflection. This proposal
violates prac-tically all experiments
of Optics.

    In addition, if light travels in curves, we cannot talk about velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity: its direction is
    parallel to a straight line. Hence, Einstein’s water sprinkler mechanism is at odds with the definition of velocity
    and with what opticians routinely observe in the field. As far as we know, light always travels rectilinearly and
    we should talk about the velocity rather than the speed of light. It is Einstein’s warped canvas theory that
    requires a curvilinearly-traveling particle.  

    The idiot of Mathematics has been brainwashed to answer like a zombie: Young’s slit experiment proves that
    light travels in curves (i.e., diffracts). What he cannot explain is why at the same distances, the opticians can
    show that light travels absolutely ‘straight’. We have to resolve once and for all whether light travels
    rectilinearly or curvilinearly. Another famous reply is the geodesic. Relativists have made the geodesic
    unfalsifiably straight, curved, rectilinear, and curvilinear. What is there to argue with such a formidable
    hypothesis?

    But now let’s add a higher degree of complexity. What do you think would be the result in Einstein’s flashlight
    experiment if we assume that light is a continuous wave, an inexhaustible river flowing out of the flashlight?
    What if a wave – once emitted – remains permanently straight? Think of the flashlight as one of those
    StarWars-type light swords: the light always remains parallel with the flashlight, straight as an arrow! No
    matter what! (Again, focus your attention on what a wave is rather than on how it moves.) In order for light to
    touch the mirror, the passenger merely has to point it directly at the mirror. However, the passenger must first
    wait 5 seconds for the wave front to reach the mirror. Then, as long as he is not foolish enough to turn the
    flashlight off or interrupt its extension with nearby objects, the passenger can brighten far away objects
    instantaneously by simply tilting the flashlight. The straight wave hypothesis violates the well-established
    concept of velocity of light. If light can touch distant objects instantaneously, light does not travel at c.

    So even if Einstein’s boxcar experiments don’t tell us much about time dilation, they are good exercises to
    elucidate the true nature of light. Before we can accept Einstein’s explanation for the mirror experiment, we
    must first determine the architecture of light. Without this, Einstein has nothing, and Mathematics certainly
    won’t help him. How can light travel rectilinearly at the same time that it curves? This is the question that has
    stumped relativists for a hundred years. I reply here.
If you wanna shower all
them tomaters with
photons, the sprinkler's
gonna have to spin.
The passenger (P) points his flashlight at the mirror
and light travels this distance roundtrip. The
passenger measures the distance (d) as if the beam
described a rectilinear itinerary. In the Monastery of
Relativity, the monks equate static distance (a
photograph) with dynamic distance traveled (a
movie). In the foregoing equation, TimeP is the time
measured (with a clock) by a passenger traveling on
the train. Since the passenger does not perceive
motion, his measurement is no different than if you
took the measurement in your house (motionless
scenario).
The boxcar is moving towards the right as the photon leaves the flashlight. According to the
passenger (P), the ray of light bounced off the mirror and returned in a straight line.
However, the distant observer (O) should see that light described an arc in space. Think of
this as throwing a ball straight up in the air while traveling in a car. If you catch the ball
again it is because the ball also moved in the direction of the car.  
Every atom that comprises the Sun
emits a series of photons. However,
a spinning Sun should send the
series of photons coming out of one
atom like a rotating sprinkler system
shoots out drops of water. The entire
stream of photons should describe a
curve in space. If relativists
hypothesize that light consists of
particles, they will unavoidably end
up with the water sprinkler
mechanism of light.
While inside a boxcar, you point your
flashlight at a mirror located 1.5
million km away. Meanwhile, the
boxcar moves to the right of the page
with you in it. Will the first photon hit
the mirror or the side of the boxcar
(left side)? Will a stream of photons
travel rectilinearly or curvilinearly?