Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 3/20/16 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Is Physics Dying? Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position....

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/19/16 at 21:15pm UTC, wrote The feeling of gravity is a balanced INERTIAL resistance, as the...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/19/16 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Talk facts. FQXi.org is too ignorant and controlling to even begin to...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/19/16 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote The fundamental fundamentality is most fundamental. Other fundamentalities...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/19/16 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote The feeling of gravity, while standing on the Earth/ground, is a balanced...

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/19/16 at 20:34pm UTC, wrote Gravity involves balanced inertial resistance.

Frank DiMeglio: on 3/19/16 at 20:32pm UTC, wrote The fundamental understanding of E=mc2 and F=ma: F=ma and E=mc2 are...

Thomas Ray: on 3/19/16 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Motl is considerably more circumspect than you give him credit for in your...



FQXi FORUM
June 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Ripping Apart Einstein [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
I have often wondered if the vacuum between the local Star our Sun and Earth, is of the same density as the vacuum between a Proton and its nearest Electron?

When photons travel from the Sun to here, there is nothing apart from Protons (proton flux/free elecrtons) in the intermedieate space. From the Electron to the Proton in atomic structure, there is a small vacuum. The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton.

Or does it?..from Galaxy to Galaxy there is also vacuum void, but due to the Expansion rate, the void appears to be filled with an anti_graviton/anti_proton flux, quark soup? Any matter that transports across this void would interact as if it was an aether, the MM experiment is only valid local, by this I mean internal to our Galaxy?

some things fit ?

Some wave lengths would not fit in our galaxy ?

report post as inappropriate


Galaxymachine.de wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 18:42 GMT
Following:

This "flexible/fluid" - "Rest Frame" could form these too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Networ
k

Maybe time behaves like a fluid too. And those gravitationally determined pathways through space, stretch the time-fluid.

report post as inappropriate


Phil Sarazen wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT
Time is a human abstraction, It is a comparison of physical phenomeon in motion; we know it not by any other means.

If we take a pendulam clock to Jupiter the pendulan will fall faster and the hands of the clock will go around faster. Can you say that time goes faster? No one can only say that the gravitational forces that effect the mechanics of the clock make the workings of the clock go faster.

If we take an atomic clock to Jupiter can we say that time goes slower? No, we can only say that the mechanics of the clock are effected by the Physical reality of Jupiter; by the denser electromagnetic fields that permeate everything and as such slow down the workings of the atomic clock.

If one uses Lorenz's model, but asume the ether is the electrmagnetic fields that extend from all partical masses, one can explain all relativistic and Quantum Mechanical phenomena.

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:38 GMT
Like most time deniers, Phil, you are confusing things. Let me cut to the chase - if time didn't exist you wouldn't be here. None of us would because time is part of space and and without it you don't have events. No events, then you don't even have space because the creation of this space, that we call the universe, was an event.

So everything that you can think of - clock hands spinning, atoms moving in atomic clocks or even the strength of an electromagnetic field - is an event. Time might be malleable, and perhaps even transversable, but in the end it is inescapable and there's nothing that anyone can posit that changes that.

That said, I think that Petr Horava may be on to something and I plan on reading his papers further to learn more of what his theory is.

Oh, and your comment that assuming the ether is the EMFs extending extending from all partical masses will explain all QM and relativistic phenomena requires supporting data because I can think of quite a number of both QM and relativistic phenomena that fly in the face of that idea...

report post as inappropriate


miker wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
The MM experiment and its conclusion were/are misplaced . Aether does exist. The MM experiment supposed that the aether would generate a 'wind' across the surface of the earth as the earth moved through it. The aether isn't static like static air. Aether moves toward mass. The MM experiment could never detect the aether 'wind' because the MM experiment looked in the wrong direction...the MM experiment always looked for aether as if it were moving across the surface of the earth. It doesn't move that way, so it can't be detected that way. It moves toward mass...it moves toward the center of mass. Aether flow is what we call gravity. The Mossbauer experiments show this. Aether movement toward mass is gravity.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 23:55 GMT
Miker,

Right. That being the case, the aether is not differentiable from the vacuum. Just as Einstein had it -- a superfluous concept.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Miker,

The aether exists but don't interact physically speaking, the codes of informations inside the main central spheres of gravity which rotate, them are the causes of the physicality , the aether interacts thus , paradoxal, no because it is by codes of becoming.

There you can encircle thus the difference between the infinity and the finite sphere in evolution towards the perfect harmony between cosmological spheres.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
The aether, at least in the 19th century context, shifts itself in a way which makes it indiestinguishable from a spacetime vacuum. There is a sort of vacuum problem with quantum field theory and the cosmological constant. This paper by Petr's paper is most interesting from the perspective of what questions this raises. It is curiously similar in a way to the pre-Lorentzian notion of the aether with no spacetime symmetry, where Petr's theory involves a broken Lorentz symmetry. This seems to raise an interesting question than it does to advance a solution.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


galaxymachine.de wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 07:31 GMT
I guess i have some reading todo ;)

Thanks miker & Phil.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 14:15 GMT
I have Petr's paper, but I will confess I had not gotten around to reading. His papers back in 2004-6, where he proposes a K-theoretic approach to Dp-brane theory I read repeatedly. In this work Petr illustrates how solid state (like) physics with Fermi surfaces have homotopy and K-theoretic quantum numbers. I suppose I will try to read in the near future Petr's paper Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point in the near future.

I will register some disappointment with this however. I have indicated here and elsewhere that general relativity and quantum mechanics have different notions of time. Relativity defines an invariant time according to proper time or an invariant interval, while quantum field theory imposes wave equations on spatial surfaces with a local arrow of time. This is a coordinate condition required to specify the initial data for a QFT wave equation, where the associated time is not an invariant, but is fixed by a freely chosen gauge-like condition. So there are two notions of time that are not compatible. I have thought in the spirit of Hegel there must exist a dialectic of two opposites or dualities which define a consistent whole. In its basic conceptual framework the notion of breaking Lorentz symmetry seems not to fit this bill.

In a condensed matter physics analogue the lattice has to be treated according to some group structure. Bloch waves then have a periodicity determined by this symmetry, such as a space groups or crystallographic symmetry, and in lattice gauge theory there are Mantin actions with similar properties. Yet this lattice and its symmetries might in be a gauge-like or coordinate condition. If so then the space group is a subgroup of a more general symmetry. It appears that Petr is saying the lattice symmetry if “fixed,” using the solid state analogue. I think that the lattice structure determines connection terms, where in an elliptic complex one must take “connections modulo group actions,” so for connection in Λ^1(M) there is a sequence

Λ^1(M) -- > Λ^1(M)/G --d-->Λ^2(M)

The action will then be appropriate for a Polyakov path integral formulation, and we might then avoid what seems to be a hurtful violation of spacetime symmetry.

Cheers LC

\

report post as inappropriate


Ivan Pasternak wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 18:38 GMT
Time is what the clock measure. put synchronized clocks one on the top of the tower and one at the foot of the tower after a while put the two clocks one next to other and compare it's time.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 23:25 GMT
What a lovely breath of fresh air this site can be sometimes!

Good marks to Paul and Miker, and the M&Mx did not invalidate the 'dragged' ether (but NOT 'all pervasive') that Sagnac supported as well as so much else;

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:YQp037P-VIgJ:scholar.g
oogle.com/+stellar+aberration+anomaly&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites

But all does rather demonstrate the degree of flow as very negligible Miker, and not 'inward'.

And Paul, you say perhaps "The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton." ..but MM is only locally valid, within our galaxy.

Petr's paper is massively contortional but has to be politically as he's telling string theorists there is an ether, so the reported malaise with SR is true. I sense the long due paradigm change, but the catalyst is still hidden.

So Paul, how can the photon pass the sun at 'c' wrt the sun heading for us, which we know it does as Shapiro and many others have checked, then meet our planet doing 1,000k round the sun and also be found doing 'c' here!? Let's take a simple 'reality' view and ask if it changes speed.

So if it did where would it do it? Obviously at the point it doppler shifts! So let's check where that is with radio signals from spacecreft. We find it's at the planetary shock. The anomalous region of dense oscillating particle activity, the standing 'bow wave' that aligns with the planets orbital vector despite what we're still teaching at Uni and the lateral battering from SMP's.

Petr may be close to the truth. Einstein may have been closer in his battle with Bohr in the name of Reality. He tried to close the gap, but perhaps should have looked the other way, even further towards reality;

A model of Discrete Fields (the 'DFM') based on his '52; space is actually "infinately many 'spaces' in relative motion", but with real regions of ether surrounding all collections of mass, in relative motion, with particle 'shock' boundaries. And 'c' is constant locally within each, because it changes speed and wavelength at the shocks to be so?

And yes Lawrence, all arrows of time, and space, would be local to all mass, from a single electron and it's shock cloud, proportional to velocity (so much for equivalence and contraction) upwards to galaxy clusters. - And yes Paul, and matter crossing the void would interacts with the ether. And all using the postulates of SR. - A catalyst?? - Or perhaps it's all too real?

Paper 3; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

No new math is required for now. Please check if you can and give me any views.

Many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
I think some people have a bit of confusion here. This putative aether is different from the aether of pre-Einstein physics. This aether is more of a quantum effect or quantum field effect.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 15:15 GMT
Yes, and a big part of Jacobson's work [along with certain collaborators...] is to look for aether-ish theories that pass current observational tests without having to invoke new interpretation of the data or potentially overlooked subtleties in the experiment.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 15:04 GMT
Hi Lawrence

No confusion here. I agree entirely - It's currently proposed with no link to physical reality. My post suggests an option WITH one.

But it still is a 'quantum field effect', or to be precise, a quantum field, with effects. Re read in that vein and it should become clearer.

EINSTEIN LENSING

The question is asked in the article; can any model explain it. Yes indeed.

The anomaly is that Shapiro 'curved light track' delays, even with some gravitational dilation added, predict relative delays orders of magnitude lower than observed (spectroscopy). As this is also the only way galactic mass can be estimated some galaxies come out ridiculously solid!

A while ago delays of over 2 years were found! and, while we were fumbling around for a solution to that one, another of 3 years has just been confirmed!! This meets no current astrological model.

The DFM predicted exactly this (and predicts more) over a year ago! Feynman was right, 'Nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine'. I posed the question to my 8yr old nephew recently, ..he got it right. Can any physicists out there in cyberspace shed preconception, stand back, think so simply and and see reality so clearly?

Have a try; Q; Light going through an intervening galaxy that's moving away from us arrives after light lensed round the outside. Why?

Best of luck. Peter

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Einstein lensing requires no aether theory. For a pretty complete discussion on Gravitational Lensing from a Spacetime Perspective, this should suffice.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 14:20 GMT
Lawrence

Seems you may not have read it, it's not complete at all as it doesn't address the anomalous temporal magnitude. But it's not alone, in fact no-one sucessfully has. OK, back then I think the max delay was little over a year. Seriously anomalous, but nothing like as serious as the ones found since.

Most astronomers have been reticent to make themselves look foolish by even mentiong it let alone making a big deal of it! Interestingly it took probably our best female astrophysicist Evalyn Gates to break ranks and be honest in public;

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009
/07/13/guest-post-evalyn-gates-cosmic-magnification.

Of course we could stay head in the sand about it, but the sand's pretty busy with older mainsteam trogladites these days!

Occams razor, like Feynman, is correct, there is a simple solution. It's the same one that predicted the unexplaned quadrupolar assymmetry on the ecliptic polar from WMAP. Whether or not anyone will even look let alone recognise is a quite different question.!

(This signal is part of the search for intellegent life in the solar system).

Peter

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
This anomalous time problem is not a problem. Photons from a source will arc around an interposed gravity well with different proper distances. This fact is being used to calibrate the cosmological expansion.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 10:53 GMT
Aether ....gravity mass or light constant.....the ideas of Stokes are interestings about the motion and the immobility of the light.

Thus the physical system is dynamic and the other is a infinite light above the physical laws.

Thus the time permits to the mass to polarise the flux of light inside this system.

Thus the special relativity in the physicality takes all its sense, and the aether behind is thus different.One is infinite, the other finite and in building.The aether don't interact in the physicality because the codes are there in the gravity since the begining, the rotations become essentials for the motion and the mass.

It is a spiritual and universal interpretation limited due to our physicality, indeed we are mass inside this system.....

To understand the physicality, it is to understand the aim of this infinite light of love.We are catalyzers , builders, creators,of the harmony, this aim between spheres.All is the same, light but with different rotating spheres which imply the specificity and the rule in time constant inside a 3D.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 22:30 GMT
Peter,

Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out?

Might this also be the source of redshift?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Another form of slingshot effect, so to speak.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 00:13 GMT
This problem does not exist! I am not sure why you are claiming this. The distances and focal lengths are on the order of up to several billions of light years. A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:12 GMT
Ok.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
Lawrence,

Not to dwell on the point, but these differences are all between light that did succeed in passing these gravity wells, not what is falling into them, which would have been slowed far more considerably.

Presumably space is expanding between galaxies, as it is falling into them. So what is flat space? What has no gravity at all? What is far enough away from any gravity source to be affected?

According to theory, flat space is when the expansion and contraction balance out, so it would seem space sufficiently far away from gravity fields for the light not to be obviously distorted would be expanded, not flat.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
"A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature."

Yes, it's a very narrow view of what must be a very broad effect, since both paths are lensed, just one slightly more than the other.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 20:03 GMT
But the lense distances here are NOT billions of light years Lawrence. The calculations show the delays should be orders of magnitude less. And when the top astrophysicists say; "This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model."

It may be time to remove our heads from the sand and accept there may just be some kind of anomaly here. (Or some galaxies are nearly solid - if that's not anomalous!).

And John. You ask; "Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out? Might this also be the source of redshift?"

Not 'speeding up' within known physics, as, unlike the 'slingshot' effect of spacecraft acceleration around planets, 'c' is invariant. The overall effects of gravitational time dilation and red shift are also supposed to be small, as Lawrence did say, or even balance out. However, the one thing we DO know for sure about our present physics is that much of it is wrong!

But, if Ted Jacobson is correct and there is an Einstein Ether, you could be right in that the light going through a galaxy could be 'slowed down' wrt us if the galaxy is moving away whilst the light is going through its local field at 'c', which of course we know it does N'est pas?. This would be one of Einsteins "..infinitely many fields in relative motion". Of course this is too 'real' and logical for current science, and, like Messier87, won't quite fit in with it as it can't be wrong!

So perhaps Lawrence is right and there are no anomalies in astronomy. Shall I let them know it's all ok again?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 01:12 GMT
Peter,

C may be invariant, but Physics' understanding of space is not, from Inflation theory to whether redshift is due to an expansion "in" space, or "of" space.

My argument with Lawrence has been that if Omega=1 and expansion is inversely proportional to gravitational contraction, then Big Bang theory is a moot point, since space/our measure of space/the effects on light of crossing gravity fields vs. voids, is in a state of overall equilibrium. If the space/our measure of it, is increasing between galaxies at the same rate it is falling into them, where is the overall expansion coming from?

So, no, I'm not suggesting the greater speed of light around galaxies is due to light exceeding C, but as Lawrence keeps pointing out, C is a local effect. If we say "space" is "expanding" outside of gravity wells, then light in this space will travel more quickly than light further in the gravity well. There is no objective default space, as it were, either it's expanding, contracting, or balanced between the two.

That's why I commented on your point, that light going through gravity fields travels slower than that going around them. It is a relative effect, they are only slower, or faster, relative to the other.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
I certainly take your point John, indeed I did say 'with known physics', and that we know that doesn't quite work yet.

The fact is we're dealing with something relative here. Two bits of a Schrodinger wave front seen together, and emitted from exactly the same place, but one sent years later. That severely limits possible conclusions. Yes, there are still many, but of all the models tested none fit with the current cosmological model. Also very few fit with observation. The one that seems to do this most consistently is the one of Einsteins 1952 'infinitely many' discrete fields '..In relative motion.' This allows 'c' to always be local, as Lawrence says, the vector field to be dynamic, as Ted's, and it should be falsifiable. Complex caustics is the other possible area, but this cannot follow any logic or yet match any observation as it's really just extreme gravity well theory. There are others, including UFT etc, but, like cosmology, unfalsifiable. All other ideas gratefully received!

On red shift and increasing expansion I too am a skeptic. I recall doing a double take on the original calcs which seemed wrong to me, but I'm not a maths Guru! I've said this here before but not yet seen it refuted; Take a 2ft bit of elastic and mark the centre, hold one end by your eye and stretch it at a DECREASING rate. The end will move away (red shift) more than the centre. Now also consider that the light we see from the furthest point is from a few billion years earlier, so (as our elastic) the expansion rate will have been much faster then than now. That would give 2 substantial red shift increases even if the rate of expansion is slowing! My own 'guesstimate' would be that it's pretty constant, but hey... maths rules ok!

Peter

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 01:37 GMT
Peter,

The problem now is that you are talking about something other than real physics and cosmology. In effect you are raising up increasingly strained arguments to plead your case. The notion that redshifted galaxies and quasars are much more local has been essentially eliminated as a possbility.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi Lawrence

True. - almost; I'm not talking about 'real cosmology' as I think that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, and it's certainly not current mainstream physics.

But 'Strained arguments'? No. You misunderstood my first line. I agree. The comparable is using current distance estimates. i.e. as Evelyn Gates etc. say, it's the current model that throws up the anomaly (or inconsistancy if you prefer). This is the same as the others; Pioneer, Voyager, Superluminal motion, Lunar ranging, Flyby etc. etc, and now WMAPS quadropolar asymmetry.

These are all really important for testing possible corrections to the cosmological model (or 'models'!). And yes, of course our revised models have to depart from 'current physics', that is after all the whole point!

What it really needs is for as many as possible to study these alternatives and comment on any inconsistencies (inconsisent with observation, NOT with 'current physics' or, worse still 'beliefs'). That's proper science! I'm not trying to 'plead' a case, but simply objectively test a postulate that I haven't yet been able to make fail. It's perhaps a little frustrating that no-one else has yet managed to do this with the DFM either. Or maybe that's good!?! Please by all means try, - but scientifically.

Peter

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
Lawrence,

And Inflation theory is real physics and cosmology? Or is it a fudge to correspond theory with observation?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 14:08 GMT
I read with interest your posts but I can't understand some ideas about c.

We can't go more than this limit .

If the elctromagnetism exists, it is due to the gravity and all its superimposings implying synchronizations.

Thus c can decrease and can be polarised , but never the superluminal will be.

It is the gravity the secret because it is a modulator of evolution.The gravity polarises the light in fact .All the gravitational superimposings permit to the light to be in synchro.for the specificity of the gravitational systems.

It is logic in fact .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Steve

I'm reeally impressed - not a single spinning sphere!

Yes, 'c' absolutely constant - Locally. i.e. in and with respect to the frame it's propagating through (Einstein-Aether or whatever medium the field consists of).

That's where the anomaly of Superluminal gas jets arises, Messier 87 just being the closest of over 20, which Hubble recently confirmed at 6xC wrt our frame.

Till recently only heads in the sand and a few fumbling excuses of 'explanations'. But a dynamic vector field like Einstein Aether can have discrete reference frames in relative motion, so APPARENT superluminal motion, observed from another field, doesn't break the postulates of SR. All such observations will likely come from fast rotating black holes like M87.

Just imagine you're outside the galaxy watching it from an asteroid, and a wave front goes through it at 'c' (wrt the galaxy). But you're also moving at 0.5c the other way (wrt the galaxy). From your frame the wavefront will be doing 1.5c (unless Lorentz suddely shrinks the galaxy) but it's actually doing 'c', locally. The light 'signal' that reaches you from the wavefront in the galaxy also does so at 'c', as does the bit of the original wavefront signal itself that reaches you direct from the source.

If you check out Ted Jacobsons other papers on the arXiv you'll find mention of 'columnar' field structures here. It seems these may be accelerated fields within fields, formed from ions, continually sucked in and ejected by the extreme polar magnetic fields. But do check with Lawrence first as it may not be anomolous anyway so none of that may be needed.

I do hope you're well.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Peter,

One spinning sphere....I have already explained my fractal, finite and the number correlated with the numbers of cosmological spheres.

Thus the number is important .But it do not exist an infinity in this uniqueness like our Universe.Hope you understand better my model about the spheres and their rotations implying mass.Logically all spheres, quantics or cosmologics are linked in this logic if you know the velocity of rot of a sphere thus you know its mass .......incredible because the resulst imply more than c but it is not linear dear Peter, it is the gravity and its stability.

Now this speed is mre than c thjus if we correlate with two main sense, 1 for the linearity, and 1 for the stability, thus we have an unknown which can be synchronized with c .......an universal constant between spheres.

All spheres thus can be calculated .

The center and the frontier of our physicality thus implies two main senses for the light, the walls take all their senses thus.....hope you understand this universality.

If c is constant too for the rotating spheres of gravity thus it is the sense the key....

in the two senses, two possibilities, c constant for the linearity and the rotations or this speed can be more but there we must insert new parameter.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 00:39 GMT
The anomalies you cite are either nonexistent or not of great concern. The so called Pioneer anomaly does not occur with Voyager, which suggests an instrument effect. There are also some flyby anomalies as well, but they do not occur consistently, also suggesting an instrument effect. This could be due to a small pressure leak or some Newton’s 3 rd law effect from solar heating at a side that evaporates off polymers etc, or in the case of Pioneer maybe these craft have run into some tenuous gas that acts as a drag force. People are not going bonkers over these observations.

As for inflationary cosmology, so far all the predictions from it have been observed. It is not a complete theory, for the parameters are ‘free,” and the conditions involving inflationary reheating and the rest are predicted only within a range which the data falls within.

I really think people need to focus in on the real stuff as best as possible. It is harder, but more satisfying. I have a conjecture that technology on average makes us more stupid than smart. We have access to more information, but so much of that information is spurious or wrong. In previous ages information was printed and fairly expensive. Most people managed to read better writing and less of the piles of nonsense so endemic to our modern age.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 03:42 GMT
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf

An Einstein's birthday present to the seeker.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Lawrence.

I entirely agree that more technology makes some less smart.

But beware, lack of information is even more effective!

Take Voyager for instance, you say 'the Pioneer anomaly did not occur', but there are approaching 100 detailed papers on the many anomalies, from both Voyagers 1 and 2. An early overview is here;

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=940

Ot
her V2 data is just as new. i.e. the solar polarity reversal 'wave', changing from 13 days to over 100 at the heliosheaths dense particle bow shock. The only science that could fully explain this so far is common FM wave/particle interaction, which needs a 'medium' and absolute velocity. I can now tell you that ESA have also found this basis is essential. And, as with the quadropolar inconsistecy of WMAP, much of the work going on to clean up the Planck CMB picture has had to relate to 'cosmic dipole' signals, which is the activity caused by our motion with respect to the background CM field.

Check the (very) latest release referring to this at; http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=
46706

This only scratches the information surface Lawrence. And it is 'the real stuff'. Sure, ignorance is bliss, if bliss is what we want, but the more good evidence we use the safer the conclusions. Using 'beleifs' is another way, but personally I prefer science. Sure, we're not going bonkers, but we also need to remember we don't 'know it all'. ('1,000th of 1%' according to Einstein).

You should be aware your last posts have sounded a little like the guy in the late 1800's who declared that science was all sorted and people who were looking at anomalies were wasting their time as there was no more left to discover!

Karl Popper said mankind needs to be able to challenge ruling paradigms to survive. I we all consider him wrong.. he may just be proved right!

Last quotes, AE again; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existence". and..on Relativity in 1944; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (in a little known letter to Max Born in 1944).

So.. do you reeally still think it's all sorted?!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 13:55 GMT
I'm not quite sure what happened to the rest of my last post Lawrence. I suspect a dyed in the wool relativist hijacked it!

I think you're essentially correct. The orbital 'shock' wave is a physical drag effect related to 'some sort of interaction with tenuous gas'. But what it does undeniably show is that the planet is in motion through such a 'medium' at rest wrt the sun.

Let's now consider for a moment. I believe Einstein, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Ted Jacobson, Petr etc are all correct. There is something fundamentally wrong with physics and it needs some kind of unified field theory.

You seem to be saying it's all actually fine! or We, or I, shouldn't bother to search. If that's not what your saying please clarify.

If we ARE allowed to look, we must define what we're looking for. How about something the unifies SR with QFT, Reality with Locality, matches all observation, and resolves a few anomolies and paradoxes for good measure. Would that be a fair target?

So let's think ahead; Lets say someone eventually finds a model that seems to work at all levels and passes all initial tests. By definition the physics would have to change the ruling paradigms. Do you think everyone on first seeing it would immediately actually study it, and say, "wow! well done, ..at last!"

How would YOU respond?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 16:34 GMT
Ooops, sorry, it'd logged me out!, Yes, that was me above Lawrence.

There's something funny going on with the posts at present. Is it the new response system Brendan?

And thanks Steve. Keep up the research, and never give up hope of your own eureka moment, and your sciences centre. But, and maybe I know from experience, ..if you want to convince someone you're not 'crazzy' you'd have to try to assess how he thinks and harmonise your own brain wave frequencies with his. (that's wave particle interaction!).

It'd probably take a genius!!

Keep well.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT
Je suis fatigué Peter, Las de ces années de malheur.

Je suis fatigué de ce monde, fatigué de ces conneries .

Je suis isolé dans 100 m² de maison et 120 m² de jardin.

Parfois je me dis , ben prennez moi Père tout puissant prenez moi et enlevez moi de cette planète.

Je suis fatigué Peter tout simplement d'années de problèmes et malheurs, d'années d'incompréhension, d'années de critiques et autres.

J'en ai marre tout simplement.

Mes pas s'enlisent et mes souflles sont fatigués,je ne fais que survivre en fait ....croyez vous que je crois encore à mon bonheur , je suis las et encore las , je mérite cette reconnaissance de ma théorie de la sphérisation ,et vous savez je m'en fous en fait c'est dingue hein et c'est ainsi ....ce qui compte à mes yeux est ce centre scientifique car là ce n'est pas ma petite et humble personne qui en dépend mais bien les oubliés du système, affamés , sans eau ni médicament ...le reste n'est que vain .

Convaincre n'est point mon but car je sais que la sphérisation est universelle et qu'il y a un but harmonique pour les vies ........c'est celà qui est important, qui sommes nous à part des bébés de l'Univers créés avec amour .....

Amicalement Peter et sincèrement

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
Rester fort Steve. Mon français est des déchets mais je ferai l'effort ;

Oui, l'état de la communauté scientifique m'inquiète aussi. Mais ce n'est qu'un reflet de la condition humaine, et le c'est jusqu'à nous tous d'essayer de l'améliorer.

J'ai un pholosophy quand je tombe sur les idiots. J'essaierai d'aider ouvert leurs yeux si je peux, mais aussi essayer de découvrir et apprécier qu'ils peuvent faire bien. Et toujours je remercie mes étoiles heureuses ils sont des idiots, parce que s'ils étaient tous génies je serais l'idiot !

Vous avez eu une vie dure si éloigné, mais rappeler 2 choses ; il y a toujours ces pire de que vous, pensez de tous vous pouvez. Et ; votre destinée est dans vos propres mains, howver beaucoup de lui ne peut pas semble si.

Mon conseil sur votre théorie ? Vous le voulez ? Je le donnerai de toute façon. Il a une partiellement bonne base mais le bon ce sont le même comme très BEAUCOUP D'unfalsifiable les AUTRES idées. Lâcher le dogme et le retour à la méthode scientifique correcte. Rassembler de la preuve plus large éloignée, tomber n'importe quelle partie qui n'est pas falsifiable, développer un nombre de modèles et les essayer entièrement. Si vous aimez le que les maths essaient cela, mais nos esprits sont potentiellement éloignés plus puissants que juste les nombres. Vous pouvez trouver une version une modifiée subitement crises parfaitement dans le grand complexe 3D énigme de puzzle.

Si vous ne ceci faites pas vos théories seront considérées sans valeur. En fait même si vous faites, et le c'est correct, il prendra un intellegence rare et spécial pour reconnaître cela, et alors un autre quart d'un siècle pour changer un paradigme ! Ne pas prévoir des miracles, mais ne jamais renoncer.

J'ai une devise ; « j'ai la force de dix hommes comme je suis pur dans le coeur » Vous pouvez l'emprunter si vous souhaitez !

Egards les plus sincères

Pierre

(PS. I think we'd better now revert to english!)

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 17:57 GMT
Hmm. As always Lawrence, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You say;

"None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas."

Some complain when others don't see their viewpoint. I say 'Vive la difference'. It's good that most are happy with the physics we have, but it's also essential that a few are not. Scientific progress can only ever be made by the latter small minority with vision.

We must all have beliefs, but the biggest danger to science is when those who haven't bothered to get their knowledge up to scratch don't recognise that fact, and rely on those beleifs - then tell those that HAVE bothered that they're talking nonsense!

I'm sure you can see that if they got their way our future would be sealed.

And yes. Every bit of progress in fundamental science invariably "changes much." Consequential effects are the life blood of progress. But we can only ever guess how exciting each change may be.

We may even, at any time, be discussing superluminal motion or anti gravity, unless everybody believes what he knows is all there is. Petr Horava is one of the latter few. Are you?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Peter,

You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 00:55 GMT
There is a bit of a mixing of ideas. The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether. Secondly the spacecraft data, particularly Pioneer anomaly, is not controlled such that anything can really concluded.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT
Lawrence

You say; "The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether". Nor is that of Einstein Ether theory or the DFM Lawrence.

I assume you mean something like Maxwells 'all pervading' model? But let's consider what we really know about them that's important.

1) They represent the background field/3rd Frame we've always known exists.

2) The latter, including Ted's modification, are dynamic vector tensor fields, the DFM Barycentric, related in conceptual form and scale to magnetospheres.

Yes, there are subtle differences between the models, the DFM derived more from AOE and, so far, being 100% predictive and unrefuted. The point here is that it needs more proper scientific testing NOT just opinion based only on beliefs!! That's called "religion".

Voyagers 1 and 2 have filled in much detail we didn't get from Pioneer. I agree, it's always dangerous to draw conclusions, that's why we construct and test postulates and models to test against all the KNOWN data, which is now quite vast.

None of the previous ones work, and most of the subsequent ones are either limited assumptions, not really models, or work little better all round. I've tested plenty. Just one has stood out miles above the rest with 100% test results in all areas, and providing explanations for all anomalous data. - Discrete dynamic barycentric fields with wave-particle boundary interaction (FM).

Are you saying we shouldn't bother trying to falsify it with more testing??

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 00:23 GMT
Horava's theory involves a breaking of the Lorentz group by the vacuum. This means the symmetries of the Lagrangian for a system are reduced on a vacuum state. I don’t happen to think this system is likely. There are things to be said for solid state analogues with spacetime physics, but the lattice is also subject to the symmetries of the fields, analogous to electrons or phonons in Brillouin zones. This results in a noncommutative geometry, which physically induces a quantum torsion connection and tiny corrections on curvatures. These curvature corrections are similar to the R + α’R^{ab}R_{ab} + … Lagrangian in string theory. In doing this there is no, or at least there should be no, breaking of the Lorentz group.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that it borders on quasi-physics. The terms you are using, such as “discrete dynamic barycentric field,” are not standard particularly, or at least most of what you allude to are not matters of concerns with physics foundations.

The Pioneer anomalies and other things can be overviewed here, where this strange ephemiris in the spacecraft motion is likely due to at least one of a number of rather mundane effects.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:43 GMT
Hi Paul

Thanks for your support. Good to see you here, and great to find there's more intelligent life! I loved your essay as it was in a similar vein to mine, that only we ourselves are the limiting factor. A much underrated truth.

I quite like your sub-energy concept. You'll be aware it seems consistent with the DFM, but I'll have to learn and consider it more if I'm to build it in. Let me have any links (and I'll give you mine!)

As important is your 1st paragraph. I've been considering how on earth we change ruling paradigms. My initial vision was very close to yours; We've been following a jungle path, getting deeper and deeper, a while ago the path ran out and we're hacking through impassible undergrowth. The group has basically split into two who've lost touch, but now it's every man for himself, all desperately hacking individually, hanging on to their own version of which way to go.

I decided to bail out and re-trace our footsteps. Eventually I found where the path split. George Stokes & Co couldn't refute some nonsense on stellar aberration, and the wrong path was followed. I found the right path, a nice fast clear one, but in a totally different direction. In fact when Einstein was trying to close the gap between Reality and Copenhagen he was looking the wrong way. - the answer was MORE reality! I've now reached our goal, a wide open sunny land where everything is clear, simple and comprehensible. But those other guys would never loose the belief they're almost there, so will never find it.

The odd straggler has found the path and joined me, someone said they saw Petr Horava and a small group a few clicks away. Maybe he's turned in the right direction. We've lit a fire, and I shall just keep quietly shouting.

Have you got your head round the FM bit yet? That's a bit of a leap from false reality, but worth it.

Very best wishes.

Peter

PS. To mix metaphores, I think the only answer may be a unified rally to the flag and invincible weapon of a consistent SR alternative to take on the troglodites in a concerted battle. It may be a bit of a disparate bunch, but care to consider joining up?

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 16:45 GMT
Peter,

Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 11:18 GMT
Thanks Paul

It seems you're already being proved right about 'science clones', if proof were needed. Most still need the courage to let go of 100yr old thinking to allow the odd foray to really gain new perspectives.

If we can talk a little more about FM, which we use a lot;

It's at the heart of wave/particle interaction. The simplified conventional viewpoint is that EM waves get messed about after transmission, and transmitters and receivers move, which affects frequency (Doppler shifts). In radios, single particle oscillators are set at the transmission frequency. They receive messy EM waves and clean them up by shifting them back to the original frequency, transmission wave velocity 'c' being the fixed reference.

Now think of this in a different way, and consider; If a spacecraft is returning to earth at 100miles/sec. it receives our communications 'blue shifted', as the arrival frequency is effectively greater than it would be. Oscillators can only emitt EM waves at 'c'. What they therefore actually do is receive EM waves at ANY effective velocity and Doppler shift them to emitt at 'c'.

So now consider what would happen if we had a thick shock of oscillating particles moving through a heliosphere, say, for arguments sake, ahead of a large 'dragged ether' field around some mass, say a planet. EM waves would travel at 'c' wrt the 'background' Heliospheric space, then hit the shock particles, be blue shifted, and travel past the planet at 'c' wrt the planet.

And yes, the oscillating particles have to be condensed from a sub- or dark energy field with density and frequency proportional to relative velocity.

Now think carefully about the possible implications of that simple new viewpoint for a while.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
The foundations of physics contain an obstruction. I think one development in removing this obstruction is the holographic principle. The obstruction removed here is the standard notion of what is meant by an event or particle at a certain location, where the implications of holography are rather strange and require one to abandon certain constructions. I think a further development requires the removal of the idea there is a unique S-matrix description of quantum gravitational processes or the causal propagation of events. There is instead a whole modular system of S-matrices. I don't want to belabor that particularly here, and a part of the reason is that this requires a different way of thinking that is not easily imparted in a short blog post.

When it comes to classical relativity theory, the simple fact is that as a classical theory, large in scale and with a gravity g

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
oops, the carrot sign problem --- so to continue

g much less than 1/L_p, is the correct theory or effective theory. There is not going to be some reversal of relativity theory, any more than there is going to be some reversal of biological evolution in favor of a divine creation idea.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 11:34 GMT
Certainly not 'reversal' Lawrence, but absolutely certainly a fine tuning or improvement of parts of Relativity. Possibly the parts that we haven't yet observed (contraction?) and still give rise to controversies over paradox, sagnac etc, and maintain the divide with QFT, i.e. SR's Equivalence.

Is your system of S-matrices not similar in some ways to Einsteins 1954 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion'. (- shortly after he said we needed that 'different way of thinking').

This would confirm SR and Lorentz invarience 'Locally', which is precisely what we observe, Locality being what Einstein was forced to give up by Bohm & Bell to preserve Reality.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
Some of the questions that a good theory should have credible answers for that are connected to a structural reality that corresponds to observations are:

Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it?

Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity (has a continuously variable multi-amplitude velocity function), but energy has a single amplitude velocity function and what mechanism causes these things to work that way?

Why is energy’s single motion amplitude level equal to the maximum level (C) and not some other value and what is its cause?

Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect while energy only has a much smaller dynamically variable mass effect and what is the structure that causes these things?

Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency generates a decrease in wavelength and an increase in dynamic mass effect so that all photons with a specific frequency will have the same specific wavelength and dynamic mass effects and what mechanism causes it to work this way?

Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?

Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases, so that it would be infinitely great at (C) and its volume greatly decreases so that it would be zero at (C) and what is the cause of this effect?

Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 09:17 GMT
Hello,

Think about spheres dear Paul, you shall see more clear and you shall have answers.....don't complicate the simplicity.

Respectfull

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi Paul

Good list. I'm sure you have some answers, Can I postulate a few for you to correct?

Q; Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it? (and why 'C').

There must be a limit to the oscillation rate of whatever is oscillating.

Q; Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity..(.but energy only at 'C')?

All motion is only relative. Perhaps there are 3 basic states Background(sub?) energy, kinetic energy, and 'mass' energy.

Q; Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect.. Quantum gyroscopics?

Q; Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency..etc.

Each wave represents an amount of energy, cram them together...?

Q; Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?

Waves. i.e. constant change, - It depends on what the angle/hight/density is at the interaction point.

Q; Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases...etc?

Particles condensed from the energy field from excitation due to relative motion.

Q; Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?

Pass. I suspect 'decay' may not be the best description of a 'phase change'. Or perhaps it's 'Spheres'? - or we don't have to worry about Causality.

How about another; Why do we find EM waves doing 'c' irrespective of the motion of both the emitter and receiver? and why can't we unify SR and QFT.

Perhaps because wave energy is absorbed by local oscillators and re-emitted (Doppler shifted) to always do 'c' locally?

Any horrors there?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
Paul,

You need to read a basic text on relativity. The speed of light does not act in a causal fashion, but is a symmetry of spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
Time is not part of the space, quantum space is timeless. There is no need to introduce ether back into physics, as it is a wrong concept. There is no fluid filling up cosmic space. Cosmic space is an energy field that can be accurately described with quantum space. Quantum space has a density that correlates with given amount of matter in a given volume of quantum space. Density of space determinates its curvature. Density of quantum space explains gravity without hypothetical gravitational waves. See more on file attached.

yours amrit

attachments: Original_Solution_of_Gravity.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 12:11 GMT
Hi Amrit

Please explain, if quantum space is timeless, what happens when a planet passes close by, and properties locally change, then change back again? How can there can be sequence, change, or even quantum motion without time to measure it by?

I read your paper. The 'density variation' thesis is certainly one of the most intuitive and popular, but you don't seem to address the basic 'inverse Boyles Law' issue, shed any new light on the quantum mechnism, or get any closer to falsifiability. Addressing these points is where the value will lie.

But the only poor concept comes in denying an 'ether' while proposing an energy field, which I suspect is political. Ether is now what ether does. It IS an energy field, but call it what you wish. The old 'all pervading' ether of Maxwell was originally updated by Fresnel. My own ether seems now the most common, a 'dark energy' field medium, a background 3rd frame. EM waves can only have an absolute speed 'c' wrt this. Fizeau, Sagnac, M&M, Miller, Wang, all also witness this and will always be a thorn in the side of any 'non ether' theory of Equivalence. That's where the ultimate unification solution must lie; a quantum Equivalence mechanism. with both Locality and Reality.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 20:46 GMT
Peter,

my idea of density of quantum space will be developed by my research group.

We will publish results in peer reviewed journal, so you will know.

Regardig that universe is timeless, see my article on file attached.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Hi Amrit

I wish you luck and look forward to your paper. I gather the Peer review journals are now publishing less than 1 in 100, so are unfortunately far from representative. It may help if you check a little closer for typographical/ linguistic errors, it would be better to use 'tick', as 'thick' can mean unintellegent! This includes in your first reference; "What makes us thick."

I note no refutation of my point on bringing back 'ether' as a quantum field - which is of course central to this article.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 05:40 GMT
Steve,

I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Paul,

Interesting point of vue.

But you don't insert the evolution.

Thus you are not right simply.

The complexity is in the biological lifes.....

I don't understand why you are always sure in fact, have you conclusions, No .

Have you datas, No

Are you right No evidently because simply it's an other parameter which is in your interpretation of the Universe.

The Spherization is an evolutive point of vue .And thus the ^perfect spheer are in the uniqueness.Thus only the future universal sphere will be a perfect sphere and too the quantum uniqueness is perfects spheres.

I think you analyze localy simply, and you don't see the time evolution thus you don't see the real globality.

Thus you are not right but you can improve your interpretation and thusd your universality if you analyze all centers of interests in fact .

You live on a sphere, you think and see with spheres and spheroids, you are composed by spheres, your light is a sphere, your turn around a sphere, you are inside an universal sphere ....and you search still some explainations without realism .....Be more rational simply and accept the evolution .

You are not right Paul ,you are not right .

Frankly and sphericaly yours

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes “thick” should be “tick”. With introducing idea of space being out of quanta, the believe of space-time being a fundamental arena of the universe has no theoretical basis any more. How time can be 4-th dimension of a quanta ? Definitely cosmic space is timeless. My research group introduces density of space that is defined with amount of matter in a given volume of space. Density of space is defining its curvature. Material bodies move into direction of lover density of space. Gravitational waves are fictitious entities.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Peter,

All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 12:14 GMT
Peter, you say: Time is the result of motion through space.

Please explain how atom, photon, electron, massive body or stellar object creates time by its motion?

Time is not result of motion.

Time is result of measurement of motion in timeless universe.

Time t we gain by measurment with clocks.

Read my articles on file attached and you will see that in my view on time there is no contradiction. On the contrary all contradictions regarding motion and time are resolved.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf, 2_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 12:24 GMT
Paul sorry, I should adress you PAUL.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 07:05 GMT
Steve,

I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 08:44 GMT
Amrit,

Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Paul

tree is falling in space only and not in time.

With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.

Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,……….tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.

Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.

Duration of an event is result of measurement.

Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.

See more on file attached.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 1_Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 04:00 GMT
Amrit,

I read your reference, but I am not sure that I completely understand what you are saying. I have a few questions to which the answers may make things clearer to me. All motions in the below questions are at velocities way below C, so no relativistic effects need to be considered.

A_________________________B_________________________C

|| ||

Figure 1

1. Do you believe that a particle of matter can move from a given point A in space to another point B in space that is a distance of one meter from point A by traveling through the points that are between points A and B on the straight line between points A and B.

2. If you do, do you believe that the motion can be non-instantaneous, so that it first travels to the point that is in line between Points A and B that is the closest to point A and then to the next closest point to A and so forth until it ultimately reaches point B?

3. In figure 1 above, do you believe that it would be possible for two matter particles (one at point A and one at point C to simultaneously leave their respective starting points and travel toward point B such that the particle that left point A reaches point B at the point in the travel of the particle that left point C such that it reaches exactly the mid point between points B and C? (i.e., do you believe that it would be possible for the particle that left point A to travel 1 meter at twice the velocity of the particle that left point C).

4. If you do, what do you call the relationship between distance traveled D and the velocity V of each of these particles: D, A>B/Va and D, C>B/Vc, where D, A>B=the distance traveled from point A to Point B=(1 meter), Va=the velocity of the particle that left point A, and D, C>B=the distance traveled from point C to point B=(1 meter), Vc=the velocity of the particle that left point C. (i.e. What do you call the relationship D/V (the distance traveled by the matter particle divided by the particle’s velocity) of each particle)?

5. Do you believe that the relationship D/V of each of the particles mentioned in question 4 above would occur as a natural part of its motion through its traveled distance even if it is not measured?

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 04:21 GMT
Amrit,

In my previous post figure 1 did not display properly. The line below the line with the A, B, and C on it should have a vertical line at the A followed by a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at B, then another vertical line at B, then a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at C. This was to show that the distance from A to B was 1 mile and the distance from B to C was 1 mile. It showed up ok when I pasted it into the Add a New Post data area, but displayed with only the vertical lines as you see them after sending the post. I guess it doesn’t like dashes, or greater and less than signs.

report post as inappropriate

Mr.Ed replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 09:34 GMT
To All with respect:

Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum? I know we can see/measure photons coming towards us.

Light can bend or curve because of gravity.

Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter,that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?

Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape.

There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe.

There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push.At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth.

Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity".Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!

Please give your opinions,I have a migraine already.

I'm not "frank"!I am ,of course!

Mr.Ed

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 09:45 GMT
Interesting questions Mr Ed. Opinions?; Short answer; No. Thoughts;

"Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum?"

No. (otherwise we see ourselves everywhere!). No em wave motion rearwards.

"Light can bend or curve because of gravity".

Space bends or curves, EM waves travel in a straight line through local space. But from any observers frame Schrodinger sphere surfaces and light cones are distorted by local curved space.

"Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter, that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?"

Yes. Use e=mc2, GR and Newtons laws.

"Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape."

Perhaps. - Read Hawking. - and we know too litle about light, plus see below.

"There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe. There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push. At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth."

Dangerous assumptions. Dark matter, probably propagated from dark energy, is considered to locally pull. As photons have zero mass he 'push' is arguable, etc. but I'll follow your thoughts.

"Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity". Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!"

I struggle to find any logical or observational/empirical evidence. Also consider this; If we're ever to unite physics particles can't be conserved. (read Penrose etc). We've only ever witnessed photons as short range energy concentrations condesed from the field so, despite aged assumption, it's foolish to believe more. As all particles are oscillating ('spin') energy of something it may be that photons have gravity, but the evidence points to baryonic particles etc NOT travelling at 'c' being those that 'bend' local space. Probably something like the Dirac hole in the Dirac sea. When the particles energy is re-absorbed ('anihilation'!?) the sea would flatten out (but Shrodinger energy waves may still pass through it).

Now I'm starting to get a headache too. I belive Occam, Einstein and Feynman -Physics is simple, it should able to be explained to a barmaid, and 'nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine'.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Mr.Ed replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 13:57 GMT
Thank you Peter!

I would go back and read but, at my age I'm running out of"Time" and needed some "crib notes" before I depart.I might need them in some "dimension".Right now though, I am just "fine man".

Really,Thanks.Now,I am being "frank"!

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 21:02 GMT
Paul

an object moves from A to B in space only and not in time.

Velocity of the particle is derived from numerical order of its motion that we gain with clocks. Numerical order t0, t1, t2...tn of a physical event we measure with a clock. A sequence t-1 is “before” sequence t equivalently to natural number n-1 is before natural number n . Numerical order to, t1, t2....tn of a physical event has no duration. It runs in a timeless space where physical time is run of clocks. Velocity v of a physical event is derived from its numerical order t0, t1,t2...tn.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 21:11 GMT
Paul, physics needs only Clocks, Time can be abandoned.

yours amrit

attachments: Physics_needs_only_clocks_time_can_be_abandoned.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 08:56 GMT
Dear Paul, here you have Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order

1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of physical events

2.t1 is “before” t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2

3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:

X4 = i x c x tn

4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space

5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp

6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn

7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:

frequency = 1/tn

8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration

9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future

10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn

Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2…tn physical events follows:

1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.

2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.

3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time

4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0

5.for physical events which happening requires “tick” of a clock numeric order is more than zero

6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0

7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero

8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 04:44 GMT
Amrit,

Since the planck distance is considered the smallest distance possible and larger distances are considered multiples of the planck distance and the planck time is considered the smallest time period possible and longer time periods are considered to be multiples of the planck time, it would seem that if position transfers occurred immediately (at infinite velocity) at the planck scale any larger scale motion would also occur at infinite velocity because larger distance position transfers would be multiples of the planck distance and planck time. As an example, an immediate transfer could only happen if the distance or the time equaled zero. If the planck distance equaled zero there would be no transfer of position. If the planck time equaled zero then any position transfer of any distance would equal a time of zero also because a transfer of two planck distances would take two planck times, which would be two times zero or zero. A larger scale transfer of one billion planck distances would take one billion planck times, which would be one billion times zero or zero. How do you explain this?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
Paul,

quantum space is made out of Quanta of Space QS that have a volume of Planck.

In quantum space information and energy transfer are immediate.

We publish an article about that in Physics Essays - AIP.

see file attached

yours amrit

attachments: 1_According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf, Nonlocality_and_Symetrized_Quantum_Potential.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 24, 2010 @ 07:50 GMT
Amrit,

I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 10:23 GMT
Why I say that, I have nothing against you , be sure , I just critic simply.

In fact the linearity and the gravitational stability is not differenciated, thus that implies confusions about the limits like Planck and C.

Now of course you are right about the motion, but the duration is only in 1 entity and is constant .

Thus of course your interpretation of the minimal distance, if we consider the linearity and the stability of the gravity,is not sufficient.

Indeed you are two main kinds of motion, rotations spinals aand orbitals and the linearity......the sense takes all its sense.....

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Paul,

Planck time tp is a fundamental unit of numeric order of change that runs in the universe. Universe itself is timeless. The only time in the universe that exists is psychological time through which we experience change of the universe.

Yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 12:48 GMT
PS

Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 3, 2010 @ 04:20 GMT
Steve,

I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Amrit,

The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 15:30 GMT
Paul

I like your clarity in viewing motion as simple change of position, needing time, but, change wrt who or what? Does a particle stay motionless in space when a galaxy arrives and passes by? In an interstellar medium at 2.7 degrees, or dark energy field, it either is or is not in absolute motion wrt the background field.

The panic this generates in STR fans is not necessary. It's not time that's important but local motion. A particles motion, even a photon, can of course only ever be 'local' to where it is at any moment in time. Now consider we put it in a box in space, say a room in the space station. In that frame it travels at 'c' wrt the box. We know. We've measured it. But if we're watching it from space as the space station passes us we have to use the Lorentz transformation and contraction.

Why? Because the postulates of the STR say 'c' is constant and physics is the same everywhere and in every frame. It is however only an assumption that they also mean we can't observe a change of position happening at a different speed wrt our own frame. The light that reaches us informing us of the position of something at any time, ergo a new position after a time, always reaches us at 'c'. The edge of a shadow can appear to move across a curved surface at any speed lower or faster than 'c'.

If the photon in the box in the moving space station only does 'c' wrt the box, why on earth do we need to remove the ether if we are only ever informed of it's new position by information travelling and reaching us at 'c'?? We do not if reference frames really and local exist. Simply remember; a closed box can be perfectly described with a set of co-ordinates.

Causality is not affected as that information is not the same as carried by the subject photon or wave pattern itself. Einstein did indeed say in 1921 'space without ether is unthinkable'. The postulates of STR are fine, only a thoughtless additional assumption is incorrect, causing 100years of paradox and anomalies.

Each bunch of particles, box, planet, galaxy etc in relative motion has it's own reference frame through which em waves can only travel at 'c' locally. There is also a quantum phenomina and mechanism at the boundaries staring us in the face.

When em waves change speed (ie into a prism or water) they must always Doppler shift. This must be to for conservation of energy. The reverse must then also be true, when em waves are Doppler shifted it means they've changed speed - so must have moved between real physical reference frames.

I'd expect you to be able to see this Paul, though it seems most are too steeped in historic errors. Am I correct?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 23:56 GMT
.

Dears,

Energy and time are two sides of the same coin. Time is just elapsed in the inside of energized systems. Like energy, time means motion. If every bit of existent matter were perfectly stopped (relative to any reference), no time would be elapsed.

As any other bigness, time can be measured against a sample-pattern and is obviously relative.

Seems obvious, and it is...

report post as inappropriate


BEST PHYSICS wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 20:14 GMT
The contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.

report post as inappropriate


BEST PHYSICS wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction in any theory of quantum gravity.

Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.

report post as inappropriate


Rolex replica wrote on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
replica rolex

rolex watches replica

replica rolex watches

report post as inappropriate


julian luque wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 11:04 GMT
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

GRAVITY AND SPACE

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Einsteiniana: Reviving the Old Money-Spinner

Celebrating Einstein Through 100 Years Of General Relativity: "Albert Einstein is probably the most well-known scientific genius. His creative ability allowed him to dream of new physics and create scientific revolutions, including his masterpiece, the theory of general relativity. (...) Today, a window of opportunity is beginning to open for...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Clever Einsteinians typically accept both Einsteinian time and Newtonian time. For instance, John Norton, Etienne Klein and Lee Smolin fiercely believe in Divine Albert's Divine Theory and yet:

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Self-brainwashing in Einsteiniana:

Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


H. G. wrote on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Pencho Valev, 14/17-03-2013

I have read your links, even Etienne Klein. I am familiarly with all these subjects. Nevertheless, what is your question? Or did you only want to inform everyone?

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 3, 2013 @ 10:32 GMT
"Cutting the threads of the spacetime fabric and reinstating the aether could lead to a theory of quantum gravity."?

Do we really need an aether as to understand light as electromagnetic wave?

Thanks to Pentcho I got aware of what I consider a mistake.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
After All, Where Are the Einsteinians ?

Lee Smolin 2005: "Where are the Einsteinians?"

The answer is clear now:

Einsteiniana's high priests have all left the sinking ship:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 06:25 GMT
Einsteinians will disappear but Divine Albert will remain - he is an integral part of the spirit of our civilization:

"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."

Divine Albert and his apostles

DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
Baez: "the Standard Model ... takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand ... Relativity". I reiterate my naive question:

Did the LHC also confirm Philip Warren Anderson's 1962 non-relativistic mechanism or only its 1964 relativistic pendant by half a dozen theoreticians?

I admire the Nobel committee for their courage not to award Einstein the Nobel price for his SR.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science

A light source emits pulses at time intervals Ts. A stationary receiver/observer receives the pulses at time intervals Tr=Ts. For that observer the speed of the pulses is:

c = L/Tr = L/Ts

where L is the distance between the pulses (arbitrarily chosen by the source). So far special relativity and sane science agree.

Now the receiver/observer starts moving towards the source at one third of the speed of the pulses themselves. Accordingly, Tr is shortened - for the moving observer we have:

Tr' = (3/4)Ts

Again, special relativity and sane science are in agreement:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) ...the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected... (...) As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Finally, sane science concludes that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer has increased:

c' = L/Tr' = (4/3)c

Special relativity says nothing. Days and weeks pass in silence but then again winds from all over the world start bringing the victorious tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 04:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science II

"Physics is at a crossroads," said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. "In a sense we've entered a very deep crisis." (...) Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science III

Insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory was wrong but still sane science. It was sane, although wrong, to assume that the speed of light (relative to the observer) was independent of the speed of the emitter but it would have been totally insane to assume that this speed was independent of the speed of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 08:44 GMT
The references are useful and point out the dilemma, but without indicating a possible solution.

1."...if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to"

If the current speculation from Quantum gravity that space can exhibit a discrete nature is correct, would the background to measure light speed not then emerge?

2. Although the evidence is very strong, it is not yet an unassailable fact that non-baryonic matter exists and that it is over 80 times more abundant in our galaxy than baryonic matter.

If however this is the case, firstly when proto-planets are forming it cannot be avoided that planets are actually of mixed matter content, i.e. consist both baryonic and non-baryonic matter. Secondly, unless the Earth is so unique as to be specially excluded from interacting gravitationally with this transparent and abundant matter, so abundant that our solar system is orbits the galactic centre not by its own motion but is being carried along in the current of this non-baryonic matter's motion as it rotates about our galactic centre at 225km/s, would it then be escapable that we have an earth-bound luminiferous medium, even if not exactly an 'ether'? If escapable, how so?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science IV

Sane science says that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin cannot be both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness. Special relativity gives an indirect reply: half of the Einsteinians teach that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness, the other half teach it...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
" ... within Einstein-aether theory -- in contrast to general relativity -- there is a preferred time that can be used as an absolute reference to mark events against. It is as if spacetime were filled with a fluid -- an aether -- which defines a 'rest frame' at each event."

A preferred time implies a preferred space. Even if an absolute t = 0 could be chosen, the evolution of the system would never map t_0 --> T_1 linearly.

This is because any hypothetical aether which might exist to mediate motion between bodies would not retain information of the bodies' relative positions even were the momentum known; an infinitely stiff aether is not differentiable from the vacuum, as Einstein deduced.

In order to have a preferred rest frame, one must designate a preferred state of motion -- i.e., a classical two-way measure -- which is why gravitons are spin 2 particles in quantum field theory. That is, information instantaneously exchanged between two bodies is retained by the particles, and not by the spacetime. Also as Einstein deduced, a field theory obeys Lorentz invariance regardless of scale, or general relativity doesn't hold at any scale.

We can only recover the role of spacetime in any interaction (event) geometrically, because there are no preferred rest frames, in principle. The stress-energy tensor is symmetric.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Hi Tom,

I think what a lot of people are missing is that there is actually two different kinds of time. There is an absolute time related to the cosmos and the event that started this all. No matter which direction you look out into space, it points to the "big bang" event. Then there is proper time that is relativistic. It is more of a local kind of time.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 09:48 GMT
Fred,

There is apparently two kinds of space as well. That which is expanding, based on the redshift of light and that which is stable, based on the speed of light, since this light is apparently being "carried" along by the expansion.

Remember light travels about 186,000 miles a second, so a lightyear is about a trillion miles. Therefore this measure of space has to remain constant, if those galaxies are moving apart, such that the light takes longer to travel from one to another.

The question is, which is Einstein's ruler? That which is constant, or that which is expanding? Which is the denominator and which is the numerator?

Or are we missing something else entirely?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 11:05 GMT
Fred,

True. I have run out of ways to explain it -- thanks for adding a clearer exposition.

John,

"Or are we missing something else entirely?"

Yes.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 12:27 GMT
Tom,

Akinbo described an 'Earth bound' ether, which is then a background which may move with respect to others (so only local, not 'absolute'), and equivalent to all other frames.

You only described why a single 'absolute' ether frame is untenable, which I, and I believe Akinbo, already assume to be the case. i.e. No preferred frame, but always some local reference frame for 'speed c'.

Using the local ether as the reference datum appears able to resolve all the theoretical and empirical problems. I have described a (Higgs consistent) domain boundary mechanism, and indeed the 1st order non-reliance on 'ether' per se (as we now know particles infuse space).

You've only ever expressed a subjective objection (as it's "different to" popular interpretation). Using your new entirely objective view, can you offer any proper scientific falsification of the hierarchical 'equivalent local frame' scenario?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 18, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
I am more optimistic than Peter that before 2020 we will get a closure on the arguments about the nature of space. My heart skipped a beat when I read this about the Alcubierre drive.

Indeed, my model of 'digital motion' is very similar to the Alcubierre model's compression of space in direction of motion and expansion of that behind. The major difference being that not only hyperfast travel, but everyday motion involves space as a participant.

NASA is also taking a look at the idea.

So space is not a nothing after all..., even in Einstein's theory! And as Newton suspected. It can be warped, be curved, be deformed and vibrate as in gravitational waves. Then what are we still arguing about? We are left only with the details to be sorted out.

Let me end this with Newton's statement in De Gravitatione, p.8 "…it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can". And I say, yes, extension now moves and acts as body can even in General relativity!

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 18, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science V

All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativistic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 19, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science VI

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

The fatal phrase, which is obviously correct, is:

"the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected"

If the Albert Einstein Institute want to save special relativity, they will have to replace the fatal phrase with an idiotic one:

"the distances between subsequent pulses are affected so that the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver gloriously remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"

If the fatal phrase "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected" is not replaced with the idiotic one, then in the above scenario the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver/observer is (4/3)c, in violation of special relativity.

This conclusion is consistent with the classical Doppler effect but one can easily see that the relativistic corrections change essentially nothing - the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver/observer remains different from c.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science VII

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:

c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo

in violation of special relativity. The relativistic corrections do not change essentially this conclusion - c' remains different from c. If Vo is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both f'=f(1-Vo/c) and c'=c-Vo are virtually exact formulas.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 08:51 GMT
I have just read Lee Smolin's article that Pentcho drew attention to. Very truthful, forthright and interesting. All that is needed for the 'good news' to spread is for just one powerful 'Saul to change to Paul on the road to Damascus'. Is Lee Smolin the Saul? Or is it Neil Turok? Salvation of physics, is unlikely to come from Apostles like Peter, Pentcho, John M, etc but from those who hitherto vehemently opposed the gospel. Interestingly from that Article, even the messiah (Einstein) was ostracized and his work taking over by mathematicians.

(I am not religious. Just using this for analogy).

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Even realizing that it's a reference to tearing apart the fabric of continuous spacetime, I have always objected to the title of this article. I think it's well in evidence that Einstein has not only not been ripped apart, he has escaped without a scratch.

All the personal incredulity expressed in these blog posts amounts to nothing worth repeating. The real issue taken up by serious scientists, though, is very well summed up by Swarup: "The problem: When you try to do the math to work out the strength of forces on the quantum-gravitational scale, your calculations return a maddening proliferation of infinite answers that have no physical meaning."

While introducing the idea that time is absolute rather than relativistic may make the numbers come out the way one would like them to be -- it does not answer the important question of why the calculations returned infinity in the first place.

A physically real time independent of space is actually less well behaved than continuous spacetime -- because it assumes, as Horava points out, that Lorentz invariance also has to be discarded. Once that artifact is gone, one must do away with spacetime geometry altogether; all events are disconnected, causality is unclear and everything can be explained as "just so." That newly invented world of "just so-ness" has nothing to do with the objective world described by Einstein's mathematically complete theory.

The fabric only unravels at infinity. Locally, life -- and classical time reversible physics -- goes on. This is the physical meaning to be gotten from computations that return infinity:

All physics is local.

As the man said.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
"A physically real time independent of space is actually less well behaved than continuous spacetime -- because it assumes, as Horava points out, that Lorentz invariance also has to be discarded, ..."

t doesn't discard that which Lorentz invariance is modeling. It corrects the Lorentz transforms. Length does contract. The rate at which events occur does vary. E=mc2 still results. The equations change somewhat but they are not in error. They account for the same effects and more. E=mc2 gets a fresh presentation. That is certainly a reasonable expectation since it contains a constant speed of light.

Acknowledging that the speed of light varies does not do away with the relationship between energy and mass. The relationship between energy and mass is finally made clear physically. That result follows from finally defining mass. Mass is defined. It leads immediately to a variable speed of light. All other derived properties become defined. They all receive clear physical meanings right from the time they first appear in physics equations.

The absoluteness of time is the key to achieving, and showing, fundamental unity in all physics equations. All relativity type effects occur and are mathematically accounted for. The completeness is not lost. An absolute time coupled with a variable speed of light is not less well behaved than spacetime. The difference is only that spacetime is not needed. It couldn't be tested anyway. The existence of absolute time can be physically tested. The variability of the speed of light is already established. Maxwell gave us that answer.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
"Acknowledging that the speed of light varies does not do away with the relationship between energy and mass."

Yes it does, James. The relationship is quadratic; one cannot have c as other than constant and preserve the mass-energy identity.

If you're saying that the constant can have a different value than the speed of light in a vacuum, when measuring some constant speed less than c in a medium, that doesn't change the physics.

Understand that special relativity means E = m. This identity holds only with the absolute constant speed of light.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Tom,

"Understand that special relativity means E = m. This identity holds only with the absolute constant speed of light."

Before I respond, please first fill in the units for this equation.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity

A light source emits six pulses each second - the distance between the pulses is, accordingly, D = 50000 km. For a stationary (with respect to the source) observer the frequency and the speed of the pulses are:

f = 6 ; c = 6D

Then the observer starts moving at (1/2)c = 3D away from the source. According to special relativity, the frequency and the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer change as follows:

f' = 6 - 3 = 3 ; c' = 6D - 3D = (6 - 3)D = 6D

The calculation:

6 - 3 = 6

that Einsteinians apply to the speed of light but to nothing else in Divine Albert's world is the essence of special relativity.

This calculation, 6-3=6, so popular in Divine Albert's world, is equivalent to the calculation 2+2=5 popular in Big Brother's world:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Pentcho,

Your mistake seems to be obvious here. Let's agree on

- relativity (not Einstein's questionable special conventional one) which means that we need not considering the source or the receiver at rest. Therefore we could also say the source is moving away from receiver.

- the (non-conventionally-relativistic) Doppler effect which means that the receiver measures a frequency that is decreased in the case you referred to but increased in case of decreasing distance. If one knows the actual frequency and c then one can calculate from the redshift in the referred case how fast the distance gets shorter.

- a common time and a common space, the latter without a preferred point of reference

Isn't it nonsensical to attribute reality to the apparent frequency and derive a seeming speed relative to the observer? The observer cannot see the speed but only measure the apparent frequency and calculate a belonging apparent wavelength if he knows c. All this has not yet anything to do with Einstein's conventionality which I consider at best redundant and to some extent misleading.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Eckard,

"Your mistake seems to be obvious here"

My mistake? I made no statement that could be right or wrong - just described with some irony the absurd relativistic thesis that, when the observer starts moving away from the light source, the frequency he measures decreases but the speed of the pulses relative to him remains unchanged. If there is an obvious mistake, it is in the words "remains unchanged".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

The wrestling was fruitful: Einstein discovered that, when the observer is moving with speed v away from a light source emitting a series of pulses (the distance between subsequent pulses is D), the frequency he measures is:

f' = c/D - v/D = (c-v)/D

and the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is:

c' = D(f') = c - v = c

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Eckard,

"Well, the observer receives a signal with a smaller than original frequency if his distance from emitter steadily grows than in case it remains constant. This is known as Doppler effect. However, why the heck do you attribute a "speed of the pulses relative to him"?"

The speed of light relative to the observer is THE RELEVANT speed in relativity. Newton and Maxwell believed that this speed did depend on the speed of the observer; Einstein assumed it didn't and deduced relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation etc. FROM THIS ASSUMPTION.

I am trying to show that Newton and Maxwell were right - the speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity II

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, then, according to special relativity, the speed of the waves relative to the observer is:

c' = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo = c

The calculation c - Vo = c is the essence of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity III

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to a stationary (with respect to the source) receiver is c=3D/t while the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is c'=4D/t, where D is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses". According to special relativity, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = 4D/t = c + D/t = c

Needless to say, the calculation c + D/t = c is equivalent to 6 - 3 = 6, the fundamental calculation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Pentcho,

‘While you wrote "the speed of the waves relative to the observer" I didn't find this in the lesson you criticized. Does it have any relevance how large we observe sun and moon?

I can only blame almost everybody including Harker and you for misusing the word relativity as if relativity was identical with Einstein's Lorentz covariance.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Eckard,

"While you wrote "the speed of the waves relative to the observer" I didn't find this in the lesson you criticized."

The reason is that "relative to the observer" is too trivial and universally agreed upon to be mentioned. I am constantly repeating it here because you constantly reject it, for unknown reasons.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 23:05 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity IV

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO." In Divine Albert's world, this could only be true for waves other than light waves. For light waves (v is replaced by c) Einsteinians apply the fundamental calculation of special relativity and the waves always travel at the same speed c relative to the moving observer:

c' = c + vO = c

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Pentcho,

Redner referred to sound when he wrote "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed". In this case the receiver is moving relative to the medium air and Redner is correct.

You are wrong when writing "For light waves (v is replaced by c)...

You must not replace Redner's v that relates to the medium by c.

The speed of light does not at all refer to emitter or receiver but to the DIFFERENCE between the positions of ...

I don't defend Einstein. I merely criticize your unjustified criticism and your attempt to justify emission theory.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Eckard,

"Redner referred to sound when he wrote "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed"."

You snipped the equation - Redner wrote:

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."

Redner then uses this equation, v'=v+vO, in the derivarion of the frequency shift:

"The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

The frequency shift f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda) is valid for light isn't it? How can the wrong (according to you) equation v'=v+vO produce the correct result f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 12:50 GMT
Eckard,

"What did Redner call vO in case the observer moves towards the source? It is the speed of the observer relative to the medium."

Redner wrote: "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO."

This means that the observer moves with velocity vO RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE. And yes, if the source is at rest relative to the medium, the observer moves with velocity vO RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM as well.

Eckard, these are trivial matters - we cannot discuss them endlessly.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Pentcho,

As we may conclude from Michelson's null result, there is no light-carrying medium relative to which something may move. Do not ignore this endlessly.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Eckard,

Miller did not agree your conclusion of no background frame. You assume it as some 'light carrying medium' but I point out that a simple dielectric particle system does the same job over the distances involved.

In a 1933 paper, The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth physicist Dayton C. Miller reviewed the evidence and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
Peter,

I meant the vacuum "is no light-carrying medium relative to which something may move". Experiments by Miller and the theory by Cahill were certainly influenced by the atmosphere of earth.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Einsteinians and the Red Queen

Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2013 @ 00:35 GMT
O tempora o mores:

"Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million grant from the National Science Foundation to continue their work on finding an answer."

Einsteinians know no limits.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 12, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
Burning Questions in Divine Albert's World

University of California, Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today."

High priests in Einsteiniana know that, as long as Einstein's 1905 postulates are believed to be both true, Einstein simply cannot be proved wrong. Whatever errors he may...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Pentcho,

Lee Smolin's space dynamics reminded me of Julian Barbour. While I didn't much agree with his price winning essay, I consider it now nonetheless more appealing to me than the essay by the last winner the name of which I unfortunately forgot.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Space dynamics should read shape dynamics.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Simple Refutation of Special Relativity

A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses.

An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.

From the formula f=c/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer/receiver is c. From the formula f'=(c+v)/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer/receiver is c'=c+v. Einsteinians disagree.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 27, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Simple Refutation of Special Relativity II

As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored), the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 27, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Tom,

The 'Paper of 2013' says 'space-time' is meaningless beyond separate physical 'duration' and 'distance', operationally, and is almost certainly quantized ('grainy').

Further it criticises attempts to dismiss the new boundaries and constraints proposed by models such as the DFM, and agrees that the description of Lorentz Invariance; "that the speed of massless particles (i.e. the speed of light) is the same independently of the chosen reference system in which the measurement is performed" is inadequate, being; "true and false at the same time." which is again a foundation of discrete field kinetics, where c is local Propagation speed, NOT some single 'Universal' speed!, so there are also arbitrary 'relative' speeds of 'non-local' phenomena.

You'll no doubt disagree, or perhaps search for some other 'interpretation', but, whether correct or not, it re-enforces the point I made that that your 'standard doctrine' definition of SR looks increasingly like the 'White Star' or 'Costa Line' version whose fate may be sealed.

The solution I propose steers it clear of the icebergs and rocks in it's path. There is no 'captain' on the bridge, but those at the wheel seem oblivious. It may soon be too late to save it. I can only keep ringing the warning bell. If anyone can help me get it back to navigable waters do volunteer.

And do give me your views on the highly regarded paper;

Scitech Daily article. Dec 2013.

2013 Paper of the year. Analysis of Space-Time irregularities.

Best seasonal wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Thanks Peter for providing us a link to these interesting papers. You are certainly a devoted seeker after the truth, spending much time and energy to dig things out, even if we have areas of disagreement. I will enjoy the papers and comment later. Before this...

In the preamble I see "Is space time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10-35 meters on the “Planck scale”) but discrete grains"; "Physicists have been wondering about the nature of space time for years. We’ve been asking ourselves whether it is continuous at all scales, as we perceive it in our daily experience, or whether at very small sizes it presents an irregular grain that we, in our direct experience, are unable to perceive", explains Liberati; "In a certain sense physicists have been trying to do something similar with space time: to find something that acts as a microscope to find out whether at very small length scales there is indeed some irregularity.."

QUESTION OR MATTERS ARISING:

What is the measure or S.I. unit of space time? Is it in length? Or is it metre-seconds? In view of the historical intrigues that we have been subjected to in Einsteiniana, it is wise to be wary of any magic ab initio, changing a geometric entity like space, which everybody can physically appreciate and measure into something that is more of a mathematical concept before confronting the issue of its graininess or not. Let mathematicians mind mathematics, while theoretical and experimental physicists and natural philosophers mind physics. These are my opening comments, till I go through the paper. The topic appears to merit a separate blog on its own!

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 13:46 GMT
The 2013 paper fits into the guess of grained spacetime. I nonetheless begun looking in it and found on p. 4 something that is remarkable from my perspective: replacing the abstract notions of “time” and “space” with the physical notions of

“duration” (of a physical phenomenon as measured by a clock) and distance (e.g. of

a physical object as measured by a suitable rod).

Although I don't consider Einstein a reliable authority, I would like to remind of how he defined time: what the clock measures.

Neither negative duration nor negative distance can be measured.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 29, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
Eckard, et al.

The consequence is enlightening. You and six pals float at rest in space, detecting photons from a source 1 light year (lyr) away.

Your pal Vince then heads off towards the source at v. According to current theory (including yours Eckard) he then somehow magically changes the speed of all the 'yet to arrive' photons, whether already emitted or not but only those destined to interact with HIS lens, not yours or the others! So they then DON'T take one lyr to arrive! Or perhaps he warps the bit of space between him and the source, but only for him!? And of course he also has to contract in length. Now all those who believe that think those who think otherwise simply 'don't understand' or think the king has no clothes so are asylum inmates.

The simple option is that those photons Vince doesn't interact with carry on as they were, so at RELATIVE c+v, (but not detectable). The ones he 'detects' (an interactive 'sampling' process) are immediately modulated to c wrt his personal local rest frame ('discrete field') then measured (DFM).

Nothing else is needed. so Occam agrees with me, as does the above paper; identifying that the current description of LI is "both right and wrong," so c can be real and local, and is NOT also required to be 'apparent' elsewhere.

So I suggest it's not ME in the asylum. And when the mists clear the wall will be found encircling those who believe in the old mythical doctrines, magic, time travel, shrinking objects and invisible clothes.

This last gate is open, there may still be time to escape!

Can anyone find ANY fault or credible reason to doubt the simple DFM option?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
Peter,

Did you mean the following? Seven objects are located one lyr apart from an emitter. One of them, called Vince, starts moving with a velocity v wrt the group toward the source.

As usual it was not at all enlightening what you wrote. I had to learn that a pal is a friend. To me "float at rest in space" sounds self-contradicting. I guess Vince is just a name. I didn't find the expression "to head off".

Let me comment on this picture. Vince's velocity doesn't directly matter at all. If Vince's position is not yet different from the position of the group then its distance from the source is still one lyr. If Vince is e.g. only 0.5 lyr away from the source then waves from the emitter may arrive at Vince 0.5 years earlier than at the group. Incidentally, I don't see the light destined to interact. Where is the problem unless we intend understanding warped spacetime?

Vince can of course not alter the propagation of light. In that I share your "simple opinion". However I identify your addendum "As RELATIVE c+v,(but not detectable) as at least not sufficiently explained but perhaps simply unfounded and as indicating your emission-theoretic guess.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
Eckard,

Not emission theory. And the scenario meets all observations and findings WITHOUT having to invoke influence into the future. The emitter may indeed also be moving, but was at a point in space 1 lyr away when emitting the photons/wave or whatever you prefer, which then takes 1 lyr to reach you. Lets be realistic and call it a wavefront light pulse constituted by many 'photons.'

Vince's velocity DOES of course matter because the whole problem is ALL about relative velocities. (You seem to have conveniently forgotten that fact for your own proposition).

Let us then consider that your friend Vince is the only one in motion, moving at v towards the source, but is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives. Now you and your 7 friends all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves.

But when Vince also detects the photons, and also does the calculation and finds them moving at c wrt HIM then you would call him a fool and have no logical explanation (nor does SR!)

In fact only one LOGICAL explanation can exist. It is that the photone which YOU detected were indeed doing relative c+v wrt Vince. Which means that the photons HE detected were also approaching him at relative c+v. It is then the calculation which assumes the wrong mathematical formula, because it ignores the fact that the photons we 'measure' have ALREADY interacted with our detectors, which we know from optical science to be true anyway!

The datum for defining c simply changes to the new inertial system rest frame.

I suggest that is logically irrefutable. (DFM). Happy a good new years eve.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 22:56 GMT
Peter,

I try my best guessing what are just marginal mistakes of you, what you meant and in what you are horribly wrong.

For instance, the discrepancy between "you and your 7 friends" and "You and six pals" is marginal.

I guess when you wrote "Vince ... is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives" you meant he is at the same position when the photons arrive at Vince, me, and the remaining five friends. Being no Englishman I would more easily understand "at the same level as you" but "LEVEL with you does perhaps mean the same.

You then wrote: "all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves." I suspect, you are unable to specify what calculation you are referring to and on what it could be based.

Then you are reasoning: Vince has to add his own speed v to the speed c of the photons. I consider this appealing to laymen but belonging to the model of bullets instead of waves, in other words to emission theory.

I am sorry, there is perhaps no EE who will support this experimentally and theoretically refuted view.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 31, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Eckard,

Are you suggesting that humans have the metaphysical power to affect light signals that haven't arrived? So the speed of Vince wrt the photons arriving at YOU is not relative c+v!? If so it would seem that 'denial' is as powerful outside mainstream as it is within it. It doesn't require bullets or ballistic/emission theory, but it does require simple logic. That's what seems to be missing in current science.

The very simple 'Occam' scenario I've painted for you resolves all the questions that need to be resolved, which then means it's the best candidate. You have identified not fault, but are engrossed in your far more complex and illogical solution. If you CAN falsify it please do so. But if the approach you've taken is typical of all science then it seems the simple truth may remain subjugated forever. However I can't believe that all EE's would show the same apparently selective distain for simple electrodynamics and logic. If a signal propagates from A to B in time t it has as assignable 'speed' dt. Your idea has to invokes time travel to do so!

If you have seven friends at rest relatively but one then moves, I'm not a mathematics professor but my calculator tells me there may be 6 left. Perhaps your continual focus on such entirely unimportant distractions is what's causing the blindness. Are you actually serious about science? Do you not think physics is about the physical? and do you believe in logic?

Happy new year

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 04:50 GMT
Peter,

Your main mistake is common among opponents of SR and CSL like Pentcho who are considering photons moving in a ballistic manner like bullets.

A colleague of mine taught physics to students across our university. He told me that students of EE tend to easily accept SR because we teachers of EEs had already taught them to calculate light behaving as an em wave, not as a body that can be accelerated.

The speed c of any wave does neither immediately depend on a velocity v_e of its emitter nor on a speed v_r of its receiver but it refers to the medium. The expression c+v is therefore misleading. Waves cannot propagate faster wrt medium than with the specific speed c. This is valid for acoustic waves in air as well as for em waves in space. While you may calculate the value c+v when considering (in particular from the perspective of ground) the sound propagating within a fast flying cabin, you must not infer that a signal can be transferred with a speed in excess of c. Please accept this without further quarrel.

Michelson’s null result has been the next hurdle of understanding since 1881: We have also to accept that in empty space there is no stationary light-carrying medium wrt which an object could move at a velocity v_m. An application of the expression c+v_m is therefore not justified. You are repeatedly claiming that a photon/wave is emitted with a speed v wrt the emitting body. I don’t see this correct.

The speed of light belongs to its far field component. The near field component does not propagate, and in empty space this speed (as I pinpointed the perhaps only reasonable definition of it) is c, depending not on the speeds of the emitting as well as the receiving body but on their belonging positions instead.

I only mentioned your trifles because they may make reading of what you wrote more troublesome, in particular for those like me.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 15:01 GMT
I fully agree with Peter,

a photon that is approaching you is still invisible, so not measurable....

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Wilhemus,

"a photon that is approaching you is still invisible, so not measurable....".

Well, the future cannot be observed in advance. There is no negative elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.

However, in what do you agree with Peter and why?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 05:52 GMT
OMG: "The falsehood of Einstein's relativity is obvious to everybody nowadays - there is almost no one left on Einsteiniana's sinking ship."

Silly me, I thought only QM has its share of "challengers" because QM is much harder compared with special relativity.

Still, the argument has sheer brilliance in its simplicity:

"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.

From the formula f=c/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer/receiver is c. From the formula f'=(c+v)/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer/receiver is c'=c+v."

I am completely speechless on this one.

post approved

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:05 GMT
Florin,

An easy mistake to make. A far more subtle truth hides from all simplistic analysis, agreeing with Einstein's final 1952 definition (and Postulates) which varied somewhat from the earlier descriptions.

The 'discrete field' model describes an underlying (quantum scale) mechanism which can produce the effects described in SR (and thus GR). Firstly v can be large as the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT
Florin, I can't determine if you are being facetious or if you really are that innocent of relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:47 GMT
Florin,

The problem is that you, like the vast majority of people, have confused "group velocity" for "phase velocity". Einstein simply DEFINED the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant. He said nothing about group velocity being constant.

Group velocity is the velocity at which the envelope of a signal propagates, such as might be measured by timing the arrival of a leading edge of a pulse.

Phase velocity, on the other hand, is the velocity of a signal with a constant envelop - in other words, an infinitely long signal that has no leading or trailing edge. Since the envelop is constant, no measurement of it will provide any indication of a non-zero velocity, whatsoever.

So how do you then DIRECTLY measure the velocity of an infinitely long, ideal sinusoid, that never interacts with anything, (because it is in a vacuum)? The answer is that you can't. You can only measure a changing phase. But that could be caused by EITHER a non-zero velocity, or a change in its frequency, or any combination of the two. So which is it? There is no way to tell. Not even in principle. So just pick one or the other as being CONSTANT, and attribute the phase shift has being entirely caused by the other.

Einstein simply observed that the math transformation would be simpler, if you picked the velocity to be constant, rather than the frequency. Hence, we have Doppler frequency shifts and constant phase velocity, rather than constant frequency and Doppler velocity shifts.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Variable Speed of Light Topples Einstein

You walk along the fence. Relative to you, the posts have speed c (not the speed of light of course) and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the posts.

Now you start running along the fence and your speed increases by v. Relative to you, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:03 GMT
Tom, I was not kidding, I do consider the argument brilliant, and I think it deserves a clear counter-argument. Also I did scratched my head to find it. Here it is:

Consider this:

"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d"

It states: "let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored". The Lorenz factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v*v/c*c) so 1/gamma = sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) = sqrt((1-v/c)(1+v/c)). In the quoted argument, the factor 1/gamma due to time dilation is ignored probably as being consider second order in v/c. However, even in relativity there is a Doppler shift of the order of v/c so this is not enough to distinguish between Lorentz and Galilean transformations, and one needs to go to second order v/c terms. In Galilean transformations there are none, but not in relativity.

Bottom line, when v 0 is the same as c/v->infinity or c->infinity and "infinity + v = infinity". The point here is that we are not talking about adding small velocities v1+v2, but talking about adding a small velocity with an "infinite" velocity.

Long story short: for small v, the relativistic effects are second order in v/c, and c->infinity. Therefore the c+v=c because c = infinity. Also I did like the argument against special relativity: it is clear, concise, and it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:10 GMT
" ... it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments."

Does it deserve to be subjected to division by zero?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:13 GMT
One more thing:

I think the confusion stems from demanding uniform convergence when only point-convergence exists. The limit from Lorenz to Galileo has one kind of convergence when ALL velocities are small (second order in v/c) and another kind of convergence when combining small with large velocities (first order in v/c). Functional analysis has tons of examples when uniform convergence is not true, but the weaker form of convergence holds.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:40 GMT
"I think the confusion stems from demanding uniform convergence when only point-convergence exists."

What confusion? Infinities sum linearly -- that's where you are confused -- however, a point at infinity lives only on a compact manifold.

A simple arithmetic theorem informs us that any point can simultaneously approach any set of points provided that it is far enough away. That's point convergence, finite for any point, to the limit of infinity. And that's what makes the "brilliant argument" nothing more than a steaming pile -- the limit of the speed of light is finite because physically real measurements are only between mass points, not spacetime points.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:27 GMT
Correction:

a paragraph was completely messed up during upload:

"Bottom line, when v 0 is the same as c/v->infinity or c->infinity and "infinity + v = infinity". The point here is that we are not talking about adding small velocities v1+v2, but talking about adding a small velocity with an "infinite" velocity."

a large section is missing in between: "Bottom line, when" and "0 is the same as..."

I did not save the original text, but hopefully my explanation remained clear. Special relativity refutation is based on assuming uniform convergence of the limit from Lorenz to Galilean transformations.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:54 GMT
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Let "the distance between subsequent pulses" be 300000 km. Then the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f = 1 s^(-1) and that measured by the moving receiver is f' = 4/3 s^(-1). Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s

in violation of special relativity.

The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Special relativity remains violated.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 14:37 GMT
Florin,

Nice analysis, but distracted by Pentcho's incorrectly founded ideas. Stay with Robs and mine and you'll penetrate the confusion, and use the wavelength (L not f) Doppler shift equations of Astronomy and Optics.

Discrete Field Model Axiom 1. Space is a very diffuse dielectric medium, but big!

2. Electrons absorb EM waves and re-emit at the Local (so not 1 'absolute')...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 15:09 GMT
The only reasonable way to derive the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) is by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 18:09 GMT
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 21:24 GMT
Here the fatal equation c'=c+v is explicitly used in the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

For light waves v is replaced by c:

f' = c'/(lambda) = (c+vO)/(lambda)

where c'=c+vO is the speed of light relative to the observer. Clearly special relativity is violated.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
The only way to save special relativity:

If a light source emits pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km), an observer moving with speed v towards / away from the source measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=(c±v)/d. Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the observer is c'=c±v, in violation of special relativity.

There is an assumption allowing the speed of the pulses relative to the observer to remain unchanged (c'=c) while the measured frequency is still f'=(c±v)/d. However this assumption is extremely silly and clever Einsteinians would never advance it explicitly. Here it is:

The extremely silly assumption without which special relativity is doomed: When the observer starts moving towards / away from the light source with speed v, the distance between the pulses somehow shifts from d to d'=cd/(c±v), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 16:43 GMT
"The extremely silly assumption without which special relativity is doomed: When the observer starts moving towards / away from the light source with speed v, the distance between the pulses somehow shifts from d to d'=cd/(c±v), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."

Valev, you know that if this were any other forum, you would have been booted long ago for trolling. Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points. Your futile "argument" amounts to internet pollution.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "Valev, you know that if this were any other forum, you would have been booted long ago for trolling. Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points. Your futile "argument" amounts to internet pollution."

The first and the third sentences are very clear, thanks, I love you too, but the second one:

"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points."

is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 23:53 GMT
"'"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points.'"

is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?"

I could. However, if you know special relativity well enough to ridicule it, the statement should not be enigmatic.

A spacetiime field influence convergent on center point of mass is self-limiting in its relation to every other mass. This is known as Mach's Principle, the philosophical foundation of general relativity.

Special relativity, which refers to rigid metric transformations, is divergent and therefore not self-limiting; rather, the local transformations are limited to the distance at which two bodies can have physically exchanged information instaneously. That limit is c. Point convergence and line (ray) divergence leaves a 1-dimension singularity. Therefore, no such term as c' is admitted. Ironically, it is the flaw in general relativity inherited from the pathology of special relativity that makes your proposition untenable. The singularity will form before you can add a velocity.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 08:00 GMT
The actual problem:

A light source emits pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km).

A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency to be f=c/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is c.

An observer/receiver moving with speed v towards the source measures the frequency to be f'=(c+v)/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is:

c' = ?

The reasonable answer:

c' = df' = c + v

The unreasonable answer (given by special relativity):

c' = d'f' = c

where d'=cd/(c+v) is an ad hoc requirement without any physical meaning - it is just the factor able to convert the dangerous c'=c+v into the glorious c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 11:57 GMT
There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer").

You have absolutely no understanding of special relativity -- the motion of the observer is independent of the speed of light, such that measurements recorded by every observer in every inertial frame are valid. "Inertial frame" is the critical component; it ensures that all physically real measurements are between mass points in relation, not between imagined fixed and moving points of spacetime.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 14:11 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer")."

The c' term has nothing to do with division by zero, and division by zero has nothing to do with "a privileged point of reference", and "a privileged point of reference" has nothing to do with the stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source.

Are you facetious?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 12:46 GMT
" ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light.

"Are you facetious?"

No. Einstein was only 16 when he realized this fact, with his reflected image thought experiment.

Stop opening new threads. Nothing you say is that important.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT
Me: " ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Thomas Howard Ray: "Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light."

Your reply is totally irrelevant to my statement, Thomas Howard Ray. If you are not facetious... I don't know what to say.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
You don't know what to say, Mr. Valev, because you don't know the fundamentals of special relativity, which is why you also find my explanation irrelevant.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Once more the analysis of the Albert Einstein Institute showing that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the light source is c=3d/t and relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = c + v = 4d/t

where t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", d is the distance between subsequent pulses and v=c/3 is the speed of the receiver relative to the light source. Clearly special relativity is violated.

The relativistic corrections cannot save special relativity - for v=c/3 gamma is 1.05 which makes c' even slightly greater than c+v.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2014 @ 18:35 GMT
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u. Observed period T' = (lambda)/(v+u). Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) (negative sign means observer moving AWAY)"

Clearly the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:

f' = f(1±u/v)

is based on the assumption:

"Speed observed = v+u" (v is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary source)

This assumption is FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY and yet it is the only reasonable one. If Einsteinians believe it is false, they should state that explicitly, e.g. in the following way:

False: Speed observed = v+u

True: Speed observed = v

Then honest Einsteinians should advance some other assumption, justify it as best they can, and deduce the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) from it. Until this is done, the assumption:

"Speed observed = v+u"

remains the only reasonable one, confirmed experimentally countless times (insofar as the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) has been confirmed experimentally countless times).

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 17:15 GMT
Both special and general relativity are refuted by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

A light source at the bottom of a tower of height h emits light upwards. As the light reaches a stationary receiver at the top of a tower, its speed relative to that receiver is:

A) c' = c(1-gh/c^2) (Newton's emission theory)

B) c' = c(1-2gh/c^2) (Einstein's general relativity)

C) c' = c (Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox)

The following analysis clearly shows that A is correct while B and C are false predictions:

"In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The frequency measured at the bottom of the tower is f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. The frequency measured by the stationary receiver at the top of the tower is:

f' = f(1-gh/c^2) = (c/L)(1-gh/c^2) = c'/L

where c'=c(1-gh/c^2) is the speed of the light relative to that receiver. From the equivalence principle, c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer/receiver moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the light source with speed v. Clearly both general and special relativity are false.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 09:06 GMT
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity

Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
Pentcho,

I agree in the absurdities of Einstein's relativity. Atomic clocks are known to tick faster in a lower gravitational field, at a higher altitude for example. But pendulum clocks will tick or swing more slowly in a lower gravitational field. Therefore the concept of 'time' can't be separated from the type of clock used. Why has this simple refutation of his theory been overlooked?

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity II

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Here lies the secret to the twin paradox: In...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 08:10 GMT
The original hoax:

Albert Einstein 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B... (...) It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."

The scenario craftily precludes the travel of the clock at B in the moving system of the clock initially at A. As a result, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the retardation of the clock initially at A can be demonstrated.

Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.

In this scenario, according to special relativity, the stationary clock runs SLOWER than the moving clocks, in contradiction with Einstein's assertion above. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is absurd, not paradoxical.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 17:20 GMT
If one believes in Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, one should also believe that the volume of material objects can be reduced unlimitedly without spending any energy, and that the shrunk object still releases the energy that should have been put in shrinkage when, after being trapped in a small container, it tries to restore its original volume:

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

"Un perchiste se saisit d'une perche mesurant 10 m, puis il s'élance en direction d'une grange mesurant 5 m de profondeur et percée de deux portes A et B (cf figure). On suppose que le perchiste se déplace à une vitesse constante v telle que gamma = 2. Un fermier, immobile par rapport à la grange, décide de fermer simultanément les portes A et B quand l'extrémité Q de la perche parvient à la porte B."

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 08:30 GMT
Einstein's Relativity : Lies Are Getting Subtler

In order to justify the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, Einsteinians used to teach the following two blatant lies:

1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 16, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT
Lubos Motl, Brian Greene's brother in faith, is commenting on the new project in a suspiciously sarcastic tone:

"World Science U: Brian Greene's online learning"

What's happened? Why is Lubos Motl so disrespectful? He is not Einsteinian any more:

Lubos Motl: "...Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday... (...) Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar moral credentials in the public, I actually find it plausible today that Einstein himself might have been a representative of the former category as the Einstein and Eddington movie suggested. He might have been an utilitarian, not a monk (which I used to believe to be an accurate label for Einstein 25 years ago)."

Einsteinians leaving the sinking ship.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 17:00 GMT
Absurdities in Einstein's 1905 Article

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 14:30 GMT
Absurdities in Einstein's 1905 Article II

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In terms of the twin paradox, the scenario offered by...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 15:15 GMT
The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

The video shows a light source and an (initially) stationary observer measuring the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the wavecrests.

When the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity II

Richard Baxter 1667: "Whereupon it is that the Schoolmen have questioned how many Angels may fit upon the point of a Needle?"

21st century schoolmen ask a slightly different question:

"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

Schoolmen see no problem in trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers but still one point needs refinement: some schoolmen believe that the long object is trapped in a compressed state inside the short container, others claim there is no compression at all:

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 07:00 GMT
The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity III

Let us imagine that the ants moving along the rectangular line are light clocks travelling at 87% the speed of light. According to the principle of relativity, a single stationary clock placed in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle can be regarded as "moving" between "stationary" clocks scattered along the side; according to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 16:02 GMT
The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity IV

Originally "length contraction" was discussed in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion resulting from possible effects of the motion on intermolecular forces:

"Both FitzGerald and Lorentz were clearly aware that the deformation hypothesis required some degree of theoretical underpinning if it were not to be dismissed as blatant trickery, or at least entirely ad hoc. Independently, they appealed to the possible effects of motion (relative to the ether) on the forces holding the molecules of rigid bodies in equilibrium, in analogy with the corresponding effect on 'electric' forces."

In Einstein's special relativity "bodies" are not the only ones that contract; distances between them contract as well. I am going to show that this leads to blatant absurdities.

Let us imagine that the ants scattered on the rectangular line are initially at rest but then start travelling along the line at 87% the speed of light. According to special relativity, lengths of travelling ants and distances between them decrease twice (as judged from the system at rest). Therefore, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the system at rest, the number of travelling ants on the whole rectangular line must be twice as great as that of ants at rest. Needless to say, this last implication is absurd. The postulates of special relativity cannot be both true.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 09:05 GMT
Einsteinians : Children of the Universe

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Most people get a general feeling of uneasiness when they first realize that the block universe implies all the past and all the future is equally real as the present moment, that even though we experience the present moment as special, it is only subjectively so. But if you can combat your uneasiness for long enough, you might come to see the beauty in eternal mathematical truths that transcend the passage of time. We always have been, and always will be, children of the universe."

The children of the universe know that the future already exists - they can jump, within a minute, sixty million years ahead and see what will happen then on Earth:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Jumping in the future is possible because, on the planet on which the children of the universe live, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true. If Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate were false, the children of the universe would jump again but just up and down, not in the future.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 07:30 GMT
Children of the universe's confessions:

Lubos Motl: "...Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday... (...) Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 10:08 GMT
Pentcho,

If you know where Julian Barbour is, please ask him:

- What is an instant?

- Does it have a number of seconds or is it of zero duration?

- Can any activity occur during the duration of an instant?

- If nothing can happen during the instant, how can the 'the positions

of objects relative to each other in one instant affect the position of objects in the next instant?

And if you know the answers, you can tell us.

Thanks for linking Julian's lecture.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 15:01 GMT
The children of the universe are leaving the sinking ship because they now know that Einstein's 1954 forewarning was justified:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 08:44 GMT
The only reason the laws of physics even work is because they are imprinted upon spirit. Same with the physics constants.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 21:35 GMT
Why Einstein Proposed His Second Postulate

Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

Logical necessity? Yes. Einstein...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
It amounts to rewriting history for authors to claim that, "at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity". Such distortions of history, thanks to the information age and the internet must no longer be tolerated in science. When lies are repeated constantly they tend to take on the semblance of truth. Einstein's 1905 paper is now available for all to read. In that paper, he said, "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium". Those unsuccessful attempts were the experiments of Michelson and Morley carried out before 1905.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 09:27 GMT
"Introduction to Special Relativity" is a famous textbook written by James H. Smith in 1965, Akinbo. And what he says is true - the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the principle of relativity, not the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 10:20 GMT
Steve, Pentcho.

Okay, Pentcho I get what you mean. All the same Einstein certainly knew of the Michelson-Morley experiment before 1905. That experiment is not one any body would have trouble recalling.

We have gone this road before but I cant help asking what you think of the results of Sagnac's experiment where the rotation of the source and observer on a disk results in earlier and later arrival times depending on direction of rotation. This appears to conflict with the Michelson-Morley results, which after all was also conducted on a rotating and orbiting disk called Earth.

Akinbo

Steve, let me reply here. From your post, "there actually is no meaning to the idea of a frozen instant of time" and it is only in the mind according to you.

If objects do not undergo matter exchange, is there time? Is there any sense in saying two objects did not have any matter exchange for the past 5 minutes?

When you say, "There is a universal time defined by the fundamental action of the universe as an object", what fundamental action are you talking about? Can the universe by definition exchange anything with another object?

In summary, your proposal does not succeed in doing that which it is designed for which is to kill the 'instant' and wish Zeno's paradox away.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT
Einstein Against Sane Science

The observer starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength.

Maxwell's electromagnetic theory: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

From analogy with all other waves: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

Einstein's relativity: The speed of the light relative to the observer does not shift at all (c'=c) but the frequency measured by the observer somehow does shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. The effect (frequency shift) is exactly the same, the cause is different.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 14, 2014 @ 21:22 GMT
Pentcho,

The animation demonstrates that the speed of something does not depend on the motion of the observer. The speed of light relative to an observer is therefore irrelevant. It does not describe how energy propagates.

While ballistic motion relates to the velocity of emitter, and propagation of a wave in a medium relates to the medium, we have to ask: What does the propagation of light refer to?

I gave my answer in my endnotes to my previous essay: The speed of light in vacuum does not relate to the velocities of emitter and receiver but to the distance between the spatial position of emitter at the moment of emission and the spatial position of receiver at the moment of arrival.

It doesn't matter that there is no absolute value of spatial position. There is no preferred point in space until the position of emitter at the moment of emission has been taken into consideration. Then there is only one frame of reference that belongs to the light under consideration.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 14, 2014 @ 21:58 GMT
Eckard,

The speed of light "relative to the observer" is the only relevant speed as far as Einstein's relativity is concerned. If in time t N wavecrests pass the observer, the speed of light relative to the observer is NL/t, where L is the wavelength. Simple.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 04:23 GMT
Pentcho,

Police considers the speed of a car itself relevant, not the speed of this car relative to another car that might observe it. The speed of an observer is in general irrelevant for compelling reasons:

- Ideal observation does not at all influence the object of observation.

- Different observers may have different speeds while there is only one objective speed of concern.

Doppler blue-shift or red-shift are affecting the measured (subjective) frequency being reciprocal to the apparent wavelength, not the original wavelength and not the speed.

Why do you consider the "speed of light relative to the observer ... the only relevant speed as far as Einstein's relativity is concerned"?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 23:29 GMT
Please stop "Ripping apart Einstein." He does not deserve it. If you only knew what this was all about, it would be very interesting to you.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 12:10 GMT
Speed of Light in a Gravitational Field

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

Crucial questions: c'=? L'=?

Newton's emission theory of light assumes that light accelerates like ordinary falling objects - accordingly, c' and L' are:

c' = c(1+gh/c^2)

L' = c'/f' = L

Let us assume that light does not accelerate in a gravitational field, and the measured frequency shift is entirely due to gravitational time dilation (clocks on the ground run slower than clocks at the top of the tower). The results we obtain are numerically identical to those predicted by the emission theory:

c' = c(1+gh/c^2)

L' = c'/f' = L

This is an alternative to the emission theory based on different premises:

Premises of the emission theory: light accelerates; no gravitational time dilation

Premises of the alternative: light does not accelerate; gravitational time dilation

The alternative, although based on the false time-dilation premise, is maximally plausible. Any further change would make it absurd. For instance, Einsteinians might be tempted to replace c'=c(1+gh/c^2) with c'=c, but that would mean that light DECELERATES as it falls in a gravitational field.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 12:45 GMT
"...Einsteinians might be tempted to replace c'=c(1+gh/c^2) with c'=c, but that would mean that light DECELERATES as it falls in a gravitational field".

Einsteinians have shown experimentally that light (radio signals) passing the Sun are slowed by that encounter with gravity, which you may interpret as a deceleration.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 15:31 GMT
Akinbo,

This topic produced a lot of misunderstanding in the past. To avoid it, I am asking two questions:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

I believe that, by answering them, each of us will clarify his/her position from the very beginning and the misunderstanding will be reduced. So please try to answer the questions.

Needless to say, I accept the answers given by Newton's emission theory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 16:19 GMT
The Albert Einstein Institute admitting that the gravitational redshift (measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment) is caused by the change in the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 20, 2014 @ 09:32 GMT
Unknown Absurd Consequences of Einstein's Relativity

Scientists have failed to notice the following absurd consequence of Einstein's special relativity: The number of objects moving with the same speed in a closed polygonal line increases with the speed, as judged from a system at rest.

Originally "length contraction" was interpreted in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 14:59 GMT
It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, can produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. According to Einstein's theory, length contraction consumes no work - Einsteinians even teach that it is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 11:15 GMT
Another unnoticed absurd consequence of Einstein's special relativity: If multiple clocks moving in a closed polygonal line successively pass a single stationary clock, they run both slower and faster than the stationary clock.

According to special relativity, if a single moving clock successively passes multiple synchronized clocks which are stationary, observers in both frames see that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 13:55 GMT
a self consistent quantum theory of gravity now exists

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021988
7814500595?src=recsys

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 19:23 GMT
Speed of Light in a Gravitational Field

J.D. Franson, Physics Department, University of Maryland: "According to general relativity, the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is given by:

c = c0(1 + 2phi/c0^2) (1)

where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame."

The Newtonian prediction is:

c = c0(1 + phi/c0^2)

Which prediction is compatible with the frequency shift:

f = f0(1 + phi/c0^2)

measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment? Einsteinians?

Franson's paper "Apparent Correction to the Speed of Light in a Gravitational Potential" discusses other interesting issues - see also this:

"But even today, there is a significant mystery associated with this SN 1987a that astrophysicists have brushed under the carpet. The event consisted of two bursts of neutrinos separated by three hours followed by the first optical signals 4.7 hours later. Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light and should therefore arrive simultaneously, all else being equal. The mystery is what caused this huge delay of 7.7 hours between the first burst of neutrinos and the arrival of the optical photons."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 09:56 GMT
Thanks Pentcho. Perhaps, you are now in agreement from the equation that you have yourself posted that the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is higher in value than c0, the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame? At least Franson's equation that you quote, which is copied from Einstein's 1911 paper seems to say so, unless you just posted without agreeing with equation.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 19:44 GMT
We should first define phi, Akinbo. When the top of a tower of height h emits light downwards, the light reaches the ground with speed:

c' = c(1 + phi/c^2) = c(1 + gh/c^2) > c

phi is the gravitational potential difference between the top of the tower and the ground.

If the bottom of the tower emits light upwards, the light reaches the top with speed:

c' = c(1 - phi/c^2) = c(1 - gh/c^2) < c

Do you agree?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 09:03 GMT
We should first define phi,...

F = GMm/h2 = mg

Therefore phi = gh = GM/h

I prefer to use the conventional r instead oh h, phi = GM/r. It has ONLY one sign - (minus), so that gravitational potential increases with height and reduces with height or radius) in the gravitational field.

So we can write

c' = c (1 - GM/rc2).

Compare this with Einstein's equation 3, also referenced by Franson.

Be careful with use of c, c' and c0 as you will observe that in your initial post c0 has later become c and c' has become c.

To quote from the Franson's paper you linked, "This reduction in the speed of light can be observed if a beam of light passes near a massive object such as the sun, as illustrated in Fig. 1.". That is gravity slows light speed, and the nearer gravity you are the slower the light speed. I know you may have reservations over this because of implications for the particle theory of light.

Thanks for the exchange.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 12:19 GMT
(Again, some punctuation had to be made incorrect for it to display close to what was intended). It is always unwise to encroach into a territory that is not your specialty, as one may be unaware of many things that are relevant to a particular discussion.

So, with this disclaimer, the following might be amateurish with respect to the subject. But give it a thought, anyway.

I have to introduce one more disclaimer, which is that none of the things I will say are critical of Pentcho Valev or his views. The points I will try to make are relating to principles, rather than to any articulated views or ideas of anyone.

When criticizing a theory, it would be best to immediately substitute it with a better theory. If the criticism is merely intended as a Call to Arms (to get other scientists to look at it), then it may be worthwhile, but in the case of SR and GR, there already are enough critical eyes looking at it. Einsteins theories predictions have a very good record, so any new (putatively better) theory will have to outdo it.

Now I will really go out on a limb. It is my simple understanding that for Einstein to construct his SR/GR, he needed at least two points of reference. One was a space/time reference and another was the speed of something (could have been of a horse-drawn buggy). But he chose the speed of light, because at the time it was measured it appeared to not vary, and was the fastest known. So it made simple sense to use c as a base. In any case, as Thomas Howard Ray points out, the speed of light is an observed phenomenon. The only way to discredit that would be to show that although the measurements might appear consistent, there are reasons for that apparent effect to actually be incorrect.

I really think we are wasting our (and those of others) time with discussions like those in Ripping Apart Einstein, and Faster Than a Speeding Bullet (sorry), Faster Than Light, unless we can substitute Einsteins theories with ones that make better predictions.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 13:30 GMT
Bon jour En Passant,

While not holding brief for Pentcho, who I dare say is sometimes repetitive without getting to destination, I wish to ask you whether, the fact that a beautiful house has been built on falsehood, we should be content with its mathematical beauty and ignore the false foundation?

Were Ptolemy's epicycles not beautiful?

Are you unaware that Einstein himself...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

En Passant replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 14:14 GMT
Akinbo Ojo,

I will rarely reply to anyone. But there is a sincerity in your post that prompted me to do so.

For sure, I do not have the answers at the level of physics. That is for you guys to discover.

I can only say that even if the speed of light were to differ from what was initially measured, is it an absolute difference (which then would not matter), or is the speed of light totally variable?

Even then, it is not clear that the principles of Einstein would not apply.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 17:34 GMT
You have hit the nail on the head. While there is truth to much of this somewhat repetitive discussion of flaws in GR in this thread, the thread does not even mention the largest flaws and somehow often gets lost in the minutia of measurement error instead of the utility of prediction.

All theories have flaws and none are ever going to explain all observations of the universe. If a theory is useful for predicting action, then science will use it and adapt to its flaws. If a different theory proves to be more useful for prediction, science will use that different theory and adapt to its different flaws. As long as science predicts action better than it did before, we call that progress, not perfection.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 14:05 GMT
Einstein's Relativity Is Experimentally Unverifiable

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

Crucial...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 07:13 GMT
Miracles in Einstein's World

In Einstein's world, as an observer changes his speed, the incoming waves change their wavelength so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer can remain constant:

"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 17:15 GMT
Einstein's relativity is totally false unless the wavelength of the incoming light miraculously varies with the speed of the observer as shown here and in this animation:

"Now click on the "Observer Approaches" button. The ship will start flying towards the source. What is the wavelength of the waves now, as the ship approaches the source? Does the frequency increase or decrease? The wavelength shrinks... The frequency increases."

Einstein's relativity can rightly be defined as the madness of 20th century science.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT
This video shows a light source and an (initially) stationary observer measuring the frequency to be f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. When the observer starts moving with speed v away from the light source, sane videowatchers clearly see that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c-v, and that this causes the frequency the observer measures to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L=f(1-v/c).

Yet Dr. Ricardo Eusebi explains that the shift from c to c'=c-v does not exist - rather, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer remains unchanged (c'=c). Only the frequency shift, from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L=f(1-v/c), exists.

Einsteinians obey. They watch carefully the video - yes, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer remains unchanged, c'=c, no shift can be seen, only the frequency shift is there, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah.

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 16:13 GMT
The miracle of the miracles - the bug-rivet paradox:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The paradox is not resolved."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 20, 2014 @ 16:01 GMT
Simplest Refutation of Einstein's Relativity

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 01:25 GMT
Pentcho,

How do you preserve Maxwell's conclusion from analysis of Faraday's meticulous experiments, that the relationship of electric and magnetic intensity in a point charge is by a constant proportion of a single magnitude of light velocity? If light velocity were not the same relative value in any gravitational reference frame, then the proportional strength of electric fields and magnetic fields would vary with size of gravitational bodies. How could chemical processes possibly work if the electromagnetic relationship were different for Iron and Oxygen? Fe2 O4 . jrc

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 12:19 GMT
I think Pentcho will like the Grandfather paradox. Physicists 'wasting' grants to exploring time travel on the classical and quantum scale should resolve also this absurdity first. Such grants can be better spent.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
Travel to the future is just as absurd as travel to the past:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Paradoxically, some Einsteinians make career and money by rejecting the Einsteinian concept of time:

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

The "scientific community" does not react - physics has been dead for a long time.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 19:55 GMT
"Travel to the future is just as absurd as travel to the past:"

Therefore, motion is absurd.

"The 'scientific community' does not react - physics has been dead for a long time."

By your logic, it never lived anyway.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 01:36 GMT
Tom, I find your reply to Pentcho flippant. We don't travel into the future when we move it is always Now wherever we go and everywhere.

The idea of the space time continuum has come from receipt of electromagnetic signals. There is a difference between what is constructed from receipt of those signals and what exists external to the observer. Because of the non instantaneous speed of light delay is built into the fabrication. Just because that is seen it does not mean that is what is actually there.I find the simulation extraordinary in its complexity and detail but can assert with certainty that it is a simulation.

It is especially obvious when 'looking' into space. What is out there is what exists Now, the material reality that I have called Object reality, and other electromagnetic data from that already received and formed into the output 'visible universe'. The visible universe is a simulation from received data.

The output of the data processing is an amalgamated space-time fabrication. From looking at the fabrication it might appear possible to travel in time as well as space but the fabrication is not the reality made of atoms, that make up actual objects rather than just images of them.

Feynman asked where are the atoms? They are not within the space-time fabrication they are in the unobserved external reality that underlies what is observed. That solves the grandfather paradox which belongs to the confusion of light derived images of reality with material, made of atoms and fermion particles reality. It IS solved Akinbo. Quantum physics does not pertain to the space-time continuum but data collected across iterations of unitemporal space. When we move we are not moving through the space-time continuum but through unitemporal space in which electromagnetic potential data is also distributed from which space-time images can be formed.

Which celebrity would you like to regurgitate the facts for you so that you can accept them?

report post as inappropriate