Search FQXi

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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 10/25/19 at 18:02pm UTC, wrote I can accept that several pappers have been published changing c ,I can...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/25/19 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote Lol c is an invarient constant,fortunally for our general and special...

Bloogsy Provider: on 9/6/18 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote With such a delightful extent of tip top Female Model, you may surmise that...

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/15/17 at 5:16am UTC, wrote Hello, I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific...

Juan Guerrero: on 2/21/17 at 16:38pm UTC, wrote Your idea probably deserves some attention as it is plausible. After...

Shawn Simpson: on 11/6/16 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote The speed of light is not a variable, generally, however, it is not an...

Timothy J Sipp: on 8/19/16 at 19:59pm UTC, wrote Hello Joao, I hope that this email finds you well. My name is Timothy Sipp...

Steve Agnew: on 4/1/16 at 4:23am UTC, wrote Clogging the blog with replies to yourself should be blocked. The weblords...

FQXi FORUM
November 29, 2022

ARTICLE: Faster Than Light [back to article]

Karl Coryat wrote on May. 22, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT
Does anyone know why under VSL, the speed of gravitational waves (indeed all wave mechanics) would not vary monotonically by energy density together with the speed of light? It seems like that would be a more elegant picture, but I must be missing something.

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 24, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
I disagree with the faster than the speed of light theory.

I agree that light can travel slower than "c" . If it doesn't travel at all, as for example , can't escape black hole gravity, it turns back into matter (mass). At "c", it turns into Space. In between, the traveling massive particles turn into "Standard Model" and (faster), Dark matter, and (fastest), Dark Energy (vacuum energy or pure Space).

MTS, where M= matter T=%"c", S=Space

This explains the horizon problem. The matter unfolds into the same temperature at any point in the Universe where mass travels at the same rate.

www.CIGTheory.com An original and completely new (started: 1979) theory -

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Douglas w Lipp wrote on May. 24, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
clarification of my last post:

Where it is stated M=matter - This is qualified as , at the extreme, M= matter as in a black hole (the matterest of matter), as opposed to the matter of the Standard Model, which lies in between the black hole and Dark Energy, though probably closer on the side of a dark hole. So, picture my arrow of "stuff" as follows :

Black Hole arrow Standard Model (quark then proton then electron) (picture that the densest field densities appear first and on the black hole side of this timeline) (perhaps someone who knows the Standard model can expand on this "grouping") arrow Dark Matter (the gravitational pulling matter) arrow Dark Energy arrow Pure Space.

This is the MTS equation. No movement (o% "c") to full (100% "c" value) or as represented: Black Hole to Space

There should be found varying degrees of the gravitationally pulling Dark Matter, oh lets say Heavy Dark Matter, toward the object side of the halos. farther out, there will be lighter or, "Fluffy Dark Matter", and maintain this same philosophy to Dark Energy.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 24, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Does anyone out there know how to get a theory assessed by the scientific community when one is not part of the community?

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 24, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Doug

It is known to be easier to get an elephant through the eye of a needle than to get a theory assessed by the scientific community when one is part of the community, let alone when one is not. Don't be fooled that science is about progress.

I wish you luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Doug replied on May. 25, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for that bit of reality. And for that luck your wishing me. I'll need it.

Enjoy,

doug

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 25, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
The problem with this is the speed of light is just a conversion factor between spatial basis and time. It is different in that way from most other constants. The other constant which shares a similar property is ħ that intertwines between position and momentum. The speed of light has the value it has because of the value of other constants, such as α = e^2/4πεħc, or e^2/4πε more specifically. These constants determine the size of atoms, such as the Bohr radius, and if you were to adjust the speed of light the size of the atom would change in a way so as to cancel any perceived change. The same goes with the Planck length as well. In fact if c were adjusted by ∞ there again would be no change.

The speed of light is a conversion factor associated with light cones. Light cones are the projective Lorentz manifolds, and as with any projective geometry any reparameterization leaves the space invariant. The Planck unit of action ħ is similar as well, but that is another topic. So physics should remain completely the same no matter how much the speed of light is adjusted.

The Magueijo double relativity and related ideas are interesting, but they seem to fly in the face of this fundamental definition of the speed of light. Some years ago I worked out an idea where this is cancelled out. This cancellation leads to a gauge field. I was not sure how to physically interpret this and the idea largely landed in my crank file. I might dust it off and think about it. The gauge theory might have something to do with string theory or related physics.

LC

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 26, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: "The problem with this is the speed of light is just a conversion factor between spatial basis and time. (...) The speed of light is a conversion factor associated with light cones. (...) The Magueijo double relativity and related ideas are interesting, but they seem to fly in the face of this fundamental definition of the speed of light."

I see no "fundamental definition" here. Rather, the "conversion factor" wisdom is just an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. The absurdity would not have become wisdom if Lorentz, FitzGerald and Einstein had not taken recourse to "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 26, 2012 @ 13:23 GMT
You have been posting these anti-relativity diatribes here for months now. In fact with your other comments about thermodynamics I think you would probably be happy if most or all physics books were committed to the fire. It is not my intention here to argue the case for relativity. I would no more do that than try to convince a panegyric for geocentric theory of the universe, something which is growing in popularity in fact, that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo got it right with heliocentric theory. I do however wish the FQXi pages were better monitored, for your comments and those of some others who frequently post here amount to a continuous stream of fatuous nonsense. If you look at some of the early entries on FQXi there was a much higher intellectual quality to what people contributed. More recent FQXi blog entries give evidence for the adage that bad money most often chases away good money.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 26, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
My "anti-relativity diatribes" boil down to the claim that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C4_PP.HTM

"I am very curious about the results of your research...," he [Einstein] wrote to Freundlich in 1913. "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Do you think claims that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong should be banned from FQXi's new contest "Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on May. 26, 2012 @ 00:59 GMT
Sir Lawrence Crowell,

You appear to be a physicist. I am not. But I have a theory.

Regarding your note, "and if you were to adjust the speed of light the size of the atom would change" , in my theory, it is the traveling massive particle that turns to newly created space. My interpretation of your mentioned note is one of actual "size of atom changing" whereby the size is new space and not simply a reorder of existing space. You seem to be aware of physics. Try my theory if you like. www.CIGTheory.com

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 26, 2012 @ 01:35 GMT
I have just scanned this. A couple of points. Inflation does not mean a varying speed of light. The speed of light is locally defined in a Lorentz frame and is the same. However, globally on a manifold light cones in different regions can be pointed differently. This is why one can have galaxies with z > 1 travelling faster than light, but they are not in the same local frame.In general you have a lot of proposed concepts that fall outside the mainstream of physical thought.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 22:46 GMT
Hi,

Lawrence, I recognize your pragamatism. You know I don't understand why a lot of people see the relativity like an irrational tool. It is bizare. Perhaps that c implies many probelms due to special relativity. Perhaps that their error is to focus on bosons instead of fermions.If these fermions turn in the other sense , so perhaps that for them the special relativity is not a parameter of limitation. Now of course it is just a hypothesis and of course our technology does not permit to see that. That said , perhaps that it coulod be interesting to see more in this domain. The fermions if they turn differently can perhaps aswer to our doubts.

The bosons cannot pass c,because we must see this 3D, without c, we cannot see the universe. But a boson after all can be accelerated and even can pass c , why not after all.

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on May. 26, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Why does E=mc2 ?

The physical representation of the equation is, for any given piece of matter, it flows through its life cycle (meaning all the possible motion it can experiece). It becomes space while speeding up (the first "c" cycle) and then back to matter whle slowing down (second "c" cycle but here it is slowing down). All the energy is represented by (any given matter) turning into its spatial component, and then back to matter. mass to space and back to mass. Black Hole to Vacuum Energy (via through its Standard Model and Dark Energy phases) and then reverse vector time back to its Black Hole -like state again. Its has seen its full energy circle. This is the physical explanation behind what the equation actually represents.

doug

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 29, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
E=mc² was not sufficient because only the linear velocity of the spheres is considered. the spinal rotation and the orbital rotation must be inserted for a real quantization of the mass.

c o s is more logic and of course with the cubic for a real maximum universal entropy in increasing furthermore.

Here is so the improved equation E=m(c³o³s³) and also mcosV constant for all physical spheres, quantical or cosmological. You can also correlate with the universal 3D sphere and its central sphere. The serie of uniqueness appears for all spheres !

ps eureka :) SPHERIZATION THEORY !

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 07:56 GMT
The real question to ask here is what can light, and specifically its speed, have to do with the attributes of other, different forms of matter???

Perhaps the clue as to why this is thought to be so lies in the fact that we see with light?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
Paul,

the light is the light, and all is composed by the light.The mass , it is the light, the light , it is the mass.....now see the evolution since the hypothetical BB..........the mass polarises the light !

SPHERE ...DIVISON LIKE AN UNIVERSAL MEIOSIS......ultim fractal serie of uniqueness. BIG BANG ......quantum spheres .............cosmological spheres.........UNIVERSAL SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

The light , it is the mass and the mass, it is the light, and the mass and the light are the Entropy when the general point of vue is analyzed with the biggest rationality.

E=mc² WAS NOT SUFFICIENT ! E=m(c³o³s³) is more universally logic ! the 3 motions of a sphere must be considered. If the light have the maximums for c o s. So we have an interesting link for the mass considering the finite serie of uniqueness with the main central sphere.The diffrent sense of rotation and the decreasing of velocities more the synchronizations of volumes between hv and m becoùme an universal key of quantization of mass and its EVOLUTION SPHERIZATION.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Douglas Lipp wrote on May. 27, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Correction -

Caramel Apples - Free Gourmet "Caramel" Apples for the first person to come forward and say they believe in CIG Theory [please bring with you accompanying experimental data (proof)of the validity of CIG Theory]. There will be forms to fill out as well. All fun of course.

I will personally hand dip them.

um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

www.CIGTheory.co
m CIGTheory (Caramel Apple Friendly)

For proof, see all my suggestions in the theory ( mathematical calculations based on receding galaxies, red shift anomalies, mass to space conversions, CUPI quantification, etc. - its out there but I do not have the resources - my theory is experimentally verifiable - I need community effort and involvement -it's not that hard to understand the concept behind the theory and to more fully prove it using existing cosmological data; for instance, is there more Space surrounding larger galaxies?)

CIG Theory - not that hard to prove -

Hope you are enjoying the day

What more can I say.

Doug

report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 27, 2012 @ 19:52 GMT
There are a number of things wrong with CIG. For one you say that matter times time equals space. Matter has units of grams [g] and time has units of seconds [s] so the product of the two has units [g-s]. Even if we use mass = energy/c^2, where energy has units of [erg], this has units of [erg-s^3/cm^2] or maybe action-s^2/cm^2. The fundamental unit of action is ħ so this might have something to do with N units of ħ/c^2. No matter how you slice this up you don't have space with units of [cm]. There is a considerable number of suppositions in CIG which just don't make physical sense.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 28, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Douglas

“The author views TIME as movement Dependent” & “The theoretical

portion of MT=S started out from a simple "rate multiplied by time is equal to distance" concept, from there…”

This is not correct. The physically existent phenomenon which corresponds with the concept of time is actually the rate at which any form of change occurs (alteration in spatial position, ie movement, being but one characteristic which changes). The underlying point here being that reality can only occur in one physically existent state at a time. This phenomenon can be measured. That is timing, which involves the comparison of frequencies of change (ie what is colloquially known as time). The speed of light is irrelevant, in so far as this has no effect on any given physical reality and change thereto; we just see that with light. Space is that which is ‘not-space’ (ie a spatial position which is, apparently, unoccupied, or in effect, those spatial positions which are not occupied by the entities as defined which are under consideration). The importance of this being that, according to Relativity, the dimension of entities alters when force is applied, which also causes an alteration in momentum. The latter then acts as a ‘warning’, because any judgement must involve a reference, and whilst any entity will suffice for such, mistakes will be made if it is not realised that the entity is not what it appears (ie its dimension is altering). Alteration in dimension having consequences on space and timing.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 28, 2012 @ 09:24 GMT
Truth is unbearable sometimes. Abandoning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will take science back to the end of the 18th century:

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagu
ngen/OWR_2006_10.pdf

Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on May. 28, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Einsteiniana's priests readily criticize the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in favor of the reasonable implications of the Newtonian alternative, the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Still they would never replace the false postulate with the Newtonian alternative. Einstein's 1905...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 29, 2012 @ 07:12 GMT
Pentcho

Not sure why I am repeating this, except that on the last attempt Lawrence mentioned Joy and the thread was drowned out.

Einstein’s 1905 light postulate 1) is correct 2) does not lead to the conclusions you assert.

1 His postulate was that: 1) That the speed of light is independent of that which the photons interacted with. Which is correct because light (as in an effect in photons) results from an atomic reaction, not a ‘collision’. Hence, same form of reaction results in same starting speed on every occasion. The speeds of he interacting entities before the reaction are irrelevant. 2) That original speed will be maintained unless impinged upon. Which is again correct and applies to anything.

2 Light is just a physically existent entity. It has no impact on how other entities behave. With the evolution of sensory detection it has acquired the role of a representation of that behaviour, ie organisms can ‘see’ it. Another important point is that each existent state of any given ‘entity’ is represented by different light. The driving force behind Relativity is dimension alteration. Now, it is irrelevant to that fact, but one can argue with how this assertion was derived (which involved a presumption about light and a certain experiment) and whether it is actually correct, irrespective of the derivation. The theory was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies (the clue is in the title), it is not about light or the observation thereof. This has become the subsequent interpretation based fundamentally on a confusion as to what time is, as opposed to timing, and it becoming the surrogate variable for dimension alteration.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 08:18 GMT
Pentcho

This particular example was a shambles. But a flawed explanation does not invalidate whatever the underlying hypotheses are.

In essence: the man and ray of light are not interchangeable in the way Einstein proposes.

In more detail: The key is in the definition of the reference point: “see from the above”. Assuming that the ‘observation point’ is of the earth. And assuming the other conditions as stated. Then, the velocity of this ray of light will be c from the perspective of the embankment, and c-v from the perspective of the carriage. And the velocity of light is c. The observation point, embankment and carriage are of the earth (the carriage just moving an additional v in the same direction as the light). The ray of light is not of the earth. So, if something independent of the closed system ‘earth’ (which comprises, earth, carriage, observation point), is observed from within that system, then its velocity will be just be the difference, and vice-versa. It is of no consequence which reference point is used, other than that the carriage is moving v faster, within the ‘earth’ system, in the same direction as the light. So carriage vis a vis light is less than c. Einstein stipulated what the light was doing, ie, it is travelling at c, a finite and constant speed. He even said the air “had been removed”.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Douglas Lipp wrote on May. 28, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Sir Lawrence Crowell,

The matter of units is a topic I worked on briefly, as this is the second time it has been offered. It appears that the application of units is one of the first things that physicists use to assess whether an equation has flaws. I never quite resolved the units issue as it was easier to dismiss. I dismissed it it, as follows: As an anology, if I am thinking correctly (remember math is not my expertise, even simple as this is) prior to E=mc2 (J=g m/s m/s), I don't believe that grams (mass) could have been taken into unit agreement with Joules (energy). Is there unit agreement in E=mc2? Was there before the equation?

Also, as for example if apples were always known as apples and pears as pears, and oranges as oranges, and were they known units, and then some theory comes along and shows that there is an equivalency between them such that, in terms of units apples could be understood as oranges divided by pears, then so the new thinking (with much resistence of course) would be that apples is oranges divided by pears. I offer that there is a Spatial equivalency (cubic meters)to Mass (grams), and so, prior unit agreement or not, we must now accept the new conversion.

I thank you for binging these comments forward. It allows me to focus on my rationale for my theory, and it is exactly what I need. Now I know that there are so many questions I will not be able to answer because the physics is beyond me, and my math is pathetic. Conceptually though, and rationally, I believe I can fully defend my theory and that it will hold up to the rigor of

experimentation as well.

I was very tempted to simply say "no caramel apples for you"!

Thank you again Sir Crowell.

doug

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Doug

I just have one problem with CIG theory. The caramel dipped apple never turned up when I put my hand up.

I checked out your postulates by carefully observing a big star compared to a small one with my telescope, sure enough the mass built up more quickly around the big one the moment they exited the stage door. Now that is predictive power. I was very impressed.

But you know the laws of physics as well as I do; no toffee apples, no choccies!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Doug replied on Jun. 1, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Peter,

Regarding your notation, "observing a big star compared to a small one with my telescope, sure enough the mass built up more quickly around the big one the moment they exited the stage door.", my comments as follows:

The more mass that travels, the more Space that manifests. What CIG is trying to say is that Red Shift anomalies can be explained by recognizing that each stellar entity is essentially its own Big Bang (hence CIG may also be known as the Mini Bang theory). Further, the process works not only at the stellar scales, but at the atomic quantum level as well. The new Bohr orbitals represent new Space, not simply a repositioning of space.

This new Space results in perceived anomalies. What the theory was saying was that Red Shift anomaly data should reveal that when comparing the two bodies, the larger Red Shft should be apparent in the larger stellar body, as there is more mass available that is unfolding into Space. The larger body should be moving farther away faster.

Likewise, when comparing stellar bodies of the same age (i.e. galaxies), and not necessarily in the same planer region of space (as is needed with Red Shift)generally speaking, there should be found more open Space surrounding the larger galaxy, as there is more mass turning to Space as the traveling massive particles reach close to "c" value.

On the quantum level, the discrete "N" jumps no longer can be perceived as simply "here then there with nothing in between activities", as now CIG inputs that the jumps actually represent a continuous action (that of the creation of space at the expense of mass). This view appears to put determinism back into quantum. In essence, it takes what is the wave function probability, and lends a sort of reality to it as well.

Your note that the "mass built up more quickly around the big one" has nothing to do with my theory. Perhaps you meant, " Space built up more quickly around the big one" , which would be consistent with CIG.

So, if you know of any cosmologists, perhaps they can review the data to confirm/dispute my prediction.

Likewise, we will find that Spacial volumes are decreasing around Black Holes, as the Spacetime continuum is turning into the matter. Can someone confirm that Space is, for lack of a better word, "disappearing" (actually re-manifesting itself into matter), around Black Holes? This must be confirmed for CIG to hold as a viable theory.

Data, I need data!

Thanks again Peter for reading my theory.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Doug replied on Jun. 2, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
Correction to my post above:

WAS: ....of space (as is needed with Red Shift)generally...

SHOULD BE: ...of space (as is needed with Red Shift Anomalies)generally....

The red shift anomalies are found in the same planar regions of space. They are anomalies because current thought is of ONE Expansion, so why do we see different red shifts in an area of space that should be expanding at the same rate of other nearby stellar entities. This single expansion is false. EACH stellar entity results in its own expansion (space creation). This is how CIG explains away the anomalies.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on May. 28, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Paul,

Thank you. First, I have to put forward my definition of "Space". I can live with the Wiki partial definition as follows: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction", however I believe it may have bounds beyond which even it does not exists, nor anything, but this is another topic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on May. 29, 2012 @ 08:53 GMT
Douglas

Although irrelevant to the point I was making, forget 3 dimensions. That is just a human conceptualisation of direction. In physical reality what exists is a definite number of possible directions from any given spatial position (ie all adjacent spatial positions which could be occupied if ‘something’ moves from its current position).

Space is the corollary of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 28, 2012 @ 19:21 GMT
I am surprised there are people here who do not believe in specials relativity and E=mc^2. World War 2 ended after we built the atomic bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The whole idea of the atomic bomb was to convert a mass m of Plutonium into energy based on the conversion rate E=mc^2.

Do people who don't believe in special relativity also not believe in atomic bombs? Do they not remember the Cold War? The Cuban missile crisis? Atomic testing?

report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on May. 28, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi Jason,

LOL! This is basically a wide open forum so what did you expect? The anti-relativity people will be stuck to it like glue. Best to just ignore them.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 28, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
Jason, Fred,

You are the most intelligent Einsteinians I have ever known so please tell me if the following argument is valid:

If the speed of light depended on the speed of the light source, no atomic bomb would have been built.

Atomic bombs *were* built.

Therefore the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on May. 29, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Paul,

Space is emergent, and manifests itself from traveling massive particles. Look inside the balloon, not outside. There is more going on than a simple re-positioning of the balloon in a non-changing spatial environment. Space has been created. It happens everywhere all the time.

It happens all the time with new Bohr orbitals via the discrete planck quantum jumps. The jumps create new Space. This new view, if correct, brings determinism back into the picture. It what may also be happening with Virtual Particles about which I know little.

Your notation: "You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are ‘things’." Space is an entity in its own right, but since it is another form of matter, everything now gets slightly blurred into a single "indistinguishable reality". In CIG, more fundamentals have been combined.

Where Einstein stopped with matter warping the spacetime continuum, CIG theory takes the next logical step and offers that it is the spacetime continuum itself that actually turns into matter.

Matter has often been described as that which “Occupies space and has mass”: The inherent contradiction of this definition is all too apparent unless each is a manifestation of the other. Matter could occupy matter and have no further relationship to space. But as soon as Matter occupies Space, it is by default a manifestation of Space. CIG expands and explains how this happens.

My theory explains how space emerges. I've applied it to solve the Horizon Problem, and Red Shift anomolies, as well as using it to remove the confusion surrounding the Double Slit.

Now, the only problem is, one must convince oneself that it is correct.

Much more than that, it would be nice if the "community" subjects it to rigorous evaluation. There is enough in the theory to allow itself to be subjected to real tests (mostly through data confirmation). I'm not giving you 30 dimensions in a box containing a dead cat here.

Wait a second, I think I heard a purrrr

Thanks,

doug

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT
Douglas

Leaving aside the possibility that the entirety of reality is expanding, space is neither emergent or created. It is the corollary of entity. And here one also has to be clear, in ontological terms, about the concept: entity. There is only one physically existent state at a time. Each time it is different. However, we keep referring to different existent states as ‘it’, because superficially certain features are retained which are deemed to constitute that particular ‘it’. That is, we are attributing a level of persistence to reality which does not actually occur.

Anyway(!), space is just the reverse of object. There are only objects which occupy spatial position. In that sense one could say that that which is being designated as space in any given instance, is another object from the ones being used as a reference for the definition. For example: the space which is the consequence of identifying two molecules, is part of the ball which is formed from these, and other, molecules. If the reference is ball to another object, ie the extrinsic space, then the former is not space but ball. Etc, etc, etc. The extent to which all possible spatial positions are occupied by ‘something’ at any given point in time, is another matter.

As I hinted before, with the definition of time, spacetime is a flawed model of reality. There is no ‘time’, or more accurately, change, in reality. It can only exist in one state at a time. The subsequent one is different, and so on. Comparison reveals change which involves substance (ie what altered) and frequency (ie the rate at which it did so).

That cat knew what happened, as indeed did the fleas, etc, on its body. Their rights were denied. Or put another way round, the underlying philosophy there as to how reality occurs is incorrect.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 30, 2012 @ 09:42 GMT
Hi Doug,

Will you be entering the essay contest?

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on May. 31, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I was thinking of entering the essay. I'm not too good on protocol, but might give it a try. The topic sounds great! Love to think. (no math)

I hope you win.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 6, 2012 @ 16:02 GMT
Almost all posts of mine in this thread disappeared. Why?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jun. 7, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
They were marked as spam. As a general rule, posts that are repeated or copied in multiple forums will be treated as spam.

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 8, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT
OK but the "variable speed of light" issue remains undiscussed. And it is crucial, as the essay contest will show.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jun. 8, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT
Good grief, Pentcho, "the variable speed of light issue" is discussed (and refuted) all the time. The only serious -- i.e., purely scientific -- treatment of it that I can recall is in John Moffat's book *Reinventing Gravity.*

Tom

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Jun. 8, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Regarding my post of May 28 @ 16:26, can someone explain to me where the new Space comes from in the balloon experiment? CIG offered an explanation. If it is wrong, I need a new explanation. What is current agreement? It is a very simple experiment. Is there agreement that there are new Spatial quantities INSIDE the balloon (if not, then I have no idea what the community is calling Space)? If there are new spatial quantities, where did they come from, that is, if CIG is wrong.

Very simple question. Looking for the experts to answer in detail.

Thanks,

doug

report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jun. 8, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
doug,

You claim on your page " ... as mass approaches the speed of light, all that mass is shed and is converted into space."

What you are saying essentially is that space is identical to energy. In Einstein's theory, what actually happens is that a body at relative rest gains mass when accelerated (mass and energy are equivalent) compared to its rest mass. In other words, because the potential energy of a massive body is converted to kinetic energy; a body in motion contains greater inertial mass-energy than the same body at rest.

One of the cornerstones of physics is the law of mass-energy conservation, which your theory violates by creating "more space" (more energy).

Your belief does rub up against a serious question among physicists: "What is the energy content of empty space?" In other words, given mass-energy equivalence, and given that space is not really "empty" but is teeming with virtual particles, can space have energy of its own. Current research and calculation suggests that though the energy content of space can vary point to point, the total energy is either zero, or negative (repulsive).

It's hard to tell if you are really serious -- especially with your "Heads I win, tails you lose" challenge to skeptics. I got a chuckle out of that. :-)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Jun. 9, 2012 @ 14:40 GMT
Hi Tom,

I am in the unfortunate position to be disagreeing with the Great Professor.

Matter, as it travels at higher and higher rates, toward its maximum limit of "c", does not gain mass. It sheds mass into its other manifested energy equivalent, Space. The conversion is:

Equating energy to mass to space

0.02762u = 25.7MeV= 14,952,942.08 pico meters cubed of space

(Mass) = (Energy) = (Space)

This is where the Space of the expanding Universe comes from.

My full rationale for the claim can be found in my theory.

Energy only represents the transition. It is not a fundamental. I view Fundamentals as space, time, and mass. (meters, seconds, grams).

Concerning your note: "One of the cornerstones of physics is the law of mass-energy conservation, which your theory violates by creating "more space" (more energy)." :

It may be recognized that since the mass turns to what you deem "more Space", that energy is conserved. Mass does not increase as it travels faster. What we term mass (the particulate matter of the Standard Model) turns into the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy, as that matter reaches certain percentages of "c" travel. Above all else, CIG does not violate Conservation of Energy laws.

CIG takes the mass-energy equivalency (E=mc2) and combines it with the spacetime continuum. The resultant equation is MTS (see Cig Theory & try to find [Google ?] all my various postings). Matter doesn't warp Spacetime, rather, the Spacetime is actually turning into what we call matter. There is no distinction except "the degree to which thing are".

In one of my postings you will find that I observed the same MTS concept in Einsteins field equation. I belive that CIG was there all the time, and that there is within the Great Professors field equation, the foundation for CIG. Therefore it is a new INTERPRETATION of Einsteins field equation, though discovered independently and through other means than an understanding of his work (because I admittedly lack the thorough even remote understanding). Let me know if you want my ramblings on the link of CIG to the field equations and my ramblings of same.

THX

doug (tails)

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Jun. 10, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
OK - I'll save you the trouble of asking, and here are my "ramblings" about the link of CIG to Einstein field equations that I referenced above. I don't understand the field equations, but looked at them closely enough to compare certain variables in the quation. Please focus on those variables. So, what I stated in the above post is that CIG can be found within the Eistein field equation,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Jun. 10, 2012 @ 16:45 GMT
In an attempt to re-focus toward the topic of Faster than Light speculation, and its proposed explanation of the Horizon Problem, the following is offered:

Now, if you want to believe in Faster than Light theory that is obviously your choice. However, as far as its interpretation as a viable explanation of the Horizon Problem is concerned, the following is my proposed solution, and which...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 10, 2012 @ 19:42 GMT
The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00
22407388901227

"During his research on acoustics, Doppler in 1842 predicted the effect of the motion of a train on the pitch of its whistle: the pitch increases as the train approaches a station and decreases as it recedes. This Doppler effect was later applied to light, so that if a light source emits waves of period tau when at rest, the number of oscillations that meet a stationary observer during a time interval t is t/tau. But if the observer moves toward the light source with a velocity v, thus covering a distance vt in time t, an additional vt/lambda oscillations will be met (here lambda is the wavelength, and lambda = c(tau), where c is the velocity of propagation). Therefore, altogether, the moving observer encounters t/tau + vt/lambda = (t/tau)(1 + v/c) oscillations in the time t."

If the observer encounters t/tau + vt/lambda oscillations in the time t, then the length of the wave segment covered by the observer in the time t is (c + v)t. Accordingly, the speed of the light wave as measured by the observer is c' = c + v.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 11, 2012 @ 07:07 GMT
Pentcho

How can the speed of observer have any effect on the speed of light. Light is just another physically existent entity, it is not mystical. Leaving aside precisely how it occurs and moves, one can say it is something and it travels. It is received by the observer, and at that point ceases to exist. Another important point is that you keep referring to light, when actually you are referring to different lights. Light results from an interaction, it is a specific physically existent phenomenon. Another light results from the next interaction and the reality under consideration has altered.

In terms of calibrating speed, then the relative spatial position of the recipient during the travelling of light obviously has an effect. If the calibration is being effected wrt that recipient. But this is self-evident, because any judgement is a comparison, and if the reference is changing then...

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 11, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

Initially, the source of light is fixed and the observer is fixed as well (the distance between them is constant). The speed of light as measured by the observer is c so in time t ct/(lambda) wavecrests pass the observer. Accordingly, the frequency as measured by the observer is:

f = c/(lambda) (1)

Then the observer starts moving towards the source with speed v. This adds another vt/(lambda) to the number of wavecrests hitting (or passing) him in time t - the measured frequency changes accordingly:

f' = c/(lambda) + v/(lambda) = (c + v)/(lambda) (2)

Equations (1) and (2) are acceptable to both relativists and antirelativists - their combination, f' = f(1 + v/c), can be found in any textbook. (There is a relativistic correction introducing time dilation but it is negligible when v is low enough.)

The frequency, wavelength and speed of light the moving observer measures are related in the following way:

f' = c'/(lambda)' (3)

Again, a totally inoffensive equation acceptable to anybody. Yet its combination with eq. (2) may evoke concern, even horror, in the relativistic camp. The conclusion c' = (c + v) and (lambda)' = (lambda) is inevitable.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
Pentcho

The calibrated speed does, not the actual speed of light. Obviously. Any calbrated speed depends on the reference deployed. Measuring it does not alter reality! Neither light nor observer are mystical beings. They are both just physically existent enties which are travelling. And if you compare different things you get different results, in terms of measurement.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Jun. 10, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
OK - so there is this outrageous claim that mass turns to space. This claim proposes not simply a re-positioning of Matter within a given Space, but that there exists an actual equivalency among Space and Matter analogous to the Energy to Mass equivalency found in E=mc2.

Admittedly, this equivalency whereby one atomic mass unit (1u) = 541,380,958.7 pico meters cubed of "new" Space, appears at first glance more than preposterous. Even I am skeptical and it is my theory.

But, CIG Theory's roots simply wallow in the splendor of relativity and represent the new interpretation of length contraction.

Philosophically, this mass to space conversion is based on the following rationale:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different place. Where there is a different place, there is a different space. Where there are different spaces, there are different volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of space created as the result of different times imparted onto

the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic nature of nature."

The "different times" mentioned in the above paragraph are those same "different times" that are offered in the concept of time dilation.

Realistically though, how does the creative process take place? So, just how does mass turn to space?

Here, I offer only possibilities:

The particle travels so fast it is both here, and there, and over there, and here, such that the wave function probability is an actuality. The Space becomes. It's collapse back into the "less Spatial, corpuscular particulate form of matter" represents reality when it slows down.

As a good friend of mine and fellow poster (not imposter) on this site [G from Italy (I'll send you my book if you give me your address)] theorized, the new geometric surface areas manifest themselves in such a way that the new Space is created. Now here I can actually see how the Space may be created. If for instance, to expand on 'G's" offerings, the mass, as it travels faster and faster, unveils so many more geometric sides to itself, so many new three dimensional surface areas, that this may be just the explanation for how mass turns to Space that I was looking for. Most of my theorizing was based on the offering itself and its solutions to all those foundational questions posing the fields of Cosmology and Physics.

And it is this Space that explains the expanding Universe (I've said that in previous posts).

And, it puts determinism back into quantum (said that too).

So, CIG may not be as far fetched as first thought.

www.CIGTheory.com (said it)

THX

doug (same)

Caramel apples for everyone!

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 11, 2012 @ 07:20 GMT
Douglas

I have said this before, but there is no such thing as space. There is just something (lots of it!), which at every given point time, by virtue of its physical existence, can be said to 'occupy' a specific spatial position. Alteration then occurs (ie there is some existent phenomenon which is causing this) and the next existent state involves 'occupation' of adjacent spatial positions (it cannot 'miss out' potential spatial positions). There is just something, or stuff!!, which alters.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Jun. 11, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Hi paul,

There is something more going on than a mere alteration of positions Your: [ 'occupation' of adjacent spatial positions (it cannot 'miss out' potential spatial positions). ]

Space is an emergent phenomenom. How does the comminuty explain my "balloon posting"? If you say the particles are moving faster and faster, farther away from each other my reply will be "farther away from what? - we started with a given spatial volume" Now we have more volume INSIDE the balloon. More Space.

Respectfully disagreeing.

doug

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Doug

Indeed, alteration can be of many different forms, I just mentioned position, because you were talking about space.

Space is neither a “phenomenon”, nor is it “emergent”. There is only ‘stuff’ (technical word!), and space is just that which is not the stuff under consideration, ie it is some other stuff. The space between two given entities is not space, in the sense that it is existent. It is just ‘not the two entities’. It is part of some other entity or entities.

Farther away from each other. Or, nearer to something else, which is not part of your balloon world

Paul

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Paul,

But it is the two entities as well, for the entities occupy space.

You cannot divorce the two:

Matter has often been described as that which “Occupies space and has mass”: The inherent contradiction of this definition is all too apparent unless each is a manifestation of the other. Matter could occupy matter and have no further relationship to space. But as soon as Matter occupies Space, it is by default a manifestation of Space.

Further, your comment: "The space between two given entities is not space, in the sense that it is existent."

The comment leads me to believe that perhaps we do not agreee on the definition of space.

Can someone explain to me where he new greater volume of space comes from in my balloon experiment?

To CIG Theory and beyond! Now Buzz.....

thx

doug

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Doug

“But it is the two entities as well, for the entities occupy space. You cannot divorce the two”

Not so. There are only things/stuff/something. Space does not exist. The thing does. And in doing so one can conceptualise this as ‘occupying space’ or it has a ‘spatial position’, but in terms of physical existence there is just stuff.

What the property which relates to the phenomenon known as mass is, is another issue.

Space is just that which is not the entities under consideration. There is no space between me and the monitor. There is something else there, but I am not interested in that something else, just myself and the monitor.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 01:31 GMT
Hi Paul,

I'm confused and maybe its because we don't use the same definition of Space.

If there is no Space between you and the Monitor, then you have become the monitor.

Regarding your "there is something else there", what are you calling it besides "stuff"?

doug

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 08:25 GMT
Doug

"then you have become the monitor". Tee Hee. No, The point is that I am defining all things in terms of monitor and me, ie the rest is deemed as 'space'. But in reality it is just something else, which I am not interested in. It's all 'stuff'.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear Sophie Hebden,

Can you please read my essay regarded to faster than light http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 . I think we can discuss and cooperate with this issue. My interpretation regarded to faster than light is agreed with the experimental results of quantum theory. According to the latest result of OPERA and Icarus, the neutrinos did not move faster than light, but the problem was with measuring the time separation of the event. I agree with this result of the OPERA and ICARUS, and I predicted by this result in my essay before the result of the experiment. I can also apply my interpretation regarded to the wormholes in the general relativity. The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. This interpretation is agreed with what I predicted in my paper regarded to quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, OPERA, Icarus, and SN1987a. But the difference between me and Einstein, Einstein depended on the length contraction, But in my interpretation on the time contraction or time speeding up, which is verified experimentally in quantum physics. Please just read my paper, and then you will see how I could solve all the problems in physics regarded to faster than light, Also we can apply what I proposed on what are called Tachyons. What I proposed solving the contraction between Quantum field theory and relativity.

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Azzam

Why all these potential complications. Light is an effect created by interaction which travels, ie it is a physically existent entity just like any thing else. We (and all organisms) happen to use it, on receipt, to 'see'. Things could travel faster than light, but it would not be able to differentiate (ie 'show') that. In the same way hat there may be things that do not interact with photons and create light, but they exist.

Whether light is the fastest is purely a matter of fact, it either is, or is not, ie it is not a function of its acquired functional role with the evolution of sensing. Establishing that is, of course, a different matter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 12:59 GMT
Pual

The main idea of my MSRT is to answer about the main question in physics, that is; the objective existence of the phenomenon as Einstein proposed in his special relativity theory, or the observer is participating in the formation of the phenomenon. This is the lost key in order to reach to the unified theory. Since quantum theory is built on the experimental results, and it produced...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 05:58 GMT
Azzam

Be careful about SR. This is just a theoretical circumstance, where there is no gravity, hence objects are fixed in size, there is only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, light travels in straight lines, and Euclidean maths applies. Another way of putting this is that SR is not the same as all that which was written in 1905.

And, Einstein said this, not Paul Reed:

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 18: “…provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage”

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 28: “In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity”.

Einstein: Foundation of GR 1916, section 3: “…the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation”.

So, put simply, there is no “objective existence” in SR, because it is a circumstance that does not exist, as such. It is just a theoretical ‘sub-set’ of GR in which the causal factor (ie gravity) is hypothetically removed. It can occur, effectively, when gravitational forces incurred by any given object are counterbalanced, in which case, the object retains a constant motion (which may be different wrt another object with constant speed) and a fixed shape, according to the theory. There is no length contraction in SR. There is no time dilation, this is a function of the misconceptualisation of time. Existence occurs at any given point in time, alteration happens, we can time the rate at which alteration occurs.

The observer cannot have any effect on phenomena, because sensing involves the receipt of physically existent phenomena. And anyway, what is received is a physically existent effect caused by interaction with the phenomena (reality) in question (aka light, noise, vibration, etc). The reality has ceased to exist before the observer senses the result of an interaction with it. Sensing having evolved to utilise these effects and enable organisms to have an awareness of reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Pentcho

We forget frequency f is only a derivative, of time and lambda. I suggest this is important. Consider;

Do you know any observer that can 'observe' without also being a 'detector'?

Do you know of any detectors that are not made of 'matter', i.e one that can interact without a lens medium or reflector.??

I hope not too difficult.- So we have established that to 'detect', so be able to calculate a 'frequency', we must always first have an interaction with a medium. Yes? This may seem unfamiliar as it's been forgotten. Including by uncle Albert.

In this case the Barlow formula, while giving the correct result, is actually wrong in terms of accurately describing the process. When meeting a moving (at v) observer (and being 'detected') the light is first entering a co-moving medium, where wavelength lambda is thus Doppler shifted, to give the new f.

We all know the laws of physics and Fresnel's refractive index of a medium. Take a glass lens. n = 1.55. The light entering the lens medium then changes speed by both n and relative v, to always end up doing c/n in the co-moving medium. (This is simply because the interface moves as the wave peaks arrive). Yes?

This is the bit Albert missed, and we all have also missed.; Light has changed speed by two independent factors. Both n and v. Check again, carefully. You must have the ability to challenge and overcome deep long held assumptions to accept it.

c = f Lambda is a constant (conservation laws) To an observer in the new frame Lambda and f have changed in balance to conserve local c. (and energy E).

An observer in the emitter frame NOT changing to the new frame cannot then interact so cannot measure lambda. He may then see 'apparent' c+v, and will discern no change to f (no Doppler shift).

I am suggesting that this is where and precisely WHY SR is incorrect. It is a 'discrete field' model, of media with assignable kinetic states.

Can you logically falsify? (just using old 'beliefs' is not of course logic).

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Peter,

You are correct. understanding the speed of light in special relativity theory according to laws of Optics is solving the contradiction between the resulted results which are proven experimentally of special relativity and quantum. Quantum is dealing with the speed of light through mediums by the refractive, in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 the gamma factor which is related to time dilation and length contraction in special relativity is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 you will see how can be unified between quantum theory and special and general relativity, and then solving the most unsolved problems in physics

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 06:13 GMT
Peter

Light is just another entity, it is ‘something’ (ie an effect in photons) and it moves. Precisely what is happening is irrelevant at this generic level. Now, as with all things, all of which are moving, the issue is to have a reference with respect to which one can calibrate that movement. Any reference will suffice, but must then be maintained to ensure comparability. The quirk here is that light is the physically existent phenomenon which enables us to ‘see’. But, leaving aside practical difficulties, that does not mean ‘observation’ has some function in its speed. The observer receives the light, it is independent of him (or her).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT
Azzam, Paul.

I agree much in optics is not yet applied to theory, and is needed for consistent comprehension. I'm not sure I interpreted your post fully but I believe I understand it and agree. I consider the train and it's contents a 'discrete field' kinetically, as a frame equivalent to all others. I'll try to get to your papers. Have you yet seen mine on a similar basis, the discrete field model (DFM). If you wish to, perhaps tart with an early one; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022 See also the below;

Paul. I believe Bohr taught Heisenberg a good lesson when nearly failing his thesis, that to consider light via a lens he must fully understand how a lens worked. Consider this. we can only 'observe' light by 'interacting' with it. That means the particles of a detector, made of 'matter' so a dielectric 'medium', absorbing the light energy on interaction and re-emitting it (standard atomic scattering). It's wavelength is then changed by detector motion, ergo so then is it's derivative 'frequency'. Time dilation and length contraction are then reduced to Doppler effects, and the LT clarified as a resistance curve.

In this case the 'reference point' must always be the detector. The only question then remaining is, and it is an important one, how do we judge the relative speed of something with which we are NOT directly interacting. Of course by direct interaction with (being consistent) the 'scattering' emissions of the particles of the medium the original signal IS interacting with.

This falsifies your suggestion that observation has no effect on speed. Speed in any lens medium is always c/n in the local kinetic state of the lens. If that v is different to the 'incident medium' the propagation speed thus changes by v as well as c. That is quite revolutionary but logically consistent. Unfortunately, like the elephant in the room discussed earlier, it seems to have been too big to be seen. Can you now see it?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
Brendan Foster,

Why should the censorship be so brutal? Relativity is doomed anyway.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 10:27 GMT
The Michelson-Morley experiment and the speed of light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

So the emission theory's tenet that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c ± v) is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter (c'=c) is also compatible. Is this double compatibility possible? No it isn't. The truth is somewhat different: In 1887 (the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) only c'=c ± v is compatible with the experiment; c'=c is not. Then the length contraction hypothesis and the subsequent development reversed the interpretation: c'=c become gloriously confirmed by the experiment while c'=c ± v collapsed in deepest humiliation:

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT
Pentcho,

Have you read and do you see any validity in CIG Theory? (www.CIGTheory.com)

If not, where has the rationale gone wrong?

And, can you tell me then where the new "space" comes from in my "balloon experiment", posted on this site?

Can you, taking the CIG philosophy of independent and isolated stellar masses (and quantum particles), turning into their own spacetime field densities with newly unfolded quantities (volumes) of Space, apply the theory to other areas of physics/cosmology beyond those solutions I have offered?

For instance, what are its implications on the Flatness Problem?

Also, please confirm that you undersatnd the theory.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 01:52 GMT
As regards the Double Slit experiment, the one in which the electron is slowed down to a "single bombardment" over time, with the resultant familiar screen wave pattern, here is my explanation:

Per CIG of course (www.CIGTheory.com), the electron becomes spatial and part of it goes through one slit, part through the other. The wavefront interferes with itself through both constructive and destructive interferrence. For any given wavefront through each slit, there exists the greatest probability that the amplitudes will be maximum at the center of the screen, and so the collapse (the wave function colllapse is real) will most often be at the center. At times, however, the amplitude is greatest at areas other than the center and this leads to the pattern we are accustomed to.

Anytime the electron is observed, it must again collapse from its spatial state (the degree to which it is spatial depends on its rate of travel), to its "particle state".

As far as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, first I have to sharpen my pencil.

Does anyone want to give it a try, using CIG? Go ahead, there's nothing to lose, except maybe an electron.

doug

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 06:16 GMT
Doug

But one does not 'observe the electron' (or indeed anything else). One receives an effect resulting from an interaction with it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 00:47 GMT
CIG theory introduces a new science of pressure (newly created space based on traveling masssive particles).

Could someone calculate that it [ ] is [ x ] is not possible for (in our example, a deflated balloon) a deflated balloon to enlarge when heated, based on the current view of particle bombardment against the balloon walls as the sole cause for expansion. Does the particle mass and acceleration (F=ma) , when taken in its accumulated form, create enough force to actually press outward on the balloon's wall, to inflate it? Please take a worst case scenario (e.g. a heavy walled balloon). My guess is it doesn't, and therefore another explanation would be necessary to explain the phenomenom (Enter CIG theory!).

I know that there is a lot of math involved, and, for professors, maybe this could be for your students, as a project. Perhaps give it to three separate groups of students, and compare their independent results. Dinner is on me if they prove CIG Theory.

Can you investigate, please. New science of pressure! Interesting!

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

The speed of light is integral to CIG Theory and so there is relevance for a posting on this site.

thank you

doug

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT
PENTAGON STUFF:

As regards where CIG Theory states the conversion of mass to Space:

Equating energy to mass to space:

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pm cubed of space

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

Can someone (Nuclear engineer?) take an arbitrary amount of mass of Plutonium, and convert it to the Spatial quantity per the above CIG Quantification, as though in a Nuclear Explosion (I hate nuclear explosions!).

Then, with the theoretical newly created Space (CIG), can you model the subsequent force of the wind velocities. Compare this theoretical wind velocity modeling data with that data on record (hidden in some Pentagon archives?), as regards nuclear explosions.

You will have to figure out the CIG volumes of newly created Space per the above quantification and what would be its inherent contribution to those wind forces. Computer modeling?

Please compare the wind data on record with the theoretical data offered by the equivalent CIG conversion and its affects. (i.e. Are the houses and trees and fine people blown down with the same intensity?).

The two should be near identical.

Lots of math here - way way over my head.

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

Thanks

doug

inadvertently, this was posted on another article site - meant to psot here - please keep

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Is the information is received to us with the speed of light or by the light itself depending on quantum theory and relativity theory of Einstein?

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 05:33 GMT
Azzam

It depends on neither.

In respect of sensing in general, rather than just sight:

The ‘information’ is some form of physically existent effect created by a physical interaction. From the perspective of any given sensory system: 1) it is ‘information’ because that system has evolved to utilise it and thereby render the possessor of the sensory system with an ‘awareness’ of reality, 2) it continues to exist in the same state over time.

The speed at which this effect travels is a function of the physical nature of the effect and the physical conditions it encounters during travel. Its existence is independent of the recipient organism. It may travel to a brick wall, rather than a sensory organ. The quality of the ‘information’ (ie the extent to which it properly, and comprehensively, represents the reality with which an interaction occurred for the recipient) is dependent on the physical properties of the physical phenomena involved.

Its function vis a vis sensory systems is an acquired one, consequent upon the evolution of sensing in organisms. There can be no presumption that it just happens to be able to effect this role perfectly (for example, given how light works, it may not be able to differentiate all that occurred because of sheer volume, or frequency of change, or it may not be able to ‘detect’ certain physical phenomena because it cannot interact with them).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT
Clearly the speed of light as measured by the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/clas
s19_doppler.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "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)."

The only reason why Einstein's relativity still exists is that nobody cares. Feyerabend should have combined his "Anything goes" with "Who cares".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 11:28 GMT
Since nobody cares whether Einstein's relativity is correct or not (it is a money-spinner anyway), the Albert Einstein Institute can safely explain the Doppler effect by implicitly assuming that the speed of light as measured by the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

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."

Let the distance between subsequent pulses (which is not affected by the motion of the receiver) be L and the time it takes the source to emit three pulses be t. The speed of the pulses a fixed receiver measures is 3L/t = c. Accordingly, the speed of the pulses the moving receiver measures is 4L/t = (4/3)c.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Mysterious wavelength shift in special relativity:

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v:

UyE2oD1w

According to a second observer, stationary in the frame of the source, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c-v. The wavelength does not shift at all (L'=L) - the stationary observer finds it unthinkable that the moving observer could somehow change the wavelength. Special relativity agrees with the observations of the stationary observer.

Yet the selfsame special relativity forbids the moving observer to see any shift in the speed of light (c'=c), and there is a price to pay: The formula f'=c'/L' should be obeyed so the moving observer must somehow see the wavelength shift from L to L'=Lc/(c-v). The stationary observer does not see the wavelength shift but the moving observer does (more precisely, should). If he did not, an unprecedented catastrophe would sweep over theoretical physics.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Initially, the observer was stationary with respect to the wave source and X wave peaks passed him in one second. Then he started moving towards the source so a greater number of peaks, X+Y, are now passsing him in one second. Does this mean that the moving observer sees the peaks pass him FASTER? Einsteinians?

Einsteinians: "Yes, obviously... Wait! If the waves are light waves... No! Impossible! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

http://physicspages.com/2011/07/07/doppler-effec
t/

"The Doppler effect occurs because the observer is moving relative to a light source. If light is being emitted by a source such as a star, then the light will have a particular frequency (or in general, mixture of frequencies, but we'll concentrate on monochromatic light), which can be measured as the number of peaks in the wave that pass a fixed point in one second. IF THE OBSERVER MOVES TOWARDS THE LIGHT SOURCE, THEN IN THAT SECOND, HE WILL PASS A GREATER NUMBER OF PEAKS IN THE WAVE, and thus the frequency of the light appears higher, or blue-shifted, since for visible light, the colour appears shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum. Similarly, if the observer moves away from the light source, the frequency appears lower and the light is red-shifted. Note that this effect does not violate the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, which is fundamental to relativity. THE LIGHT ITSELF STILL MOVES AT THE SAME SPEED RELATIVE TO THE MOVING OBSERVERS; what changes is the frequency, and hence the energy, of the light that is observed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 08:19 GMT
space originates from quantum vacuum and time is a mathematical dimension of motion in quantum vacuum.

see more on

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
An Open Question to FQXi's Steve Carlip

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/Speed
OfLight/speed_of_light.html

Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. (...) Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Steve Carlip,

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter). An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L'. Please answer the following questions: c'=? L'=?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Good morning Sophie Hebden

Thanks for an excellent presentation of some the points finding attention of mainstream physicists. In PicoPhysics - we have less items of worry about. For example invariance of speed of light is a simple Corollary to Unary law 'Space contains energy'.

May I invite you to review my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT
Inconstant speed of light in the Perimeter Institute:

pring/files/assets/seo/page12.html

"Laurent Freidel and Lee Smolin, both faculty members at the Perimeter Institute, have been collaborating with Giovanni Amelino-Camelia at Sapienza University of Rome in Italy and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. The quartet has been investigating the effects of a curvature of momentum space. What they discovered is shocking: the curvature of momentum space would indeed distort the conservation laws. Special relativity would say that any two photons, regardless of their energies, would travel at exactly the speed of light. In a curved momentum space, though, that's no longer true: high-energy photons would move differently than low-energy ones."

Of course, this only concerns the Perimeter Institute. Ordinary Einsteinians should know that the speed of light is constant and that's it. The practice of singing hymns is called hymnody:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

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 pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Doppler effect threatens relativity:

http://moodle.davidson.edu/moodle2/pluginfile.php
/15877/mod_resource/content/1/Intro120-Week-13.pdf

"When the observer is moving, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed, the wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer he/she just comes across more/less wavefronts per time (...) when moving towards/away from the source and consequently sees a change in frequency."

If in the above quotation the word "sound" is replaced with "light", the text will be fatal for relativity - the speed of light, as measured by the observer, will turn out to vary with the speed of the observer. Relativity can only be saved if additional changes in the text are made:

When the observer is moving, the LIGHT waves emitted from the source are DISTURBED, the wavelength DOES CHANGE as observed from the moving observer SO THAT he/she just comes across more/less wavefronts per time (...) when moving towards/away from the source and consequently sees a change in frequency.

Do the additional changes in the text have any justification? Is it reasonable to believe that the motion of the observer DOES CHANGE the wavelength of the light wave but DOES NOT CHANGE the wavelength of any other wave? How can this variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the observer be explained in physical terms? Why no such explanation can be found in the relativistic literature?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 07:16 GMT
Doppler effect really threatens relativity:

Question: The observer is moving away from the light source with a speed Vo. In time t, the number of waves observed by him is (c-Vo)t/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength. What is the speed of the light waves as measured by the observer?

Answer: The speed of the light waves as measured by the observer is c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT
Doppler effect is fatal for relativity: the speed of the light waves, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/
Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 12:27 GMT
Variable speed of light in a gravitational field:

http://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1

"Imagine a pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler effect."

As judged from the frame of the diver, at the moment of detection the detector is racing upwards with a speed v. So what is the relative speed of the light pulse and the detector at the moment of detection, ACCORDING TO THE DIVER? Both antirelativists and (clever) relativists claim that, ACCORDING TO THE DIVER, the relative speed is:

c' = c + v

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 09:17 GMT
This is a fun thread. OK, when do we quit goofing around and begin work on a superluminal drive model? OK, I'll go first.

A patch of space-time, which can contain a spaceship, is just a particle in a superluminal space-time. The speed of light in this superluminal space-time is c' >> c.

Question: can we describe the kind of field that we have to generate around our spaceship so that we can maneuver in superluminal space?

Any takers?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Einstein's nightmare: The speed of light relative to an observer varies if that observer moves towards or away from the light source:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-re
lativity.htm

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. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time..."

Time did obey Einstein's orders - it started to flow differently for the moving observer so that the speed of light relative to him could gloriously remain constant. Unfortunately Einstein forgot to tell the wavelength to vary with the speed of the observer so as to neutralize the frequency shift. The danger is obvious - bad people may remember the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and come to the conclusion: "The frequency varies as the observer moves towards or away from the light source but the motion of the observer obviously cannot alter the wavelength of any wave - it remains unchanged. Then the formula tells us that the frequency shift can only be caused by a shift in the speed of light. In other words, the Doppler effect amounts to an experimental confirmation of the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the observer. No we don't believe in relativity, relativity, relativity anymore!"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 07:05 GMT
The Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the Newtonian tenet that, as light falls in a gravitational well, its speed increases exactly as the speed of any falling particle does:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_whi
te_dwarfs

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..."

Is this compatibility between the Pound-Rebka experiment and Newton's emission theory of light dangerous for Einstein's theory? Many Einsteinians don't know the answer to that question and teach, just in case, that the speed of light does not increase at all:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
The gravitational redshift can be explained in terms of shift in the speed of photons, as is suggested in one of the quotations in my previous post. Accordingly, the redshifted light Radek Wojtak refers to is one having a speed lower than c. However if he had said that in his paper, neither Nature nor any other mainstream journal would have published the paper:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-ein
stein-relativity/

"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

Ironically, Einstein's general relativity, just like Newton's emission theory of light, predicts that, as light is escaping a gravitational field, it will lose SPEED (as judged from the frame of the observer):

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variabl
e.htm

"In the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative. To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is actually not a constant but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light', Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT
Einstein and the emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf

John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwells electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v."

And the frequency the observer will see is f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lectur
e18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "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)."

Einsteinians,

Is f', the frequency the observer sees, compatible with c'=c+v, the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light?

2012/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Sig wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 00:48 GMT
Now watching Supermassive Black Holes on channel 170.

There is a direct linear correlation between the velocity of the most distant stars orbtibing any given galaxy and the size of the black holes of that given galaxy. This per the show I am now watching.

Can someone confirm that this same linear relationship exists with the velocity of the outer electron field surrounding atoms of small nucleus (i.e. carbon) and those of larger atoms (i.e. gold). My guess is that we find the same linear relationship. I have no idea how to find it, but its probably there. Get government funding!

Can someone please answer my balloon inquiry? Where does the Space come from?

(that is if CIG Theory is wrong) Please.

(I'm scared of Black Holes - won't sleep well tonight)

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
Walther Ritz no longer an unperson?

It is not too dangerous to criticize Einstein's relativity and even extract career and money from the criticism - some high-ranking Einsteinians are experts in this. Yet as soon as one starts questioning the original falsehood - Einstein's 1905 light postulate - one automatically becomes an unperson:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 08:26 GMT
Initially the observer is stationary in the beach water but then starts walking out into the ocean with a speed v. Relative to him, the frequency of the ocean waves shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L and their speed shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Initially the observer is stationary with respect to the sound source but then starts moving towards the source with a speed v. Relative to him, the frequency of the sound waves shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L and their speed shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Initially the observer is stationary with respect to the light source but then starts moving towards the source with a speed v. Relative to him, the frequency of the light waves shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L and their speed shifts from c to c'=....? Einsteinians?

Einsteinians: Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Who's asking?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:54 GMT
For all waves (light waves included), when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with a speed v, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v:

http://www.takoi.edu.hk/~phy/0304_S6_webpage/Doppler%
20effec1[1].2.htm

"Approaching observer with stationary source. The wavelength observed by the observer remains unchanged. (lambda)=c/f. Apparent speed of the wave relatively to the observer: c'=c+Vo. Apparent frequency observed by the observer: f'=c'/(lambda)=[(c+Vo)/c]f."

The awful formula c'=c+v provokes two reactions among Einsteinians:

Ordinary Einsteinians' reaction.

High-ranking Einsteinians' reaction.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
"Where are the "Einsteinians?" So as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's great discoveries, the question arises: How many professional physicists are Einsteinians?"

Smolin asked this question in 2005. At that time the Einsteinians were still quite many but almost all of them have left the sinking ship since then:

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 18:59 GMT
Antirelativists will have to solve a fundamental epistemological problem: How to disprove a theory that nobody defends. The solution, if any, is by no means trivial. It may turn out that the immortality of Einstein's relativity is due to its ghostliness - no matter how hard you strike, you cannot cause injury.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT
"University of Adelaide applied mathematicians have extended Einstein's theory of special relativity to work beyond the speed of light. (...) "Our approach is a natural and logical extension of the Einstein Theory of Special Relativity, and produces anticipated formulae without the need for imaginary numbers or complicated physics." The research has been published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A in a paper, 'Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light'. Their formulas extend special relativity to a situation where the relative velocity can be infinite, and can be used to describe motion at speeds faster than light."

"A natural and logical extension of the Einstein Theory of Special Relativity" means that a valid deductive chain exists between Einstein's 1905 postulates and the new formulas. This is obviously not the case.

In fact, Einstein's relativity stopped being deductive shortly after 1905. Rather, arbitrary manipulation of the equations until the desired predictions are obtained became the main method. The introduction and withdrawal of the cosmological constant and the long and painful adaptation of the theory to the Mercury's perihelion anomaly are typical examples.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
If deduction had not been abandoned, Einstein's relativity would have been refuted by the following simple argument:

PREMISE: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

CONCLUSION: In gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver.

VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT: The emitter (E) and the receiver (R) are at rest: E at the earth surface, R at a distance h above E. In accordance with the PREMISE, the receiver measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2). This scenario is equivalent to one in which E and R are fixed in an elevator accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g in the direction E->R. So when the light signal reaches R, R has acquired speed v=gh/c. Accordingly, the receiver in the elevator measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 18:57 GMT
Logical illiteracy (plus dishonesty) among high-ranking Einsteinians:

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 14:49 GMT
The strongest argument against relativity:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

This is equally valid for light waves - the motion of the observer cannot change their wavelength either. That is, for an observer moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the waves will be c'=c+v, in violation of special relativity. The shift in frequency is in fact caused by the shift in the speed of light. Various aspects of the problem were dealt with in my essay:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT
A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:

(A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is higher than the speed of the first.

(B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength of the first.

(A) is fatal for relativity, (B) is absurd. Yet Einsteinians always have a third answer.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 22:54 GMT
Pentcho

How is (B) absurd? If the emitter starts moving while sending out waves (so with time gaps between however small), the wavelength must reduce. How could it not?.

(and it's also fatal for SR).

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the source, as is the case with sound waves, then the principle of relativity is violated (the motion of the light source is not equivalent to the motion of the observer). In this sense (B) is absurd - it contradicts the principle of relativity. But of course one may assume, alternatively, that the principle of relativity is invalid (this assumption is implicit in "preferred reference frame" theories) - then (B) would not be absurd. In either case special relativity will have to be abandoned.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Allan Fletcher wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 13:07 GMT
I am a pharmacologist, not a physicist, so my comment may be rather naive. I have always thought that it would be highly unlikely that the speed of light would have been a fixed constant value from the origin of the universe to the present day. Presumably, as space, time and energy were created at the Big Bang (if the theory is essentially correct!),the properties of space itself have been constantly changing as the universe has expanded. Light propagates through space, so initially, when space was 'denser', the speed of light differed from the present day value.

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Hello Mr Fletcher,Mr Valev,

It is important it seems to me to consider the evolution of this light speed. The BB is seen, in my model of spherization, as a fractal of the main central sphere of light and after a multiplication of the serie of uniqueness.

If the space, the gravitation and the light are the same in a kind of BEC of our mind at this zero absolute.It become relevant considering the diffusion, spherical of this mass, this space and this light.If the serie of uniqueness is for all quantum entanglement and even for the number of cosmological spheres inside the universal sphere. So it relevant to consider that c is invariant at its present and locality. But we can say that perhaps c was different in the past, just due to evolution and the equilibrium between expansion/contraction. It implies that we can consider that c changes its speed but very very slowly so.The constant of c is so a real constant? It is the same that our electromagnetism, we have limits of uncompleteness due to our young age at the universal scale. The works of Maxwell and Lorentz are relevant also about the invariance of c at this present.

We cannot pass above c with the bosons. But perhaps that we can with the fermions. It is an important differenciation. The bosons are under the law of invariance of c in the vaccuum. The fermions, them in my line of reasoning, turn in opposite sense than bosons.It explains so the linearity of c.and the stability in space of the gravitation. If c is invariant in its present but change due to evolution.So how can we say that c does not change.In logic, c increases at each second but it is a so very weak changement. The entropy is correlated.

Hope it helps.:)

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 16:42 GMT
Psychology of the Doppler Effect

"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."

So we have:

(A) f'/f = (c+v)/c

For all waves other than light waves, we have also:

(B) f'/f = c'/c

where c'=c+v is the speed of the waves relative to an observer moving with speed v towards the wave source.

For light waves (A) is valid while (B) never emerges in the thoughts of Einsteinians:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Psychology of the Doppler Effect

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 21:23 GMT
Psychology of the Doppler Effect

"Lesson 50: Doppler effect in sound and light (...) Understand why the velocity of a wave will be greater when an observer moves towards the source."

Who should understand this? Does it violate special relativity? Einsteinians?

Einsteinians: "No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Let me die! Let me die! And how can I possibly be consoled? In this cruel fate? In this great suffering? Let me die!"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 08:17 GMT
Psychology of the Doppler effect

For sound waves, it is obvious that the motion of the observer does not change the wavelength of the incident waves and therefore their speed relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c'...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Pentcho

Those teachers are teaching our kids that simplistic nonsense, that's the trouble. So when they grow up they, like you, have it ingrained as irrefutable against all logic.

How can you and your mates, as observers, all change the speed of propagation of approaching waves by different amounts by all accelerating different amounts?!!

When the wave is propagating in the background it's propagation speed does not change just because you move. OK?

When the waves enter each detecting lens and start propagating there, wavelength and frequency change inversely in the lens frame. OK?

So only 'relative' speed is c+v, NO real PROPAGATION speed is c+v anywhere. OK?

All the time that old simplistic nonsense is taught to our kids science will remain in confusion. You are guilty of propagating that. Posts like the above only confirm you and dissenters as crackpots in the eyes of mainstream so do more harm than good.

If you can't get out of your own rut you can't expect them to get out of theirs.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
Pentcho

The terms; "it is obvious that..." or; "it would be ridiculous..." are commonly used by non scientists to invoke common assumptions rather than test them. You tend to do so all the time, tending to invalidate your comments scientifically.

With sound, your assumption does not hold water. Consider a noise made within a submarine moving ahead at v. At rest in the water ahead you find the sound wavelength has changed. If the submarine was receding the waves would be longer. Your assumption is thus falsified. As with light and all em waves, the wavelength changes inversely to frequency. We should all be here to learn not preach, and should learn from this competition that all such assumptions must be properly tested.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 08:30 GMT

Here is a thought experiment that I am going to modify a little. The travel of one of the spaceships remains unchanged but the acceleration involved in the turn-around will be avoided for the second spaceship. There is a third spaceship which moves with speed v towards the station so that, at the moment the second spaceship was to undergo turn-around and acceleration, the third spaceship passes the second and sets its clock to read the same as the second's (this elimination of the acceleration is well known and can be found in textbooks). Finally, the first and the third spaceships arrive simultaneously at the station. Do their clocks show the same time?

Clever Einsteinians know that both the "yes" and the "no" answers are fatal for relativity. The consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate are inherently contradictory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
Doublethink in Einsteiniana is different from (classical) doublethink in Big Brother's world. In classical doublethink truth and lie coexist:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Psychology of the Gravitational Redshift

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating gives:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission.

Clever Einsteinians do not underestimate the above results and react accordingly.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 13:51 GMT
"It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

A joke? No. Steve Carlip is more than serious - this is exactly what Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicts:

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2)... (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

So we have doublethink in Big Brother's world but triplethink in Divine Albert's world: In a gravitational field the speed of light is (1) constant, (2) just as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects and (3) twice as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 05:48 GMT
Einstein said that nothing can go faster than light. Many scientists say same. But how can it explain, that black holes in space don´t let light scape. Doppler effect in light, explain variations in color to red or blue, but, not ligh in black holes can explain a velocity faster than it, because light waves or fotons cannot reach enough velocity to scape from gravity of a black hole. Am I wrong?

Thanks for a response. Hxxxxxxxxña from Cali Colombia. (original comment sent to nasa on july 2012, then the mail was hacked, and this comment is always erased from youtube. Try you to copy and paste, and you will see in any few days is erased or named spam and then deleted)

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 10:46 GMT
Anonymous.

If the ion re-emitting the photons are being accreted to the 'black hole' the emissions will be shifted outside the optical band. This also happens when the matter is ejected in the (quasar) jet emissions when the jet vector is away from the observer. Radio wavelength emissions are found but the jet is not 'visible' in the optical band. The approaching jet emissions are equally highly blue shifted.

The local maximum speed is always c. Fresh pulses of re-ionized matter entering the juet stream do maximum c within the stream rest frame, like a fish swimming at it's maximum speed in the water of a river flowing past you. The stream is collimated, and along with the Rees-Sciama effect (see my 2011 essay) we can see 'apparent' pulse speed of up to 10c (really c locally).

Understanding of active galactic nuclii (AGN's) in astronomy is recently much improved. More and more is now getting out to public access. Most theoretical physics still however seems to use rather more 'historic' understandings of what a 'black hole' is. It is a toroidal em field (just like our magnetosphere, or a nuclear Tokamak) but far more severe and massive, particularly as the AGN's at the centre of galaxies, and probably even universes (see the DFM).

I hope that helps clarify things with a bit of reality to disperse the voodoo. Much has been known for some time. look at the date on this paper for instance; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6352/abs/354374a0
.html

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
Solving All Problems in Theoretical Physics at Once

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")."

The crucial question is "Is that true?" and the answer "no" solves all problems in theoretical physics at once. More precisely, there is nothing to solve simply because theoretical physics is not science anymore. Bryan Wallace has reached essentially the same conclusion:

"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 1, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Einstein knew and even confessed in 1954 that his false light postulate had ruined physics but ciphered his confession:

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 rest of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT
Both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments have confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. A question comes to mind: If the speed of light is really variable, like the speed of cannonballs, will Einsteinians abandon Divine Albert's Divine Theory? Answer: Of course not. Subtle practitioners of doublethink have proved that the variability of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 22:02 GMT
The wavelength remains unchanged and the apparent speed of the waves, that is, the speed seen by the observer, increases (v'=v+u) when the observer moves towards the wave source. The main point in my essay was that this is valid for all waves, including light waves:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 3, 2012 @ 13:46 GMT
Petcho

How can the distance between wave peaks not change on absorption by the matter of a moving 'inertial system'! It's impossible. Nobody is listening to you Pentcho as you don't use logic. They would if you did. You're way off base and barking up the wrong tree.

If there is no observer, then the waves just carry on with no delta.

If the waves MISS a moving observer, he does not observe them.

When waves INTERACT with the observer they change speed and wavelength (so inversely frequency). Ergo; All moving observers always find c, via the changed 'observable' f.

If you keep telling people that, instead of propagating confusion, they may eventually understand and forget they thought you were a fool.

I'm only trying to help advancement of logical understanding.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 06:52 GMT
Test for Sanity in Divine Albert's World

Scientists are shown an observer who is initially stationary but then starts moving away from the light source with speed v.

INSANE scientists see the light waves overtaking the observer at a slower rate:

c' = c - v

and deduce that the frequency varies accordingly:

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

SANE scientists see the light waves overtaking the observer at the same rate (Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity):

c' = c

and deduce the same frequency shift:

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT
Another Test for Sanity in Divine Albert's World

Scientists watch a video where the speed of light is shown to vary exactly like the speed of cannonballs.

INSANE scientists start thinking about Newton's emission theory of light. Perhaps this theory is correct after all?

SANE scientists exercise themselves in crimestop and do not start thinking about Newton's emission theory of light:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
A third test for sanity in Divine Albert's world:

Scientists get informed that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments have confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Albert Einstein institute: "...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..."

INSANE scientists are puzzled. Perhaps the emission theory is correct after all?

SANE scientists exercise themselves in crimestop and get convinced in the end that Newton's emission theory of light is absolutely wrong:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 4, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Pentcho.

You suggest the insane see c' = c-v. Yet surely only a fool would think anybody can 'see' light passing by and 'overtaking the observer,' so not being detected.

Please explain how this is possible.

The only evidence we can 'see' is scattered light from any charged particles it DOES interact with. Do you suggest that does something other than c?? I suggest only a fool could do so.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
Peter,

When one measures natural phenomena, e.g. the shift in the number of wavecrests that hit the observer on the front side, one must be sure that the measured shift characterises the light objectively, irrespectively of what happens to the light in the measuring device or in the brain of the observer. This is just science based on realism: experimental methods are good or bad in virtue of how the world is independently of ourselves.

In other words, any valid measurement must characterise light that is passing by, not light that has undergone some interaction with the observer. If that is not the case, then the method is simply incorrect.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Pentcho, the interaction is what allows observation to occur. How else can you measure it?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT
Georgina,

Yes the interaction between light and detector is what allows observation to occur but the effects of this interaction do not influence the final result in correct measurements. When runners cross the finish line, the interaction between light and detector is not taken into account and yet times are correctly measured. In the Michelson-Morley experiment, what is essential is the pattern of interference between the two beams, not the interaction between the beams and the eyepiece.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 10:27 GMT
Pentcho

The 'measurement problem' of QM deals precisely with that subject. It proves you cannot physically measure anything without physical interaction, and that that interaction must affect the result of the measurement. i.e. the detector must be part of the system measured. It is 'continuous spontaneous localisation (which should replace the other meaning of CSL!) You are still using an old and very wrong, if still common, contrary assumption.

The latest Nobel's were given for the first ever possible systems for 'weak measurement' at a quantum level, which would not effect the result. They are not yet proved.

The only other way of measuring is by trigonometry. That then only gives 'apparent' not real results. i.e. the speed a pair of birds passing you depends of the speed of your jet. It is not it's real 'flight' or 'propagation speed', which has a fixed maximum nothing to do with you. You have no importance until you meet. Live with it!

It only gains something to do with you when you interact. Like the birds! Georgina is absolutely correct pointing out that this gives it a different 'reality'. The waves passing through the jet on interaction with the birds will be very close together in relation to what you'd have found if at rest in the medium of propagation (say they flew into your hot air balloon).

Wavelength is the same. You can't see light until detection. It is only 'apparent' not 'propagation' speed until detection. You must open doors in your mind you forgot were even there and re-appraise old beliefs to let the truth in.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 07:11 GMT
Einsteinian Fraud in a Nutshell

Any statement in the following quotation is a deliberate fraud:

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

The truth:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Einsteinian Fraud in a Nutshell

Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
"Why does E = mc^2?"

Because the binding energy of an atomic nucleus mass defect precisely accounts for the missing mass-energy of a classical measurement.

"Why should we care?"

1. Knowledge 2. See no. 1

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Tom,

It appears to me that you are saying that E=mc^2 because it works. I think that answer misses the crux of the question. We know it works. The crux for me is the conditions, properties, variables, etc. that exist before the solution and its success are known. What makes the predictions of E=-mc^2 possible? In other words: The success of E=mc^2 validates what besides or before itself?

I am asking for the answer that reflects its success back onto that which predicted it. It follows from special relativity. The question: Why does E=mc^2?, for me, is asking: Does E=mc^2 validate special relativity?, or, Does it also validate something, or somethings, that are different from special relativity?

It certainly can be argued that it validates special relativity. But what about it guarantees exclusivity? In other words, the choices made for the derivation of special relativity solidly support the success of E=mc^2. Is the reverse also true?, or, Can the reverse process show that the choices made in special relativity are not the only choices that solidly support the success of E=mc^2?

The important question for me is: Does E=mc^2 work because special relativity is correct? The answer may seem simple as: Yes special relativity is correct. I don't think it is that simple. I think that the answer to the original question requires the answerer to show that the derivation of E=mc^2 is exclusive to the derivation of special relativity.

James

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Do Einsteinians care about science? If they did, they would not allow blatant contradictions to destroy the remnants of scientific rationality:

Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Pentcho,

If em fluctuation propagation is in any way different to the relative 'motion' of 'matter', then none of your examples above are relevant. That simplistic tack will never then work.

CSL also stands for 'continuous spontaneous localisation', and it's effect is the other; observed CSL, by all detectors. In that case, as soon as radio waves exit the 'sphere of influence' (Boscovich) of Earth and encounter the shock particles at the strart of the 'sphere of influence' of the sun, it changes speed (and Doppler shifts) to the local c with respect to the sun.

We know all this from spacecraft radio telemetry. All that's been lacking is the theory behind it. If you keep on with your foolish ramblings then dissenters will be considered proven crackpots and that theory will remain obscured.

Please stop being counter productive to advancement.A little more intellectual effort and you could even be quite helpful to it.

Thank you.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 20:24 GMT
Whether light is a wave or a particle, the statement that its speed (relative to the observer) is independent of the motion of the observer "makes no sense".

In my unfortunate essay I explained why exactly the statement makes no sense:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 02:13 GMT
Hi Pencho,

You said, "Whether light is a wave or a particle, the statement that its speed (relative to the observer) is independent of the motion of the observer "makes no sense"."

It might not make sense, but it's true. From an ontological medium point of view, space-time itself has to be made of waves that fundamentally obey

$c = \lambda f$
.

Do it this way, and the invariance of c becomes built into the ontological medium of space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 06:34 GMT
For sound waves, it is obvious that the motion of the observer does not change the wavelength and therefore the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

There is no reason why the motion of the observer should change the wavelength of light waves so the conclusion that the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer is unavoidable. But this conclusion violates special relativity so Einsteinians don't even think of it:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
f and c are frequency and speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer. f' and c' are frequency and speed of the waves relative to an observer moving towards the wave source with speed v. Textbooks teach that:

for sound waves:

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

for light waves:

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

The equation f'/f = c'/c is forbidden for light waves, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Jason,

Wow, that was impressive! And Pentcho - you've just been shown the 'unfortunate' assumption of your essay; You assumed delta f implied delta c, where we know for certain that it can imply either or both delta c or lambda.

As we always find d/t = c/n, it then tells us that subject always to delta index n the solution is always delta lambda. This is as found in quantum optics experiments. Once the PMD interaction delay is accounted for c is recovered between particles. If you just do some real science and check, rather than just preach your beliefs, you will see how foolish your assumptions make you look.

For sound waves: Your comment should read; 'It "appears" obvious that...' Yes indeed it does, but that too will be found as simplistic on closer analysis. Sound propagation differs to light anyway, invalidating any point, but that's not even the most pertinent part. In fact the instant a vibration is set up in the eardrum or microphone membrane, it has an assignable wavelength. The only way to AVOID any wavelength is NOT TO LISTEN AT ALL!

Many are good at that, so hear nothing. But the important fact is; "Every f has a lambda." and the f*lambda in the approach ('incident') medium is different to the f*lambda in the detector ('refractive') medium.

So it is then you suffering from Crimestop, by refusing to accept anything different to your old assumptions, which are equivalent to 'flat earth' beliefs. You will only reinforce not correct SR that way.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Hi Peter, Hi Pencho,

Of course the invariance of the speed of light is weird, it's illogical. Another way to look at it is, it's funny business. If you rolled some dice and kept rolling two 6's, after about a ten rolls of two 6's, you would suspect that the dice had been tampered with. You would start suspecting a mechanism (like the dice were weighted). The invariance of the speed of light is likewise very suspicious.

The invariance of c inevitably leads to length contraction and time dilation. People measure length with a ruler and time with a clock. The ontological agents that implement the laws of nature must maintain distance and time as well. But what is the mechanism, and how does it insure that the speed of light is invariant? Look at the Casimir effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Look at the waves between the plates and on the outside of the plates. I say that those are the agents that implement the laws of physics. Those waves, as a fundamental characteristic, must obey,

$c = \lambda f$

These waves exist across a wide range of frequencies and have a wide range of wavelengths. When they are excited by energy, we get photons. When the photons pass, these waves are invisible and behave like the quantum vacuum; they bubble with virtual particles. The wavelengths of these invisible agents are the mechanism nature uses to establish distance. The frequency of all these quantum waves establishes the progression of time.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speed u. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

The top of a tower of height h emits a light pulse downwards with initial speed c. As the pulse reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Einsteinians admit the validity of and sometimes even deduce the above result:

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Still, since the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) is extremely dangerous for Einsteiniana, Einsteinians confuse the whole issue by teaching two false alternatives:

False alternative c' = c:

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

False alternative c' = c(1 + 2gh/c^2):

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Pentcho,

I agree, current interpretation is incomplete, severely lacking, or simply incorrect.

In fact of course em fluctuations do not propagate in the same way as bullets, so are not affected by gravity in the same way.

Bullets do not get absorbed by electrons and re-emitted continuously on the way down. That is why the 'conserved entity' interpretation of Einstein's 'photons' is nonsense, as argued by a number of essays here.

It seems you don't answer my posts because you have no answers. Yet you yourself remain the worst victim of Orwell's Crimestop.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Peter,

The fact that the speed of light varies like the speed of bullets in a gravitational field is confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

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 Nov. 12, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer. He/she just comes across more/less wave fronts per time (...) when moving toward/away from the source, and consequently sees a change in frequency."

Animation 2 acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Pentcho,

Delta lambda on interaction with an inertial n-body system is not part of SR or any current understanding.

It is however true, unavoidable, resists all falsification, and resolves all the paradoxes and anomalies thrown up by current beliefs and SR.

You have failed my challenge to falsify the model scientifically. Acting like an unbalanced mind chanting an old nonsense belief repeatedly is not falsification.

Nobody is listening to you Pentcho. You are wasting your breath. I hope you may see that and decide to put it to better use.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Experimental Confirmation of False Theories

From a logical point of view, the birth of Einstein's theory of relativity consists in a single illegitimate act: the substitution of a false proposition of the ether theory ("The speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the light source") for the true antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light ("The speed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
The official lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

This implies that, in 1919, Eddington's results rejected the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and confirmed the twice-as-great variation predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Is that true? Of course not. First, Eddington fudged the results - the effect was actually too small for him to have discerned. Second, forty years later, the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally showed that light falls with the acceleration of ordinary matter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...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 replied on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
For more than 50 years the experimental confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory was complete fraud but then, in the 1970's, absolute honesty was established in Einsteiniana and Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously and irreversibly reconfirmed:

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. Il aura fallu attendre les années 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité."

Opponents of the Divine Theory have nothing to say - they can only join the Divine Choir:

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!

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 wrote on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
I just would like to direct attention to some recent arguments concerning SR. The proponents of SR got silent.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 10:34 GMT

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 17:59 GMT
Pentcho,

George Ellis has been calling himself a relativist. He and Lawrence Crowell pointed me to the Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman. Thomas Ray repeatedly declared SR a best confirmed theory. Benjamin Dribus uttered also trust in the allegedly overwhelming evidence for SR. In Wikipedia, I found a task force which makes sure that SR dominates, and Roberts merely pretends to disprove or at least questions some deviating opinions, e.g. by Cahill, while Roberts ignores Feist, Shtyrkov, and many others.

Peter Jackson managed to seemingly adapt his idea to the gospel of SR. Nonetheless I recommend reading some parts of his essay because he quoted a telltale report on how brutally SR was defined the basis of cosmology with admittedly no success "so far".

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 15:12 GMT
Eckard,

The most dramatic question is no longer "Is relativity true?". Rather, it is "Who cares?". Any mainstreamer can say anything - other mainstreamers agree. Just an example:

"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

The author is FQXi member Craig Callender. Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why Callender's breathtaking ideas should be discussed, let alone opposed. Perhaps Callender himself has abandoned them long ago. The era we live in can be called the era of Postscientism: theoretical science is long dead, once flourishing false theories quietly disappear, there is no sane replacement, nobody cares.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
"A doppler effect also occurs when an observer moves towards a source, but here the wavelength does not change, instead it is the effective velocity that changes and leads to an apparent change in the frequency of the SOUND."

The substitution of "LIGHT" for "SOUND" is fatal for special relativity:

A doppler effect also occurs when an observer moves towards a source, but here the wavelength does not change, instead it is the effective velocity that changes and leads to an apparent change in the frequency of the LIGHT.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
It is universally taught that, for sound waves, the frequency as measured by the moving observer is:

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

where c is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary observer, v is the speed with which the observer moves towards the source, c' is the speed of the waves relative to moving observer, L is the invariable wavelength. Einsteinians readily apply the first equation to light waves:

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

but then suddenly stop, as though by instinct:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

If it were not for crimestop, Einsteinians would have to explicitly reject the analogy with sound waves and declare that light waves obey the following equations:

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

where L'=cL/(c+v) is the varying wavelength which varies so as to guarantee both the constancy of the speed of light and the salaries of Einsteinians. However L'=cL/(c+v) is too silly and therefore dangerous. Crimestop is obligatory in such cases:

f' = (c+v)/L = Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
"Length contraction is a second necessary consequence of Einstein's postulate that the speed of light is the same for all observers."

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If the "necessary consequence" generates absurdities, then the postulate is false:

"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."

"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)."

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
Yes Pentcho,

The style of massive propaganda you are hinting at reminds me of religions and even worse ideologies.

Yes, length contraction cannot be a consequence of something that was fabricated on it.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 09:33 GMT
The Most Dramatic Dilemma Ever in Science

Scientists watch this video and see:

(A) that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer decreases as the observer starts moving away from the light source. Suddenly a whole branch of science collapses - to quote Einstein, "nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics".

(B) that only the frequency as measured by the observer decreases but the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer, by a miracle, remains the same. Initially scientists fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" but then the ecstasy gets uncontrollable: scientists tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT
Pentcho,

In your simple case the wave crests are Tachyons. An observer 'floating above' the waves finds the same 'apparent' qualities; c+v.

A detector in motion IN the propagating medium, so interacting with it, (essential for detection) finds additional information. If you now advance from the simple and derive what that additional and different information is by applying higher intelligence, then all will become clear. If you stay with the concept of 'propagation velocity' you will escape the confusion and find the key. It is part of the constant; c = f*lambda, and is always inverse to f.

The result will be consistent with ALL observation and evidence, not just the bits you've cherry picked. Your proposition simplistically ignores and conflicts with the other half of the evidence.

i.e. There IS perhaps a route to what you are trying to achieve. But I suggest that if you keep trying to get through that solid stone face instead, then you'll just continue to be written off as a crackpot.

Remember I'm only trying to help.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Tim Maudlin: "To begin with, we will focus on just a single physical phenomenon that can be checked experimentally. The phenomenon is that the trajectory of light in a vacuum is independent of the physical state of its source. In particular, suppose there are two flashbulbs in very rapid relative motion, moving past each other. As the flashbulbs pass each other, they both go off. It is an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Stephen Hawking explains how the wavelength varies with the speed of the light source:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."

Tim Maudlin,

As you can see, Stephen Hawking believes that, as far as the Doppler effect is concerned, the analogy between light waves and sound waves is straightforward. But the speed of sound waves, relative to the observer, varies with the speed of the observer (the wavelength remains constant). Then perhaps the speed of light waves also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 12, 2012 @ 10:50 GMT
I suspect Tim Maudlin will never again discuss the constancy of the speed of light - like John Norton, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Craig Callender and other dignitaries, he will just silently leave Einsteiniana. No intelligent scientist would continue to believe in the constancy of the speed of light after reading the following quotation:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 13, 2012 @ 09:45 GMT
No sane scientist would continue to believe in the constancy of the speed of light after watching this video and this second video. Clearly one cannot deduce the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) without assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 07:06 GMT
Perhaps the muon time dilation hoax is even greater than the Sirius B hoax:

"The idea of this experiment is, in effect, to compare the mean time from the creation event to the decay event (i.e. the mean life) of muons at rest with the mean time for muons in motion. Suppose that a given muon at rest lasts for a time tb. Equation 5 predicts that its life in a reference frame with respect to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 12:20 GMT
The Sirius B hoax was extremely successful for more than 50 years - as a result, Divine Albert's Divine Theory was firmly established and all opposition was crushed - but this hoax had to be abandoned in the end. Precise measurements made in the 60s by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman showed that Divine Albert's Divine Theory offers predictions that deviate from the real values by a factor...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 20, 2012 @ 07:56 GMT
Pentcho,

Did Pound/Rebka and GP-B really confirm Newton's emission theory? Allegedly spinning empty space rather reminds me of not very convincing but also not compellingly refuted speculations about ether drag. My primary concern is the not yet real future. The idea of joint consideration of space and elapsed time makes sense to me unless one destroys the notions time and space by defining them not relative to any real object but individually from the perspective of an observer or even worse an arbitrarily chosen abstract individual.

May I interpret your unwillingness to deal with Michelson/Morley as inability to show that I am wrong?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 20, 2012 @ 10:40 GMT
Yes Eckard I am unable to show that you are wrong. Any interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment amounts to a deductive procedure: one advances, more or less explicitly, some assumptions, and then one deduces the null result from them. For instance:

Emission theory:

Assumption 1: The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source. Assumption 2: The principle of relativity is true. Conclusion: The null result.

Special relativity:

Assumption 1: The speed of light does NOT depend on the speed of the light source. Assumption 2: The principle of relativity is true. Conclusion: The null result.

At this stage I cannot *show* that e.g. special relativity's interpretation is wrong and the emission theory's interpretation correct. And I cannot do that even at a later stage. For instance, I could try to call the attention to an absurd implication of the special relativity's interpretation:

"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)."

Then I realize that, of all the Einsteinians all over the world, not one could think of a reason why trapping a 20m pole inside a 10m barn should be regarded as absurd. The rest of the scientific community couldn't care less.

So Eckard you are not wrong - we just all live in a world where "anything goes".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Dec. 20, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
Quantum reduces to Classical as the rate of travel (of the particle) approaches zero.

www.CIGTheory.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 12:00 GMT
Einsteiniana's Achilles Heel

John Norton: "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)."

Norton badly needs this decrease in wavelength - without it, the increase in frequency can only be caused by an increase in the speed of light (relative to the observer) - an increase fatal for special relativity. However the term "correspondingly" implies that the combination (increased frequency, decreased wavelength) is self-evident, which is by no means the case. Rather, for all other waves this combination is absurd - the self-evident combination is (increased frequency, unchanged wavelength, increased speed of the waves relative to the observer):

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

The fact that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength is so obvious - clever Einsteinians must have already abandoned special relativity:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Pentcho,

I see you not serious. Today at 3:48 GMT I wrote to you: Please reconsider your argument that the MMX must be interpreted as support of emission theory. If you can show that such reconsideration is not necessary please do not hesitate to do so.

So far I seem to be almost the only one who intends to discuss with you. I got the impression Paul did not even realize that you now refer to waves while he called light a moving entity like the earth. Paul does obviously not understand that the propagation of waves does not refer to emitter or receiver but to the medium when he commented on Michelson's correct utterance in knowing-all style: "What the ether is doing is irrelevant. The comparison is between light (ie some physical effect in photons) and earth."

This opinion of Paul would not annoy me much if he did not conclude "What precisely is happening needs to be known, as does the adequacy or otherwise of the M&M experiments and the interpretation thereof." Well Paul might be too lazy or not qualified enough to check and judge my revelation that Michelson's expectation was based on improper reasoning. But what about you? Can you only past confusingly rather than enlightening commented quotations as to evade the decisive questions?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT
Eckard

Your representation of what I am saying, generically, is incorrect.

As I have said many times, the precise details are irrelevant to the form of the argument. For example, how many affected photons constitute a ‘light’, ie something that gives us an image, how this affect is effected, how it travels, is the light which travels in one direction physically identical to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT
The Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) can ONLY be deduced by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer (an assumption fatal for special relativity when applied to light waves):

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
The Perimeter Institute compares a photon as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field and a rock thrown upwards. The conclusion is breathtaking: both the photon and the rock lose energy in exactly the same way but the rock slows down while the photon does not:

Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Pentcho,

You makes us aware of the many propagandists who are doomed to write nonsense in textbooks and tell it to students. While Poincaré was certainly not always correct, I guess he was not wrong when he called Cantor someone whose set theory misleads the young generation. Robert Schlafly blamed Einstein for spoiling science.

I restrict myself to what I tried to make obvious: The expectation by Michelson was wrong. Shouldn't this imply due corrections in education?

You contrasted Hawking who gave a precise and fully acceptable to me explanation and am unknown at least to me outreach Program Coordinator at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Perhaps you got aware that the latter's verbose educational effort "Why does Gravity Slow Time" contradicts to what Hawking wrote. I almost got the impression the Coordinator ridicules the currently mandatory interpretation of the experiment by Pound and Rebka. Wouldn't it be easy for intelligent students to realize that heart beats and the like are not very reliable measures of time as long as they are not yet educated to believe Einsteinian relativity?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
Pentcho

What is more bizarre about those type of statements is that they contradict what Einstein said. Once he introduced gravity, ie was in the 'real' world then he clearly stated that light must alter in speed and direction.

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22:

However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K’). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance…… In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 28, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
The Root of All the Evil in Physics

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
The Root of All the Evil in Physics (II)

In 1954 Einstein suggested that the whole of physics might be wrong insofar as it was based "upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures":

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT
The Winnowing Out Process in Physics

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

The result.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 09:10 GMT
The marginalisation of antirelativists (that is, the disappearance of any real opposition to Einsteinana) has had a natural consequence: Einsteinians don't need to lie constantly and can even tell dangerous truths sometimes. So they explain the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) by correctly assuming that the wavelength is not affected by the motion of the observer:

Albert Einstein...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:49 GMT
Pentcho

There are bound to be some ‘non-scientific’ factors, as humans are involved. But the major problem has been the failure of those who have thought there is a problem to explain properly why relativity is wrong. Indeed, the whole sociological, historical, background as to why this belief was invoked and then believed in, is far more interesting than just identifying the flaw. But, after 100 years it is now even more difficult for facts to prevail over belief . And your style, coupled with the fact that you do not know what the problem really is, does not help.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 18:20 GMT
Divine Einstein

Isaac Newton and Neil deGrasse Tyson are both Divine Albert's apostles but Neil deGrasse Tyson is somewhat superior since he understands Divine Albert's Divine Theory while Newton does not.

Official Hymns in Einsteiniana:

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.

That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah!

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
How blatantly Einsteinians can lie:

John Stachel: "Albert Einstein: A Man for the Millenium? (...) It was Albert Einstein (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, 1905) who first realized the need to replace such ideas, based on classical kinematics, with a new kinematics based on four key ideas: 1. Omit all reference to the hypothetical ether frame; 2. Take the failure of all attempts to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Two FUNDAMENTAL LIES in Einsteiniana's education:

FUNDAMENTAL LIE 1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the observer:

Brian Cox discusses Einstein's theory of relativity

"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 5, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
The Secret to the Twin Paradox

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."

Einsteiniana's scenarios allow the travelling twin's clock to be checked against two clocks in the sedentary twin's system - e.g. clocks situated at the initial and final points of the travelling twin's trip. However Einsteiniana's scenarios NEVER allow the sedentary twin's clock to be checked against two clocks in the travelling twin's system - e.g. clocks situated at the front and back ends of a (very long) rocket. Such biased scenarios convert the RECIPROCAL time dilation predicted by special relativity into an asymmetric time dilation - the travelling twin always returns younger so that Einsteinians can sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and go into convulsions.

It is easy to imagine a scenario in which, while the travelling twin performs the forward part of trip, the sedentary twin's clock effectively moves from the front end to the back end of a (very long) rocket. Then, as the travelling twin returns, the sedentary twin's clock effectively moves from the back end to the front end of the rocket.

In this scenario time dilation is RECIPROCAL again and special relativity gloriously predicts that, when the brothers finally meet, either of them is younger than the other.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 6, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Doublethink practiced in Einsteiniana is somewhat different from (classical) doublethink as defined by George Orwell. In classical doublethink truth and lie coexist:

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 12:50 GMT
Pentcho,

In 1918, most Germans had other problems than dealing with an article in the journal Naturwissenschaft, and some arguments of the self-dialog are indeed suited to make naive physicists aware that their belief in existence is untenable. Paul might notice that. However, the many signers of the twinparadox petition are certainly not morons altogether. Unfortunately, they did so far not yet manage to

- agree on which basic assumption is wrong

- agree on the correct alternative

- strictly separate between wrong basics and by chance useful aspects of SR.

Isn't the elusive refutation of a common space of reference by Michelson and Morley to blame for the silly assumption of length contraction?

Isn't the electromagnetism by Maxwell and Hertz the correct alternative?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Eckard

I think as I wrote recently, the historical/sociological aspect of all this is much more interesting. The mistake in relativity being easily identifiable in section 1 (ie conflation of existence and light based representation thereof, and attributing distance with duration.

There is nothing useful about SR, it is purely a hypothetical circumstance put forward by Einstein to extricate himself from the dichotomy he thought he had in 1905 ("only apparently ireconcilable") which was caused by the 'red herring' of dimension alteration. Though I would be careful about describing dimension alteration as "silly" or whatever, as, coincidentally, it could occur.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Eckard,

Length contraction is directly deducible from Einstein's 1905 second postulate (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source), without any reference to the first postulate - see David Morin, p. 15. So if you find the consequent (length contraction) "silly", you will have to reject the antecedent (the second postulate) as false. Logic gives you no alternative.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Pentcho,

The speed of a wave doesn't depend on the speed of its source. This is definitely true for sound waves, and I showed that we must not consider the null result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley as evidence against this in case of em waves. Actually Michelson's expectation was wrong.

Morin did not damage the particular reputation of Harvard because the mistake was overlooked all over the world for more than a century. Length contraction was not deduced from SR but the other way round; SR reinterpreted length contraction which was originally suggested by FitzGerald and Lorentz as to provide a reasonable explanation to the discrepancy between the wrongly expected and the measured outcome. Michelson misled not just Lorentz but indirectly also Einstein.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Eckard/Pentcho

Dimension alteration was inferred from the result of M&M. In the context of relativity, what was right or wrong about all that is irrelevant, because dimension alteration was irrelevant to relativity. It was ‘explained’ by the same incorrect procedure that everything else was explained. That is, existence was not differentiated from the photon based representation thereof, and distance was attributed with duration. Moreover, light was used as the timing device to measure distance in terms of duration. So the timing differential which actually occurs between existence and receipt of representation was deemed to be a feature of existence. Note the supposed effects of time and distance in physical existence are the same.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 12:15 GMT
Eckard,

"The speed of a [light] wave doesn't depend on the speed of its source"

That is, you think Einstein's 1905 second postulate is true but then, if you do not accept some of the predictions of special relativity, you will have to declare that the first postulate, the principle of relativity, is false. It would be unreasonable, wouldn't it, to criticise special relativity, on the one hand, and claim that BOTH postulates are true, on the other.

The problem is that length contraction, time dilation, the principle of relativity - that is, the unacceptable consequences of special relativity - can be directly deduced from the second postulate, without any reference to the first. Note that this is a logical fact which has nothing to do with the historical fact that the length contraction hypothesis was advanced before Einstein advanced the second postulate.

So if you do not accept length contraction, time dilation, the principle of relativity, then you will have to reject the second postulate. If you still think that "the speed of a [light] wave doesn't depend on the speed of its source", then length contraction and time dilation do really occur for you and singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" becomes obligatory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 13:45 GMT
Oops! In the above message I mistakenly wrote "principle of relativity" instead of "relativity of simultaneity" so here is the corrected version:

Eckard,

"The speed of a [light] wave doesn't depend on the speed of its source"

That is, you think Einstein's 1905 second postulate is true but then, if you do not accept some of the predictions of special relativity, you will have to declare that the first postulate, the principle of relativity, is false. It would be unreasonable, wouldn't it, to criticise special relativity, on the one hand, and claim that BOTH postulates are true, on the other.

The problem is that length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity - that is, the unacceptable consequences of special relativity - can be directly deduced from the second postulate, without any reference to the first. Note that this is a logical fact which has nothing to do with the historical fact that the length contraction hypothesis was advanced before Einstein advanced the second postulate.

So if you do not accept length contraction, time dilation, the relativity of simultaneity, then you will have to reject the second postulate. If you still think that "the speed of a [light] wave doesn't depend on the speed of its source", then length contraction and time dilation do really occur for you and singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" becomes obligatory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Eckard,

You wrote: "So I consider Einstein's second postulate wrong if constancy is explicitly postulated re observer, while still formally correct as long as the usual reference to empty space is not excluded."

Any deduction (e.g. of time dilation) from the second postulate clearly shows that, in special relativity, constancy "re observer" is meant. This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion.

(You replied to a mistaken message of mine so I am placing my answer here, under the corrected version.)

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 07:12 GMT
Pentcho/Eckard

"constancy "re observer" is meant. This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion"

And that is the problem, because this "obvious" presumption is incorrect. The light Einstein is using is not observational light. He is using light as a timing mechanism. Just read section 1, part 1, light is being used to measure time and distance. It is not so that anybody can see. A timing reference is by definition, constant. Observational light in practical terms approximates to constant. Because he uses the term 'frame of reference',and is talking of light, people have presumed he is referring to observation. But there is no such light to enable sight. We have lightening, beams of light, etc, but no subsequent light for observers to be observers. They are just reference entities.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
Pentcho,

You: "This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion." Well, antirelativists like you tend to also ignore the possibility that Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning and therefore Michelson's conclusion “The hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect” was wrong too. Michelson himself disliked Einstein's relativity which he considered a monster. He preferred agnosticism.

The insight that Michelson's expectation was wrong is therefore the key to an overdue reconsideration of firmly accepted tenets. You will not like this insight and ignore it. Relativists are ignoring it too. They tolerate all of your many arguments against relativity because they distract from the basic mistake which SR and emission theories have in common.

Everybody will excuse renowned physicists like George Ellis and Steven Hawking who seem too busy as to deal with revelations by such nobodies like Paul Marmet, Norbert Feist, and me. However, I see you in a different position. Please take issue if can or stop fruitlessly attacking Einstein's relativity.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
Divine Albert fools relativity believers:

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 17:59 GMT
The Rotating Disc Conundrum

We have multiple clocks regularly scattered and fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc and a single non-rotating clock at rest situated outside the disc but very close to the periphery. This clock constantly compares its reading with the readings of rotating clocks passing by. Initially the disc is immobile and all clocks are synchronous but then the disc starts rotating and eventually a constant linear speed of the periphery is reached.

Does the difference:

increase, decrease or remain constant (zero) as the number of comparisons increases? Einsteinians answer immediately:

"The difference increases because Divine Albert said so, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Yet by increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). So the clock at rest is repeatedly checked against two clocks fixed on the periphery - according to special relativity, the clock at rest is found to run more slowly than the clocks on the periphery:

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."

This means that the difference:

decreases. Since special relativity also predicts that the difference increases (Divine Albert is right about that), we just have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The consequent is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 11, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT

Special relativity predicts that, when two inertial observers pass one another with relative speed v, either of them sees the other's clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). This prediction is false of course but it VALIDLY follows from the postulates - its falsehood is due to the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate.

In his 1920 book Divine Albert claims that, if one of the observers experiences a centrifugal force (being fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc), then he sees the other observer's clock running FAST by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), no matter the magnitude of the force (it could be virtually zero):

Albert Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. XXIII. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference

Divine Albert's 1920 claim is just a blatant lie - it does not follow from the postulates of special relativity. However, intensely repeated for a century, the blatant lie is now an absolute truth. By fighting it, antirelativists find themselves in the unfortunate position of defending the genuine special relativity against additional absurdities introduced by Divine Albert.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 12, 2013 @ 07:17 GMT
Pentcho

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are no paradoxes in Einstein. He was wrong, but so are his critics. Because having failed to understand what he actually said, they have failed to understand why he was actually wrong. These paradoxes, etc, are a function of the misunderstanding of the critics, not of Einstein’s theory.

There is SR, which as he defined appears fair enough, but since it is just a theoretical circumstance, it is irrelevant anyway. His theory was GR, which I would not presume to comment on.

His fault is in his misconceptualisation of physical existence, and hence the essence of the theory, ie that the time differential is in physical existence whereas it is actually in the receipt of a photon based representation of physical existence, and that light is the feature of physical existence which he attributes it as being.

Neither would I assert he was lying or doing anything consciously untoward. Perhaps some researcher could find evidence that he subsequently became aware of problems, and really should have spoken out. But really those at the time and since, should take responsibility, because they did not identify the mistakes.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 13, 2013 @ 11:00 GMT
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, combined with the (true) principle of relativity, entails that either observer measures both the other's clock to run slow and the other's rod to be shorter. In many scenarios this is REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence so Divine Albert and his worshippers have introduced additional absurdities in order to explain away the original absurdity. In the bug-rivet...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 05:31 GMT
Paul Reed

Pentcho, do yourself two favours:

1 First find the light which enables an entity designated as an observer to be an observer. There is none.

2 Read 1916 (the point is repeated elsewhere but that will do) and identify what Einstein defined as being SR. Although his resolution as what he saw ad "only apparently incompatible" is wrong, it is better than what the critics are portraying as being his theory.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Jamahl Peavey wrote on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 13:56 GMT
Physics problems no matter how complex are just puzzles. The challenge of solving puzzles is that you solve them without breaking fundamental rules. This is often a case of looking at a problem in an original way.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Clever Einsteinians and Special Relativity

The observer is at rest and the chairs of a chairlift pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the chairs. Then the observer starts moving against the chairs with speed v; now the chairs pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and water waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the water waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and sound waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the sound waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and light waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the light waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

Einsteinians accept and even teach the above analogy except for the fatal (for special relativity) phrase:

...now the light waves pass him with speed c'=c+v...

Unintelligent Einsteinians explicitly reject the fatal phrase: they just declare that the light waves pass the moving observer with speed c'=c and frequency f'=(c+v)/L, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Clever Einsteinians know that, for any waves, the frequency shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L can only be caused by a shift, from c to c'=c+v, in the speed of the waves relative to the observer. Special relativity is doomed and clever Einsteinians don't waste time.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Einsteinians abandon special relativity, the root of all the evil in physics, without abandoning it:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
How very clever Einsteinians abandon special relativity, the root of all the evil in physics, without abandoning it:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 15:16 GMT
Frank Wilczek: "As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
How Non-Einsteinians Are Converted to Einsteinians

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
The Origin of Einstein's Absurdities

Brian Greene: "Past, present, future - all equally real. They all exist." Max Tegmark: "The past is not gone and the future isn't non-existent. Past and future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way." Brian Greene: "Everything that has ever happened or will happen - it all exists." Albert Einstein: "The distinction beween past, present...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:18 GMT
Pentcho,

You wrote: "In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the emission theory's thesis that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, and refuted the ether theory's thesis that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the light source)

This ignores what I posted on Jan. 15, 2013 (of course not 20013) under the title "Michelson's Still Illusive Expectation". Having just returned from hospital where I managed to proofread this attachment, I would like asking you for what hindered you to accept that my argument is correct:

The null result of MMX did not disprove the ether. The whole concept of MMX was wrong. I see it a pity that for more than one hundred years the whole community of physicists was mislead by Michelson's illusory expectation which can be easily shown having arose from Michelson's incomplete reasoning.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT
Eckard,

The only relevant question, in my view, is:

Does the speed of light (relative to the observer) depend on the speed of the light source?

In your view the relevant question is:

Is there an ether?

So I am trying to answer my question, you are trying to answer your question, and for the moment I do not find your result useful vis-a-vis my arguments. It could be valuable in another context of course.

Sorry to hear you had to go to hospital. Hope all is well.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
Pentcho

Which observer? And why just 'observers', why not a brick or a tree. After all, these entities receive light. They just cannot subsequently process it, which is irrelevant to the physics of the circumstance.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 07:30 GMT
The Fundamental Nonsense of Relativity

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 07:00 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."

That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
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..."

That is, one can assume that, in a gravitational field, light falls just as do ordinary objects (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light), and deduce that the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). The frequency, as measured by the observer, varies proportionately, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2). In 1960 Pound and Rebka proved, experimentally, the validity of the last equation.

Clearly the experiment has confirmed Newton's emission theory of light but Einsteinians teach that it has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Why do Einsteinians do so? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
The Genesis of Doublethink in Einsteiniana

Exceeding the speed of light without actually exceeding it:

"Dr Michio Kaku reveals how we really could one day build a warp drive and set out on our own star trek."

Like other Einsteinians, Michio Kaku just practices doublethink:

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Bill Miller wrote on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 23:53 GMT
Am I the only person who wishes there were some content in this thread, rather than 99+% of it being posts from the same 3 or 4 people talking endlessly about the "time dilation hoax" and such, linking to their personal websites over and over and over again, etc?

What would it take to convince you that your ideas aren't getting any traction in the physics community?

I ask, because it's simply unfair and inconsiderate to everyone else to unilaterally create a drowning-out or shouting-over environment in a science forum. In doing so, you destroy the forum. Look at what has happened here. It's like a pond where everything is dead because a persistent bloom of cyanobacteria has choked everything out. It's like a patient killed by a cancer.

If you want to have a conversation about the Einsteiniana conspiracy or whatever, please take it to email. Please have some consideration and show a little restraint. Please resist the urge to spew and link, spew and link, lather, rinse, repeat. It's just so endlessly tiresome.

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
Bill Miller wrote: "Am I the only person who wishes there were some content in this thread, rather than 99+% of it being posts from the same 3 or 4 people talking endlessly about the "time dilation hoax" and such, linking to their personal websites over and over and over again, etc? What would it take to convince you that your ideas aren't getting any traction in the physics community?"

I was just going to quit. Looking forward to seeing the content you will create and the physics community's reaction.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Hi Bill Miller,

To those like us who do not believe in emission theories, Pentcho is tiresome. However, I think itmight be justified to deal with his arguments. Most essays of FQXi 3 favored the idea of discrete light particles, not continuous em waves.

Why didn't they take issue and defended Eisenstead?

Don't more experts prefer the idea of light particles swallowed by black holes than waves absorbed by Z_0?

Pentcho might have overestimated the power of his arguments. If he will give up, then I feel a bit responsible for this. I am definitely not someone who is using the expression "time dilation hoax". Also I don't link my personal websites over and over and over again.

What I found out about the MMX was a surprise to me. I did not yet finish this investigation. Nonetheless you are invited to check it.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 7, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
Question 1: What is the “speed” of reality? Question 2: What “speed” is the CERN cyclotron inside of the Swiss mountain travelling at? We suspect that the accelerated particles inside of the vacuum of the cyclotron during activation are travelling at a “speed” approaching that of the “speed” of light, but is that “speed” reduced when they collide and cause an arcing spark of light? No two snowflakes of the trillions that have fallen have ever been found to have been identical. There is no physical way “The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum—pinpointed to 299,792,458 meters per second by hundreds of experiments—“could ever be real. The only constancy light has is that it is the only stationary substance in the Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 06:56 GMT
Joe

Speed is a difference established by comparison. We cannot know any ‘actual’ speed, because by definition, we cannot externalise ourselves from this physical existence and hence gain access to an extrinsic reference against which to calibrate speeds within it. So the issue is one of reference and maintaining consistency thereof, so that various results are comparable. That is, if the measurement process is effected properly, then the differences are ‘real’ within the closed system of physical existence.

Light is just another physical entity, it enables sight since the evolution of a sensory system, but it is not physical existence (reality). Light results from an atomic interaction, therefore its start speed is always constant. But after that, as with any physical entity, its speed is affected by environmental conditions. There is also, of course, a need to differentiate between the physically existent state which is conveying the light, and the physically existent effect which is what is utilised in sight.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
The Special Relativity Fudge

"Let's now start from scratch and see what the theory of Special Relativity is all about. We'll take the route that Einstein took and use two postulates as the basis of the theory. We'll start with the speed-of-light postulate: The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame. I don't claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that it's easy to understand what the statement says (even if you think it's too silly to be true). It says the following. Consider a train moving along the ground at constant velocity. Someone on the train shines a light from one point on the train to another. Let the speed of the light with respect to the train be c (~3.10^8m/s). Then the above postulate says that a person on the ground also sees the light move at speed c. This is a rather bizarre statement."

It is not bizarre, it is absurd. The person on the train sees (measures):

speed of light c ; frequency f=c/L ; wavelength L.

The person on the ground sees either:

speed of light c+v ; frequency f'=(c+v)/L ; wavelength L (Newton's emission theory);

or:

speed of light c ; frequency f'=(c+v)/L ; wavelength L'=cL/(c+v) (special relativity).

Clearly the emission theory's prediction is physically reasonable while the special relativity's prediction that "the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame" is a fudge - it absurdly (and implicitly in the relativistic literature) presupposes that the wavelength is measured to be L on the train but L'=cL/(c+v) on the ground.

See more here:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Education in Divine Albert's world: For both sound waves and light waves, as the observer starts moving towards the wave source, the frequency increases and the wavelength decreases so that their product, the speed of the wave, can gloriously remain the same, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

"INTRODUCTION: Our ears detect changes in the frequency of sound waves due to the Doppler shift, but the waves change in another way, too: in their wavelength. Wavelength and frequency are closely related: if one increases, the other decreases. Their product, the speed of the wave, remains the same. The spaceship in this interactive has an instrument which detects electromagnetic radiation. You can see the wavelength and frequency change as the ship and the source of radiation move through space. EXERCISES: 2. 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? SOLUTIONS: 2. The wavelength shrinks so that about three waves now fit within the graph. (...) The frequency increases."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 12:06 GMT
Pentcho,

...so propagating emissions 'passing by' the observer remain at relative c+v because they do NOT interact. While any emissions interacting (so DETECTED) are instantaneously slowed to the speed c/n in the frame of the observer lens, by the interaction. The propagation speed change factors are thus n and v.

If you finish the explanation, as above, it ceases to be nonsense. I suggest that only those indoctrinated with nonsensical assumptions can't see the clarity of the above. If anyone thinks they can falsify the above solution please offer it. I have entirely failed. Thanks. DFM Quantum Relativity (QR)

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Pentcho,

Only as absurd as Earth orbiting the sun was to those with other beliefs embedded so unfamiliar with the concept.

If the light from the train obeys the Law of Refraction on encountering and propagating through the windows of the train it is then re-emitted into the air outside the train and obeys the Law of Refraction yet again by propagating at c through the air, but thus Doppler shifted.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Law of Refraction is wrong just because you can't understand atomic scattering and simple dynamic evolution of interaction? A little effort and you could do so - I assume.

Shift in frequency may indeed then imply shift in speed, to c in each local frame. The postulate is fine. Only the assumption that 'background = absolute' is falsified.

Please actually respond to the discussion. Otherwise it's valueless chantings.

What grounds do you have to imply that the Law of Refraction is wrong?

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 18:18 GMT
Peter,

While I am still considerably elaborating my file concerning Michelson's illusory expectations, I see no need for bothering the community with one more premature version because my health has meanwhile improved. You are certainly right: The law of refraction is not wrong. Did you check my last file available at 1364?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Eckard,

I read your file. I find beams and rays unphysical concepts mixed with waves and quanta. I nevertheless agree some of the fundamentals, but then I see it's flaws taking up up a dead end street.

I think a good (non dynamic) consistent model of basic wave reflection is here;

Ufimtsev, P.Y., Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction, (also Electron Beams and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Incidentally, going back to the article itself, there are two fundamental flaws in the thinking:

1 The speed of light is not the “universe’s speed limit”. Physical existence is different from the light based representation of that, which is what we receive. There is no reason, until proven otherwise, why there are not rates of alteration in physical existence which are faster than c. Light just enables sight, it is not a fundamental component of existential reality. Indeed, there are a number of reasons why, having first understood that light is not existence, caution has to be exercised in presuming what information light is actually conveying about physical existence. Because, as light is a physical entity in its own right, it has physical properties which could impede its ability to effect the functional role it has acquired with the development of the sight sensory system. Furthermore, that could vary over the lifetime of physical existence. The relationship between what physically constitutes light, and physical existence needs to be established, in order to understand what existed.

2 That light ‘broke’ its own speed limit. It can only break its own speed limit if a certain speed limit is physically justifiable, which it is not. Light is just a physical entity, which moves. During the entire existence of the physical existence being considered, there is no reason why light could not have had different speeds, and indeed, in the future, have a different speed from that currently prevailing. The task is to establish whether or not this was so.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Is Einstein's False Light Postulate Falsifiable?

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory. However FitzGerald and Lorentz introduced, ad hoc, "length contraction" in order to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Pentcho,

As soon as I will be in position to reply to Peter, I will reveal that he is wrong when rejecting ray methods and preferring to invoke a refractory index as to explain MMX.

I would like you to also deal with my argument that Michelson's null result was correct but his expectation was wrong, which was perhaps inspired by Potier 1881 and Lorentz 1886. If so, then the MMX did not at all disprove an absolute space. Their reasoning was undeniably incorrect and therefore illusory. Feist illustrated the correct factor 1+(v/c)^2 instead of 1+0.5(v/c)^2 by an accurate acoustic measurement.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
In Big Brother's world 2+2=5 is true while 2+2=4 is both false and forbidden. Einsteinians have found an even better way to destroy human rationality: in Divine Albert's world 2+2=5 is gloriously true but 2+2=4 is true as well, even though this second truth is not accompanied by glory. So it is taught that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory but at the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Eckard,

While waiting, could you help me find a problem; If the only way we can observe light ('rays if you wish) 'going PAST us' (not interacting) is via scattered light signals from individual particles in the medium (or Quantum Vacuum), then;

If we move towards the source at high speed but looking rather sideways, so observing the scattered light emissions, which particular part of the light is supposed to be breaching maximum speed c???

(we already know of course that light that enters our lenses then propagates at c/n)

In other words, Why do we need all this complicated paradoxical length contraction, time dilation, LT and circular mathematical formula to resolve a 'problem' that never seems to have existed in the first place.

I've studied every bit of light involved in all cases and can't find the bit actually supposedly propagating faster than c. Perhaps I just don't understand nature. Can you help?

Many thanks

Peter

(PS. Can anyone also quietly advise me about the King's new clothes?)

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
Peter

Not sure about fashion. But I can say that one can only 'observe light' with light. That is what observation is. And as far as I know, light does not interact with light, otherwise we would live in a very bizarre world, although if it did, the sensory system of sight would never have developed in the first place, because light would then be useless as a means of enabling awareness of existence. As you say, light cannot, by definition, exceed its own physical speed limit. How it propagates is the question, and as you say, all these 'complications' are the result of attempts to make flawed hypothesis fit reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 08:11 GMT
Peter,

Our library has the book you recommended to me. Hopefully I will soon get in position to read it. Anyway I already noticed and appreciated that it treated electromagnetic waves and acoustic ones together.

Given just one ideal homogeneous medium air, the speed of sound re that air is always the same. This is logical justified and experimentally provable. The measured with a moving re that air Michelson arrangement two-way speed does however necessarily deviate. The problem with its interpretation is irrelevant in acoustics.

You mentioned light scattered from moving particles. Does sound emitted from a supersonic jet propagate with higher than c_air speed re air within air? No. The speed of sound in air does not depend on the motion of emitter or receiver. I am not aware of an emission theory in acoustics. It's energy, not bodies, what propagates in waves. Waves do not emit waves.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Eckard, Paul.

Excellent. We well know that both the sound and light from a moving jet propagate at constant speeds wrt the medium rest frame (well call them c' and c").

So let's assume the quantum vacuum with all it's 'fields', is just the diffuse medium our probes all find, so can have a kinetic identity (local background as the datum). That axiom itself resolves almost all the paradoxes, just leaving ONE, which we'll return to.

So consider superman flying towards the jet as the light and sound flashes past him at c' and c" in the medium. He has earphones on, but can track the motion of both past him with his supersight, as Paul agrees, by the light from the particles energised, just like a string of light bulbs.

But is superman dim enough to believe he must be seeing a breach of the laws of physics as he flies past that string of light bulbs as velocity v, seeing apparent c+v?

Of course not. It seems they're a bit cleverer on Krypton than most of us back here are. The whole of our physics is based on a rather stupid assumption!

And the one remaining paradox? No paradox there either; When he looks ahead and takes his earphones off, the sound and light waves interact with less time interval.

It makes no real difference here HOW they propagate; You tell me WHERE they're supposed to be breaching c.!!

The only problem seems to be we've been deeply indoctrinated with not terribly sensible beliefs. Yes?

Best wishes

Peter

PS Eckard. You have much of the value of the book already. But beware, as most things it also has a limited viewpoint and flaws.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They?

A decade ago Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin discovered that Einstein's special relativity is "the root of all the evil" in physics and that the ultimate culprit is Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 3, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
Pentcho

SR, as defined by Einstein, is not under threat, because by definition, it is correct. Useless, but correct. The underlying concept of relativity is what should be under threat, because it is contradictory to physical existence. However, that threat will never be effected whilst people base it on the presumption that Einsten was concerned with light. He may have spoken of light in his postulate, he may make references to observers, and frame of reference. But that does not make it so. In order for what he refers to as light, to be light, it has to do what light does. And it does not. What he refers to as light is just a constant which is used to calibrate duration and distance. That confusion leads to some obvious flaws in his subsequent theory which revolve around a misunderstanding of time and the elevation of light to a determinant factor in physical existence which it cannot have, After all, it is just a physically existent phenomenon which enables sight. But supposedly resolving the dichotomy of constancy and light will not succeed as a proof, because there was no such issue in the first place. I can call a cathedral a ball, but it does not make it so. Einstein can call something light, bit it does not make it so.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 3, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (II)

From now on, the most embarrassing question in physics will be:

Why has the absurdity of special relativity not been noticed earler?

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 4, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (III)

Einstein had convinced himself special relativity was wrong within two years of publishing it:

Lee Smolin: "Quantum mechanics was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 5, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (IV)

The crucial dilemma in today's physics:

1. Scientists continue to claim (although very few of them believe it) that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. As a result, physics is getting more and more schizophrenic and dignitaries continue to leave the sinking ship:

John Baez: "Should I be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 6, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (V)

The validity of the following argument can be rigorously proved:

PREMISE: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential just as the speed of ordinary material bodies does.

CONCLUSION: If the observer moves towards the light source with speed v (in the absence of a gravitational field), then the speed of light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of special relativity.

That is, special relativity is false or true in virtue of whether or not the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Albert Einstein Institute: "...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 replied on Mar. 7, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (VI)

It's Likely That Times Are Changing, André du Plessis: "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (VII)

Dr. Ricardo Eusebi demonstrates how both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer but declares that only the frequency varies, the speed of light does not, no it doesn't, Divine Albert clearly said it doesn't, why on earth should it vary, what will happen to us if it varies, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, 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."

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."

The speed of light that varies with the speed of the observer but should be seen as invariable in Divine Albert's world is discussed in more detail here:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Special Relativity's Days Are Numbered Aren't They? (VIII)

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT
Relativity: Fifty Years of Fraud, Then Fifty Years of Honesty

Special relativity: Initial fifty years of fraud:

Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 12:02 GMT
Pentcho

You just do not get it, do you.

Quite obviously, the speed of light has absolutely nothing to do with observation. The event occurred before the light was received (ie ceased to exist in that physical form). Light does not possess some form of telepathic attribute which detects whether it is going to interact with an eye or a brick wall. Physical existence occurs before, and ceases at, observation. Light is just a physically existent entity which is moving, and that alteration in spatial position can be calibrated in the same way as any other entity. As a result of the subsequent evolution of sight, light has acquired a functional role, which is dependent upon it being received by the appropriate sensory system. But that can in no way affect its physical existence.

The issue here is that, despite what Einstein declared his second postulate to be, he did not use it as such. He took an example of light (ie a beam, or lightening), declared it constant, and used it as a measuring reference to calibrate duration and distance. In other words, it is not light. Just a meaningless constant. There is no observation happening with Einstein, because there is nothing to effect observation with. He conflates existential reality and the light based representation of it.

Incidentally, the Cox/Forshaw book you refer to is a very good reference, as it sets out the entire argument in simple terms, and thereby, inadvertantly, easily enables identification of the mistakes. Which ultiimately culminate in the fact that E does not = mc2. The speed of light does not have such an effect in physical existence, it is just influential in what we see, which is different.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 08:25 GMT
Relativity: Fifty Years of Fraud, Then Fifty Years of Honesty (II)

Somewhat paradoxically, the "honesty" established in Einsteiniana in the last few decades is genuine sometimes. So Einsteinians explain the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) by correctly assuming that the wavelength is not affected by the motion of the observer:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 09:35 GMT
Relativity: Fifty Years of Fraud, Then Fifty Years of Honesty (III)

Michio Kaku lying blatantly:

Michio Kaku: "When Einstein studied Maxwell's theory of light, he found something that others missed - that the speed of light always appears the same, no matter how quickly you move. Einstein then boldly formulated the principle of special relativity: The speed of light is a constant in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 18:16 GMT
"Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz (1878-1909), physicien théoricien de génie", sous la direction de Jean-Claude Pont.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT
Superluminal Signals and Divine Albert's Divine Theory

Experimentalists send a signal, detect its arrival and determine its speed: the speed is (e.g. four times) greater than c=300000 km/s. A world sensation of course but then experimentalists have to devise some reason why Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains unaffected, e.g. "Divine Albert's Divine Theory is unaffected because crocodiles...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Doppler Effect Means Variable Speed of Light

Tony Harker: "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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Doppler Effect Means Variable Speed of Light (II)

THEOREM: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer (c'=c+v) if and only if it varies with the gravitational potential (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)).

The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speed u. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

The top of a tower of height h emits a light pulse downwards with initial speed c. As the pulse reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Einsteinians admit the validity of and sometimes even deduce the above result:

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Doppler Effect Means Variable Speed of Light (III)

In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. Accordingly, by measuring the gravitational redshift of light coming from astronomical objects we in fact measure THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT (generally, any frequency shift is a measure of a shift in the speed of light):

Albert...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 19:08 GMT
Pentcho

I am also supporter variable speed of light, more concrete cosmological decreasing speed of light as well as sinchronously decreasing speed of gravity

i will try to show detail:

I hope to explain my suspicions. ….

and share my doubts about the Planck length &time

Persy Bridgman,American physicist, winner 1946 Nobel Prize in Physics in his book "Dimensional Analysis". very sceptic and critical about Planck units.

I have different arguments to support Bridgman's point of view.

Does all Planck units have sense ?

1.We doesn’t have guarantee G, c, stay constants or not, during the evolution of the Universe. The Universe is still young(13.7) 2.We doesn’t have guarantee G, c depend of each other or not.

Version 1. G and c not depend from each other and not vary. Silent agreement all modern physicists.

Version 2. G and c depend from each other and vary.

Version 3. G and c not depend from each other, but depended from third value, expanded medium of the Universe(density of vacuum). Likely that G and c simultaneously vary…and have some term. They depended only from time. Nothing lasts forever exept of time. Every exstrapolation (inflation hypothesis, etc) is false.

But we naïve used formulas:

1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2 If G=f(c)^2 ??? or c=f(G) ???

2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3

If G=f(c)^3 ??? or c=f(G) ???

3.Cosmological constant

If G=f(C)^4 ???? or c=f(G) ???

4.Planck unit T of time G/c^5

If G=f(c)^5 ??? or c=f(G) ???

5.Planck unit M of mass c/G

What is correspond to real world?

If all, it would be absurd

Possible case when Planck unit of mass stay constant (contrary to Planck length unit and Planck time unit) when G and c simultaneously vary.

To my opinion only version #5 linear link between G and c is real….

And #1,2,3,4 are fake that only teasing physics.

I would be grateful for your comment….

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Relativity Paradoxes Are Absurdities, Don't You See?

"April 27: Dr. Kasey Wagoner, lecturer in physics, will discuss "Pole vaulters and Barns." In 1905 Albert Einstein put forth his earth-shaking theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's seemingly unremarkable assertion that the speed of light must be constant had many remarkable effects. Included in these effects are length contraction...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Relativity Paradoxes Are Absurdities, Don't You See? (II)

The travelling twin possesses two synchronized clocks - one (A) at the front end and the other (B) at the back end of a very long spaceship moving with constant speed towards the sedentary twin. As A passes the sedentary twin, the latter sets his clock to read the same as A. According to special relativity, when later B passes the sedentary twin, B shows more time elapsed than the sedentary twin's clock. That is, special relativity predicts that, as the travelling twin performs the forward part of the trip, he measures the sedentary twin's clock to run SLOWER than his own.

In this scenario things are so planned in advance by the travelling twin that, at the moment B reaches the sedentary twin's clock, the spaceship stops and both A and B stop ticking (simultaneously as judged in the spaceship). The sedentary twin's clock is also stopped by adjacent B. In this pause between the forward and the backward part of the trip, A and B read the same and the sedentary twin's clock reads less. This is what special relativity predicts if measurements are done in the travelling twin's (inertial) system.

Einsteinians,

Do you agree that, in the pause between the forward and the backward part of the trip as defined above, both twins see less time elapsed on the sedentary twin's clock than on A and B? Can you suggest a scenario for the remaining backward part of the trip (with B at the front end and A at the back end of the spaceship) such that, when A and the sedentary twin's clock meet at the end, the latter shows more time elapsed than A, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
Relativity Paradoxes Are Absurdities, Don't You See? (III)

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."

Since the travelling twin has to shift his...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Relativity Paradoxes Are Absurdities, Don't You See? (IV)

"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 end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. (...) All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
Is All Motion Relative? It Appears the Answer Is Yes!

"IS ALL MOTION RELATIVE? (...) IT APPEARS THE ANSWER IS NO. (...) SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT RELATIVE. The speed of light is c, and it's c regardless of the source of the light or the perspective of the observer. Let's look at an example. Imagine you're traveling away from the sun at a velocity that is really close to the speed of light -...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Is All Motion Relative? It Appears the Answer Is Yes! (II)

The following argument is valid (that is, the conclusion does follow from the hypotheses, no matter whether they are true or false):

Hypothesis 1: As the observer starts moving towards the source of the light waves with speed v, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v. (In fact, this variation of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Is All Motion Relative? It Appears the Answer Is Yes! (III)

John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwells electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v."

Is this prediction of Newton's emission theory of light confirmed experimentally? Yes it is. If the speed of light is c'=c+v, then the frequency the observer sees (measures) is f'=(c+v)/L=f(1+v/c), where L is the wavelength and f is the frequency seen by an observer at rest relative to the emitter.

That is, the assumption c'=c+v entails the formula f'=f(1+v/c); the latter has been confirmed countless times:

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."

Pentcho Valev