Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 3/19/12 at 22:30pm UTC, wrote :) now we are going to apply a Bose Einstein condensation to photons ! N...

Paul Reed: on 3/19/12 at 20:06pm UTC, wrote Peter (Eckard) This is a response to your post (19/3 15.18) in Topic: On...

Paul Reed: on 3/9/12 at 11:19am UTC, wrote Peter I am not "translating" anything. At most what I do is refer what...

Peter Jackson: on 3/9/12 at 8:25am UTC, wrote Paul It is you because you did not comprehend, just translated it to...

Anonymous: on 3/9/12 at 8:01am UTC, wrote Peter ""But in reality this is not the case." And I am discussing...

Peter Jackson: on 3/8/12 at 10:18am UTC, wrote Paul "But in reality this is not the case." And I am discussing reality. ...

Paul Reed: on 3/8/12 at 8:21am UTC, wrote Peter “Again you totally missed the important point about the spatially...

Paul Reed: on 3/8/12 at 7:05am UTC, wrote James “I can't remember you commenting except to pull out some words...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, But what is a fractal? A fractal is not just a pictorial outcome..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
September 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Some-When [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 01:57 GMT
It’s Halloween. The nights are lengthening, the shadows deepening (if you’re reading this in North America, anyway). The air has a chill sharpness, at once apple-sweet and faintly frightful, with that first, tentative hint of winter. Perfect time for a tall tale.

Make no mistake, what follows isn’t science. I don’t claim that it’s true, or even plausible . . . though it might just be conceivable, quite a different thing.

But, even if not, speculative fictions need not be without a place on the scientific thinker’s internal bookshelf, if only because such scenarios stimulate our sense of wonder and fascination about the many surprises nature still keeps behind the curtain—and of that, there can be no doubt.

So grab a mug of cider, or a few of those miniature Snickers bars resting at the bottom of the candy bowl. Lights down. Everybody hush.

Ready?



August, 1901. Three years to go before a young patent examiner named Einstein will submit papers to *Annalen der Physik* on the photoelectric effect, Brownian Motion, and something he calls “Special Relativity.” Two years since Sigmund Freud has released his pioneering work *The Interpretation of Dreams.*

In late summer, Charlotte Anne Moberly, the Principal of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford, takes a train to Versailles with her assistant Eleanor Jourdain (sister of mathematician Phillip Jourdain, in correspondence with Cantor and Frege, and himself working on logical paradoxes). These two genteel academics are planning to tour the Palace—which they do, and, finding it rather pedestrian as palaces go, decide instead on a leisurely stroll through the gardens. They are headed for a classic French chateau that still stands nearby. Becoming lost in the gardens en route, however, they begin to improvise, taking a short-cut down a smallish lane, crossing a bridge, quite unaware that they have already passed their intended destination.

Yet something stranger than a confusion over their location in space soon overtakes them. They also become confused as to their location in time . . . so much so that, according to enthusiasts of what is now called the “Moberly-Jourdain Incident,” the two women experience a “time-slip”— stepping directly into the past, by over a century.

Not that M/J understood what was happening all at once. Rather, at first they experienced only a disorienting sense of unreality, as if wandering in a dream. People around them became oddly few, and those who remained were wearing antique clothing. There were small cottages here and there; a weathered farmhouse with a plough out front. Stranger still, everyone seemed to be disturbingly static—including a little girl reaching out for a jug, held in her mother’s hands, forever. Even plant life appeared, somehow, frozen in time. "Everything suddenly looked unnatural,” Moberly would later write, “therefore unpleasant; even the trees seemed to become flat and lifeless, like wood worked in tapestry. There were no effects of light and shade, and no wind stirred the trees.”

Some things did move, however, in this bizarrely liminal place—such as the two men they eventually spoke to, whom Moberly described as "very dignified officials, dressed in long greyish green coats with small three-cornered hats." Or that rude fellow wearing a cloak, with his smallpox-scarred face . . . or that woman sketching on the grass over there, who looks so curiously like Marie Antionette . . .



Finding their way out of this haze, M/J re-entered the world of mundane modernity (of the 1901 variety, anyway) and left Versailles with no more than the giggling suspicion that perhaps the gardens were haunted. Becoming more and more curious as to what they had actually experienced, however, they returned in time (ha ha) to Versailles, only to find their walking path gone, the tourist gardens predictably crowded, and no sign of any bad-skinned people in out-of-date clothing. Finally, in 1911 the two published an anonymous account, titled “An Adventure,” which became the season’s runaway sensation. Marie Antoinette seen in modern-day Paris! It has remained popular, at least among occult types, to this day—not by virtue of the ho-hum explanation (ghosts), but by dint of the suggestion that what these women experienced was a “temporal anomaly”: some kind of brief flaw in time itself, into which they were swept . . .

Okay, lights up.

Alas, it’s only a fable: a bit more digging into the Moberly-Jourdain Incident finds all the holes (and not spacetime ones). Most interesting from a psychological perspective, “An Adventure” may be a classic case of what modern psychologists call folie à deux—the “Barney and Betty Hill” phenomenon, where two emotionally close people (yes, what you’re thinking has been suggested about Moberly and Jourdain) become entwined in each other’s fantasy life, creating between them a self-reinforcing delusion.

But the notion of a “time-slip” is still a fascinating one. In my own personal time-tripping, I recall seeing a made-for-T.V. adaptation of “An Adventure” back in the 80’s, called “Mrs. Morrison’s Ghosts,” the concluding sequence to which haunts me, pleasantly, to this day.

So around Halloween, I like to ask friends in the physics community how a time-slip such as the one described in the MJI could conceivably occur. At this moment in the evolution of our understanding, we have plausible speculation on ways by which one’s relative past might be revisited: Einstein-Rosen Bridges; information encoded somehow in superluminal tachyons; looping around a cosmic string; and so on. FQXi people are hot on the trail of such exotica, as recent postings show. Some cosmologists feel the paradoxes involved militate strongly against such possibilities, though it’s notable that GR doesn’t rule them out. In the meantime, without even a theory of quantum gravity, we would be rash to put time-travel into the make-believe category altogether.

Those experiences, though—if they are ever had—will be nothing remotely like “An Adventure.” Nothing I am aware of would allow for unintentional, survivable (!), self-correcting “mishaps” in the light cone of so subtle, and personal, a nature (perhaps you have ideas to share).

Yet the speculating mind is drawn down this shadowy byway. The notion is just eerie enough to linger. Perhaps this Halloween, stepping outside just after midnight to blow out the jack-o-lantern at the end of the walk, as the mists of early morning crowd your ankles, you too will walk accidentally off . . . to some-when . . .



Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 02:49 GMT
Dear Orem,

One must accept that the past exists in order to even think of "we have plausible speculation on ways by which one's relative past might be revisited."

I have not had time to real all of the FQXi threads on time, but it seems to me that Julian Barbour and Georgina Parry have the most reasonable approach to the problem of time. In their approach time exists NOW and only now, as interacting physical reality, although information flows at the speed of light, so that information about events that occurred in 'the past' may be reaching one only now.

You say, after discussing a fantasy, that "Yet the speculating mind is drawn down this shadowy byway."

One might, rather than 'speculating', consider 'experiencing' such shadowy byways, by virtue of the [legal in most states] Salvia Divinorum. The effect of such experience may be to shut down certain speculations and open up new pathways heretofore not even glimpsed. But this may take one outside of Lagrangian formulations and therefore be perceived as discomforting and discombobulating. Effects reported in Wikipedia include:

* Past memories, such as revisiting places from childhood memory

* Sensations of motion, or being pulled or twisted by forces

* Visions of membranes, films and various two-dimensional surfaces

* Merging with or becoming objects

* Overlapping realities, such as the perception of being in several locations at once

But Halloween will never be the same again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 05:58 GMT
Anon

It has nothing to do with only existing now. Neither is it to do with the information we receive about reality, which is, of itself, different from reality, and just involves a delay between existence and reaching eyeball (ears/etc).

What you are experiencing is change. Reality is changing. But only one state, in any given change sequence,exists at a time. To measure the rate of change, and compare disparate types of change, we have a duration measuring system, called time.

Paul

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Dears,

Past 'exists'? What the verb 'to exists' means? Is there any difference between 'exist' and 'happen'?

Both are realities, but the spinning happens while the top exists. So,

obviously yes! And obviously that no time - doesn't matter past or presente 'exists'(sic) too.

For instance, what means or 'is' time? Does time exists as an isolated aspect of cosmos? It's not by chance that time was initially defined onto the Earth spin and around the Sun.

Both are movements and is motion of matter that makes 'time' a reality. Time is elapsed as a consequence of motion. Onto a supposed 'frozen system', where no motion - macro or micro - occurs, no time could elapse.

What defines time is the same thing that defines energy: motion! So, time and energy are exactly the same thing: time is "another aspect of energy".

In other words: "Time means that matter of a 'system' occupies in a 'before' a different spatial position than in an 'after' ".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 09:42 GMT
A frozen system is the same as one instance of light, or sound, whatever, or there is only has one existent state at a time. No time elapses in that situation, because there is no change. Note there are still 3 values available for space. It is not just motion, that is but one attribute that can change.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Everything is in our mind, constructed by our consciousness, we think we see the past because the buildings around us are "stable" or aren't they ? LSD gives a view of moving walls, it creates another reality for an individual. Every individual has a unique view of reality because everyone takes adifferent place in space, so every signal is arriving at different moments, we all perceive a different past. In our dreams we perceive another reality also created by our consciousness, there we can fly (you can feel it), again it is our consciousness that realises the so called reality that we experience, it creates a so called life-line from the quanta available in the non causal fifth dimension that exists behind the so called Planck-Wall, if you are able to create a life-line in the past (in a non causal universe the sequence of the moments is no longer existant, all moments are "present") you will live in the past, this will not take any "time sequences " in this reality (let us say reality 1), so others will never see any difference when you made your journey, only it exists in your consciousness and perhaps you can meet (rarely) people who also have this gift, you can write a book about it, or they just call you crazy.

keep on thinking free

happy halloween

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 21:20 GMT
Mr. Oren: I wasn't sure where to put this question, so can you either answer it or kick it to another cosmology expert? My question is about nuclear synthesis in the big bang model. Apx. 1 s ATB (after the bang), the entire universe was filled with a plasma of Quarks and Gluons. As the next 3 min. when by (i think i haved the sequence right), it had cooled off enough for the plasma to eddy and clump.

Later, the first atoms started to form: groups of three quarks bound up to form protons and neutrons. So the plasma was still highly charged. Eventually free electrons where captured to make the first electrically neutral atoms. Suddenly all the photons where free (they only interact with electrically charged particles), and the CMB was born.

My Question is: where did the electrons come from? If three quarks make a proton, and three other (i think) quarks make a neutron, where is the electron coming from? I thought a neutron was simply a combination of a proton and an electron? So three quarks + and electron makes a neutron? That's a lot of questions.

So to simplify, where did the electrons come from, if they are fundamental and not made up of quarks, where did they come from in the quark gluon plasma?

thanks. and this site is getting more amazing by the day. FQXI, the intelligent person's Facebook!

And since the easy answer these days is: strings performing different vibrational patterns create quarks and electrons. So the quark-gluon plasma, being strings vibrating, contains electrons (a different vibrational string pattern) already, in the form of strings. Pretend I'm asking this question 50 years ago, and point=particle QM Field Theory is all there is...

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 10:29 GMT
Block universe, illusion of time etc vigorously restored:

Recently important Einsteinians left Einsteiniana's sinking ship and almost explicitly shifted allegiance to old Newtonian space-time:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI
/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

http://www.ne
wscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-univers
e-tick.html

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

"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."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i
s-time-an-illusion

Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

However Einsteiniana is still alive and strikes back: No standard "justification" of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate anymore (the Michelson-Morley experiment has become too dangerous), just a pernicious conversion of the postulate's absurd consequences into breathtaking miracles:

http://www.atheismtv.com/blog/2011/11/brian-greenes
-the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-ep-1-what-is-space/

Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Ep. 1 - What Is Space?

http://www.atheismtv.com/blog/2011/11/brian-greene%E2%
80%99s-the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-ep-2-the-illusion-of-time/

Br
ian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Ep. 2 - The Illusion of Time

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT
Nature has perniciously deceived us but Brian Greene will liberate our souls:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html

"Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we knew about our universe - that the past has already happened and the future is yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only universe that exists - just might be wrong."

Nature has lied to us systematically. Many of Brian Greene's revelations are based on the absolutely true fact (established by Divine Albert) that the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer (rather, it is the wavelength that varies), and wicked Nature has made everything to mislead us into believing that the speed of light does vary:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

However John Norton, another liberator of our souls, unmasked Nature's deceitful nature:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big
_bang/index.html

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)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
Painful self-brainwashing in Einsteiniana:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-t
ime-we-thought-we-knew.html

Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power, however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization."

Orwell called the process of self-brainwashing "exercising oneself in crimestop":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22

George Orwell: "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 pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 13:19 GMT
A succinct introduction to Einsteiniana's schizophrenia:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/max-tegmark-time.html

Max Tegmark: "If someone asked Isaac Newton, "Excuse me, what's the time?" he would have felt that that question made sense because he believed that there was "the time," the absolute time, which was completely well-defined and ticked at the same rate for everybody. And Einstein overturned this and said no, each clock, even a perfect atomic clock, will run at a different rate, which depends on how fast the clock is moving and how far down it is in the Earth's gravitational field. It's all relative. The question, "What is the time?" is actually a trick question. There is no "the time," and "the time" flows at a different rate depending on how fast you're moving and depending on where you are."

Tegmark's students forced to sing dithyrambs to Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply that planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation and look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

If Tegmark's students knew what was happening to them, they would sing a different song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIHNN0DiGM

Where once was light now darkness falls. (...) So in the end I'll be what I will be. (...) You are lost. You can never go home. You are lost. You can never go home.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 22:15 GMT
Dr Cosmic Ray, Help !!!Dear FQXi, I have people in my pc, at the begining I thought( and my parano was for that.) that several of my fqxi friends were against me. I see now it is not from you. I have people who blocks my pc on linkedin on the leadership think tank group. If i was parano, it was because I thought that Ray,th,florin, jonathan,lawrence, joy,Lisi ....stole my theory with mathematical superimposings. I am sorry if I was parano. But I have people in my pc.Ray Munroe, Dr Cosmic Ray, wo are these people against me ? If I thought that it was you, sorry. If you can help me in coming on linkedin think tank, it could be cool, I must find who are these people !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 01:14 GMT
Hi Steve,

You have people in your PC? Do they use slide rules to make their calculations? And my car is squirrel-powered...

I have been on APS linkedin some - particularly on the "Faster than the Speed of Light?" blog. I have seen a lot of interesting ideas, although my own are probably closest to Hans van Leunen's quaternion physics.

Did APS linkin block you? I haven't noticed your posts in the past month. I have been busy at work, and busy trying to finish up this latest paper with Jonathan Dickau. Our paper was published in Prespacetime Journal yesterday, so it is finally on the internet.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT
Ray I am really parano. People says me also now I have the syndrom of Asperger now. My pc becomes crazzy Ray.what is all this circus.

This planet is bizare sometimes.

I am blocked everywhere on quantum physics, aps, institute of physicis, Cern ,Royal society...all these groups, I can not write !

What a world Ray.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

If you have Asperger's syndrome, it might explain both your high intelligence and your poor social skills. Did they prescribe medication? You seem to be the sort of out-of-balance person who could greatly benefit from the correct prescription medicine (not pot or salvia).

I am sorry that they banned you from those web sites. Perhaps part of the problem is that English is your 4th language, and your humor and determination are greatly mis-understood. Could you write apologies to the blog masters?

Take Care!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT
The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana: "THE MOTION OF AN OBSERVER DOES NOT ALTER THE WAVELENGTH":

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Einsteinians desperately exercise themselves in crimestop in order to discover the mechanism by which the motion of the observer does alter the wavelength but no success so far:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22

George Orwell: "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 pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
In order to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, an Einsteinian exercising himself in crimestop must be able at one moment to draw a straightforward analogy between an observer moving against sound waves and an observer moving against light waves - both pass wavecrests more frequently than a resting observer - but then to come to the idiotic conclusion that, while the motion of the observer does not alter the wavelength of sound waves, it does alter the wavelength of light waves so that the speed of the light relative to the observer can gloriously remain unchanged. The task is extremely difficult and beyond the intellectual grasp of almost all Einsteinians:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22

George Orwell: "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."

So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big
_bang/index.html

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)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 12:34 GMT
The good old days: Making career and money by questioning the unquestionable (only selected "mavericks" in Einsteiniana are allowed to attack the principle of constancy of the speed of light; anyone else questioning Divine Albert's Divine Theory is, by definition, crackpot, crank, troll etc. and is fiercely persecuted):

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/
dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, 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 such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Magueijo and Smolin do not want to attack the principle of constancy of the speed of light anymore. Their only care is to leave Einsteiniana's sinking ship as promptly as possible:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/A
AAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 22:52 GMT
Analogy between sound waves and light waves:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Wormholes-Time-Machi
nes/dp/0750305606

Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines, Jim Al-Khalili, pp. 49-50: "...consider a more familiar phenomenon called the Doppler shift which, as you probably know, is the change in pitch you hear when, say, a fast ambulance goes past you. The reason for this effect is the change in frequency of the sound waves which reach you from the ambulance when it is in two different situations: moving towards you and moving away from you. When it approaches, the waves of sound get squashed up, giving rise to a higher frequency (high pitch) but when it is receding the waves are stretched out to give a lower frequency (low pitch). The same thing happens to light. When an object is moving away from us - say a distant galaxy - the waves of light that reach us from it get stretched and the frequency of the light goes down. Instead of the frequency of the light we more often talk about its wavelength. You probably remember something about wavelengths from your school physics. You know, ripple tanks, long springs that stretched across the class. What fun! Anyway, the wavelength is the distance between two consecutive wave crests. So a drop in frequency of light is really due to the stretching of the wavelengths."

Jim Al-Khalili,

As the observer starts moving towards the SOUND source, the wavelength of the sound waves remains unchanged - the increase in frequency that the observer registers is due to an increase in the speed of the sound waves relative to him. You say above: "The same thing happens to light." Does this mean that, as the observer starts moving towards the LIGHT source, the wavelength of the light waves remains unchanged - the increase in frequency that the observer registers is due to an increase in the speed of the light waves relative to him?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 12:17 GMT
Moving observer measures VARIABLE speed of light:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

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."

By taking into account the formula:

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

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Exercising oneself in crimestop (e.g. by presenting oneself with the proposition "Divine Albert has said that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the observer) is no longer possible:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22

George Orwell: "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 pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Truth in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: Einsteinians show that the speed of light varies with gh, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) (an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg

Relativity 3 - gravity and light

Of course, this truth is unnoticeable since two blatant lies are officially taught: that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field (for beginners) and that it varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) (for advanced Einsteinians):

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Steph
en-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (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...)"

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Around 1911 Einstein proposed to incorporate gravitation into a modified version of special relativity by allowing the speed of light to vary as a scalar from place to place in Euclidean space as a function of the gravitational potential. This "scalar c field" is remarkably similar to a simple refractive medium, in which the speed of light varies as a function of the density. Fermat's principle of least time can then be applied to define the paths of light rays as geodesics in the spacetime manifold (as discussed in Section 8.4). 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. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 12:15 GMT
Moving observer paradoxes in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.p
df

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). (...) Relativistic Doppler Effect. These results depend on the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general) there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity. (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a gamma factor."

Normal physicists clearly see that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength of any wave so the only reasonable conclusion is that the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer (c'=c+v). Accordingly, for the sake of salary, normal physicists are forced to add some idiotic camouflage - the more idiotic, the better.

Paradoxically, deranged Einsteinians do not resort to idiotic camouflage. Silly Einsteinians simply avoid the issue (crimestop) while "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" convincingly declare that the motion of the observer does alter the wavelength and that's it:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/
big_bang/index.html

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)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Note that in 1911 Einstein was forced to introduce gravitational time dilation since he had assumed that light stretches between the emitter and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.htm
l

Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitation potentials must be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
A twin paradox scenario where acceleration is avoided:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html


Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "11.19. Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks. At this moment, let A's clock read TA, and let C's clock read TC. (a) Working in A's frame, show that TC = TA/(gamma). (b) Working in B's frame, show again that TC = TA/(gamma). (c) Working in C's frame, show again that TC = TA/(gamma)."

Note that in this scenario, up to the moment when C sets his clock to read the same as B's, A has been a genuine travelling twin who has completed the outward part of his journey in B's frame. A's clock has been running slow relative to clocks in B's frame, as judged from B's frame.

A will remain a genuine travelling twin in C's frame and will perform the rest of his journey if, as C sets his clock to read the same as B's, simultaneously (in B's frame), at the location of A, another clock belonging to C's frame is set to read the same as another clock belonging to B's frame (it is assumed that clocks in B's frame are synchronized). Then, as A moves between the two clocks belonging to C's frame, his clock is running slow as judged from C's frame.

According to Einstein's special relativity, time dilation is RECIPROCAL. This means that, in a twin paradox scenario where acceleration is avoided, the sedentary twin CAN be interpreted as a travelling twin. Needless to say, such an interpretation amounts to REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - at the end of the journey, either twin proves both younger and older than his brother.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 13:55 GMT
Why the travelling twin is always younger in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoff
mann/dp/0486406768

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."

A scenario in which an "alien" clock moves between clocks at rest in the measurement system is INDISPENSABLE for a system that is to measure time dilation (the "alien" clock shows less time elapsed than clocks at rest in the measurement system, according to special relativity). Einsteiniana's thought experiments implicitly convert the sedentary twin's system into a full-blooded measurement system (that is, capable of measuring time dilation) while the travelling twin's system is reduced to an "alien" clock moving between clocks at rest in the sedentary twin's system. So the travelling twin always returns younger and makes Einsteinians fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Any scenario converting the sedentary twin's clock into an "alien" clock moving between clocks at rest in another system, if analysed correctly, refutes special relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 14:59 GMT
By definition, nothing is absurd in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is an obsolete procedure):

http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/~norman/lectures/A2SR/
part3.pdf

University of Glasgow: "A farmer with a 20m ladder holds it horizontally and runs toward a barn which is 10m deep. The farmer's wife, standing by the barn door, sees him running at a speed at which gamma=2. The ladder is therefore length-contracted to have a measured length of 10m in the barn's frame, so that the ladder will fit entirely into the barn, and the farmer's wife can slam the door behind him, with the '20m' ladder entirely (and briefly!) within the 10m barn..."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

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

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
"According to Einstein's special relativity, time dilation is RECIPROCAL."

No it isn't. There is no privileged reference frame by which one could conclude such. Apparently, you have failed to grasp the meaning of the word "relative."

"This means that, in a twin paradox scenario where acceleration is avoided, the sedentary twin CAN be interpreted as a travelling twin."

So what? All measures in any reference frame are valid and none is privileged.

"Needless to say ..."

If only.

" ... such an interpretation amounts to REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - at the end of the journey, either twin proves both younger and older than his brother."

What journey? You haven't introduced the negative acceleration that returns the travelling twin to his stay at home sibling. THAT journey accounts for the slowed physical processes of the travelling twin RELATIVE to the other. The so called twin paradox is not actually a paradox, and it was resolved long ago. We do, in fact, have direct evidence of anti-aging in the form of long-lived high energy cosmic particles measured relative to those on Earth.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 15:42 GMT
T H Rey,

You should have searched in Google for "time dilation is reciprocal" before demonstrating your competence and reasoning power.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT
Wikipedia is a great start, but it doesn't substitute for the technical knowledge required to understand relativity. Your cut and paste vandalism that you mistake for "competence and reasoning power" obscures, but does not inform.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT
Is time dilation RECIPROCAL, T H Rey?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
If you don't know what time dilation is in the first place, it hardly matters.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Leonard Susskind is sure that, in the absence of acceleration, the roles of the twins can be reversed - "then, surely the previously stationary twin would age less than the previously moving twin":

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relati
vity/lecture-4/time-dilation/

Leonard Susskind: "The supposed paradox is that surely, since everything is relative, we can reverse the roles of the twins - the stationary one is in fact moving at velocity -v relative to the previously moving twin. Then, surely the previously stationary twin would age less than the previously moving twin. The problem with this argument is that the roles cannot be reversed. It must be the case that the original moving twin has to experience some acceleration during the motion, whilst the stationary one certainly does not."

Of course, if Susskind knew that no-acceleration versions of the twin paradox exist, he would not have even thought of a younger stationary twin and older moving twin:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "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 pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Illiteracy in Einsteiniana. Literate Einsteinians know (and teach) that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Other literate Einsteinians know (and teach) that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the prediction of Newton's emission theory that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Illiterate Einsteinians believe (and teach) that both Maxwell's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed what Divine Albert established once and for all, namely that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer (the respective hymns are "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/l
ecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/

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. (...) 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..."

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. 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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Doublethink in Einsteiniana:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pd
f

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle: in time t is falls a distance (1/2)gt^2."

Then Harvey Reall analyses the gravitational redshift by implicitly assuming that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field. Orwell calls this "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

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

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why the statement "light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle" should be given any further thought. Orwell calls this "crimestop":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 23:08 GMT
Pentcho,

There may also be Pentchovian triple think, quadrupole think, all the way to pentchovi-n-think. So what?

Please give the empirical evidence that the speed of light increases as photons approach the Earth. Thank you.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 23:24 GMT
James Putnam wrote: "Please give the empirical evidence that the speed of light increases as photons approach the Earth."

Didn't I answer this? OK, again: The Pound-Rebka experiment, if properly analysed, convincingly proves that "the speed of light increases as photons approach the Earth".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
Pentcho,

No it does not. It is the case that you may interpret it that way, but, it is not the case that you have empirical evidence to support your conclusion. You need something else. What else do you have to offer?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
It is not *my* conclusion, James. Both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's general relativity predict that the speed of light is VARIABLE in a gravitational field:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.ht
m

"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......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."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Around 1911 Einstein proposed to incorporate gravitation into a modified version of special relativity by allowing the speed of light to vary as a scalar from place to place in Euclidean space as a function of the gravitational potential. This "scalar c field" is remarkably similar to a simple refractive medium, in which the speed of light varies as a function of the density. Fermat's principle of least time can then be applied to define the paths of light rays as geodesics in the spacetime manifold (as discussed in Section 8.4). 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. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 00:03 GMT
Pentcho,

I didn't ask if it was variable. I asked for empirical evidence that it increased its speed as it approaches the Earth?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT
James,

Any gravitational redshift that we observe is an empirical evidence that the speed of light decreases as the light moves away from the emitting object.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 00:32 GMT
Pentcho,

"Any gravitational redshift that we observe is an empirical evidence that the speed of light decreases as the light moves away from the emitting object."

No it is not. It does leave open that either time or the speed of light vary. It does not tell us that if it is the speed of light that varies and that the speed of light increases as photons approach the Earth. I think that you have nothing more to offer than Newtonian physics about falling projectiles. That is not enough since Newtonian physics is not enough to predict all effects. Please give the empirical evidence that photons behave the same as falling projectiles and increase their speed in that same manner?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 07:08 GMT
Yes, James, the contradiction between:

"the gravitational redshift is due to changes in the rates of clocks at different gravitational potentials"

and

"the gravitational redshift is due to variation in the speed of light as the light traverses a gravitational field"

is extremely important but it is a contradiction created and maintained by Einsteiniana, not by me. So ask Einsteinians - be just as offhand to them as you are to me. The cleverest among them know the answer:

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

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
Pentcho,

Relativists say that time slows as one enters a graviational field. However, the choice could have been, not that time slows, but that the speed of light varies. My question to you has nothing to do with what relativists think. I am allowing for the speed of light to vary. What I asked for was empirical evidence to show that light increases its speed as it approaches the Earth? Is it your opinion that the increase of frequency of a photon as it approaches the Earth is explained by an increase in the speed of light?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 08:23 GMT
Yes "the increase of frequency of a photon as it approaches the Earth is explained by an increase in the speed of light". Of course, in order for the frequency shift to be regarded as a straightforward empirical evidence for a variable speed of light, the alternative - that the frequency shift is due to different rates of clocks at different gravitational potentials - should be ruled out. This...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 11:33 GMT
It is easy to see that, if the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2) introduced by Einstein is true, then the formula:

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

is false both in the presence and in the absence of a gravitational field. For instance, Einstein says:

"...if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the same magnitude at all these places."

But "we" also measure a frequency shift:

f' = f(1+phi/c^2)

confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment and ENTIRELY caused by the time dilation effect, and an UNCHANGED wavelength (the assumption that the wavelength has changed is untenable since this would make the frequency shift different from the above one). Clearly the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is incompatible with the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians will have to denounce this formula officially if the precious gravitational time dilation is to last forever.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 13:30 GMT
The following text from Wikipedia clarifies Einstein's 1911 reasons for introducing gravitational time dilation:

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


"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796, using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's conclusion in 1911."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 23:18 GMT
Irwin Shapiro incidentally hears "something about the speed depending on the gravitational potential" and realizes that the speed of light is obviously variable:

http://www.hep.yorku.ca/menary/courses/phys2040/misc/relativ
ity.pdf

Irwin Shapiro: "...I attended an afternoon of presentations c. 1961-1962 by MIT staff on their progress on various research projects, conducted under joint services (DOD) sponsorship. One was on speed-of-light measurements by George Stroke who mentioned something about the speed depending on the gravitational potential. This remark surprised me and I pursued it via "brushing up" on my knowledge of general relativity and realized the obvious: whereas the speed of light measured locally in an inertial frame will have the same value everywhere, save for measurement errors, the propagation time of light along some path will depend on the gravitational potential along that path."

Of course, although Shapiro and Stroke are free to discuss anything, even the variation of the speed of light, believers are not. They should just sing, as fiercely as possible, "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
Eckard wrote: "Do not expect me having a correct falsification of Pound/Rebka. Let me nonetheless try to find a possibly weak point. They used an emitting and an absorbing atom and ascribed the mismatch to a postulated change of the speed of the light transmitted between the two. Their intention was to demonstrate this expected change. In so far their experiment was biased from the very beginning."

Not exactly, Eckard. They only measured the frequency shift of gh/c^2 but this is interpreted in Einsteiniana as evidence for gravitational time dilation, not variable speed of light:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika
/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
Falling light in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12
_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/eins
tein.pdf

"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation (it is assumed that v>>(v'-v) and air friction is ignored):

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

The speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with one of the following equations:

(1) c' = c(1+(gh)/c^2): Newton's emission theory of light.

(2) c' = c(1+2(gh)/c^2): Einstein's general relativity.

(3) c' = c: Stephen Hawking.

The frequency of light emitted downwards with initial frequency f varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation:

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

This equation was confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. It is obviously compatible with (1) and incompatible with (2) and (3).

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the Pound-Rebka experiment is just one of the glorious confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Stephen Hawking is the Albert Einstein of our times. Newton's emission theory has been refuted and forgotten.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
The "inconsistent" theory of Isaac Newton:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawk
ing/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are. (...) In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (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...)"

Newton's emission theory says that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). This, combined with the formula:

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

leads to the expectation of a frequency shift of gh/c^2. And yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed this expectation. How was this possible if "it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed"?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 18:14 GMT
The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the frequency of light varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation:

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

In order to account for this frequency shift without violating the principle of constancy of the speed of light, Einsteinians teach that the clock on a tower of height h is running fast (compared to a clock on the ground) by a factor (1+gh/c^2). However there is an implication in this camouflage that often makes clever Einsteinians wake up in a cold sweat. If the gravitational time dilation is a true concept, then, in accordance with the formula:

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

the wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential. That is, the gravitational time dilation Einsteinians introduce completely neutralizes the frequency shift so that any variation of the wavelength would disturb the precious constancy of the speed of light.

Things get even worse when the principle of equivalence is applied: now the lack of wavelength change accompanying the gravitational redshift becomes a lack of wavelength change accompanying the Doppler effect, when emitter and observer just move relative to one another in the absence of any gravitational field. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world such a "lack of wavelength change" would be synonymous to "Einstein's relativity is unthinkable".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 12:02 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote: "If the observer changed frames and then measured the signal, he would find BOTH f and lambda have changed, which conserves c in the new frame."

For any other waves, if the observer changes frames (e.g. starts moving towards the wave source), he finds BOTH the frequency and the speed of the waves (relative to him) changed while the wavelength remains constant. What makes you think that the motion of the observer alters the wavelength of light waves? How can this be explained physically?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Pentcho

"How can this be explained physically?" This is straight to the root of the problem in Simultaneity. See if you can follow this;

Einstein was 'hasty' in assuming that to get rid of 'absolute' background frames he had to remove background frames per se.

Example; The Earth's frame, the ECRF. This extends to the edge of the ionosphere (dense ion bow shock at the magnetosheath). Venus also has one (see 'Venus Express mission), as I suggest, have all massive bodies. Nhey are equivalent to Boscovitch's 'spheres of influence'.

Earth moves independently to Venus. So the em fields also move independently. Light does c locally within each. light travelling from one to the other would therefore CHANGE SPEED on coupling at the field boundaries (shocks) where the particles absorb the waves and re-emit them AT C, that is of course at the NEW C!, which is the ONLY c as far as our particles are concerned.

In between the planets is the background frame of the sun, (or solar wind), which is of course different to all other star's frames. (The Voyagers are just exiting the dense ion field boundary now).

Inside the ECRF. conside two jet planes. Light does c within each, but changes speed at the glass of the windows. The pilot of one will see the light from the others lights blue shifted, although it crosses the air at c wrt the air, because when meeting the glass (n=1.55) it slows down and Doppler shifts.

We may consider c and frequency have changed, conserving wavelength lambda. However, measuring from the new frame, we find c in the old frame is still c in the new, and in fact both wavelength and frequency changed at the glass (or actually mainly in the free electron 'fine structure' surface 'charge').

When the observer himself changes his state of motion (galilean inertial frame) it has an effect on apparent frequency because this is a time/motion based measurement. To confuse even more, there are of course TWO speed changes for the light entering the glass. One is due to refractive index n, the other due to velocity v of the plane.

The dynamics are very difficult for a human to grasp, as we're too used to relying on maths. Motion is not a valid concept in geometry so also not in vector space. It demands a little more thought.

Has it's beautiful simplicity appeared to you yet. When it does rehearse it or it will disappear into the mists again! My essay is not up to date but may help; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 12:31 GMT
Gravitational redshift: theoretical predictions.

The top of a tower of height h emits light towards the ground. The emitter MEASURES frequency f, wavelength L and speed of light c. The receiver (on the ground) MEASURES frequency f', wavelength L' and speed of light c'. Clocks used by the emitter and the receiver are "of identical constitution".

Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=L; c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

Einstein 1911:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=L; c'=c.

Einstein 1915 (general relativity):

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=?; c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).

Note that, if Einstein's 1911 predictions are true, the formula:

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

is invalid. The same seems to hold true for Einstein's 1915 predictions but, for a definitive conclusion, the explicit variation of the wavelength with the gravitational potential is needed.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes the Michell-Laplace (emission) theory:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_conten
t&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66

Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Michelson-Morley experiment would confirm the Michell-Laplace (emission) theory:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hof
fmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Pound-Rebka experiment gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

"
The Pound-Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. (...) It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Pound-Rebka experiment would have confirmed the Michell-Laplace emission theory in the first place:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "...the gravitational Doppler effect (also called the gravitational displacement of line rays) discovered by Michell in 1784 is quantitatively the same as Einstein's."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
Antirelativists claim that Einsteinians interpret the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment in terms of the Michell-Laplace emission theory:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

"The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details but in principle it is very simple. Photons of a precisely determined wavelength were emitted at the top and bottom of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT
Einsteiniana's new logic:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-special-relativity
-principles.html

PHYSORG: "Special relativity from first principles. (...) Since few people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous aether does not exist, it is possible to come at the concept of special relativity in a different way and just through an exercise of logic deduce that the universe must have an absolute speed - and from there deduce special relativity as a logical consequence. The argument goes like this: 1) There must be an absolute speed in any universe since speed is a measure of distance moved over time. Increasing your speed means you reduce your travel time between a distance A to B. At least theoretically you should be able to increase your speed up to the point where that travel time declines to zero - and whatever speed you are at when that happens will represent the universe's absolute speed."

Texts like this are typical of Einsteiniana and act like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing them, intelligent people get petrified. In contrast, Einsteiniana's zombies start fiercely singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - zombies tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Note how desperate Einsteinians are - Einstein's 1905 light postulate, their Precious, the sacrosanct heart of their money-spinner, is under threat:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-special-relativity-princ
iples.html

PHYSORG: "Einstein's explanation of special relativity, delivered in his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies focuses on demolishing the idea of 'absolute rest', exemplified by the theoretical luminiferous aether. He achieved this very successfully, but many hearing that argument today are left puzzled as to why everything seems to depend upon the speed of light in a vacuum."

Winds don't bring the exuberant tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" anymore. Rather, Gollum's song is haunting Einsteinians all through the night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIHNN0DiGM

"We are lost We can never go home"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Twin paradox and doublethink: The turn-around of the travelling twin is ignored if the sedentary twin evaluates the time-dilation effects (believers fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and the ecstasy increases) but then all miracles occur during the turn-around if the travelling twin evaluates the time-dilation effects (the ecstasy gets...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
Spetial attention to the miraculous turnaround (demi-tour) which, although performed by the travelling twin, somehow "puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Z9eI
Ekz-ag#!

"Vu du vaisseau, tout se passe au moment du demi-tour."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spa
cetime_tachyon/index.html

John Norton: "...just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2 days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

The turnaround miracle is an ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis advanced by Einstein in 1918 which successfully camouflaged the absurdity of special relativity (special relativity predicts that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother). Einstein's 1918 ad hoc hypothesis is just as idiotic as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis which successfully camouflaged the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment had unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
A large number of clocks are scattered on and rotate with the periphery of a rotating disc. A single inertial clock stands outside the disc but so close against the rotating periphery that its reading can be compared with the readings of rotating clocks passing by. Will the single inertial clock go slower or faster than rotating clocks?

By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping both the linear speed of the periphery and the distance between adjacent rotating clocks constant, one converts the clocks rotating with the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). Then special relativity predicts that the single inertial clock will be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. That is, the difference between the reading of the single inertial clock and the reading of any clock on the periphery will DECREASE with time.

Another prediction based on special relativity is that the single inertial clock will be seen running FASTER than the clocks on the periphery ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ). That is, the difference between the reading of the single inertial clock and the reading of any clock on the periphery will INCREASE with time.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that some postulate of special relativity is false.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
Confusing believers never stops in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.physorg.com/news163738003.html

"Physicist Marek Abramowicz of Goteborg University in Sweden and astronomer Stanislaw Bajtlik of the Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center in Warszawa, Poland, have proposed the surprising new version of the twin paradox, which at first seems to run contrary to the traditional version. However, the scientists show that the traditional version is actually a specific case of a more general concept. "In the best known version of the twin paradox, the twin who is accelerated is younger," Abramowicz and Bajtlik told PhysOrg.com. "In the version discussed by us the accelerated twin is older. It is quite surprising. It is almost as to say that 'the older twin is younger'."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gib
bons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
Einsteinians don't like the pole-barn scenario because it is destructive (but not absurd):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/pdfs/chapter6.pdf


John C. Vander Velde, Physics Department, University of Michigan: "An athlete, running with a 15 ft long pole, gets momentarily captured in a barn that is only 9 ft long. How is that possible? It's easy. The athlete simply runs at 80% of the speed of light so that his Lorentz contraction factor is 0.6. The door-keeper at the back of the barn agrees to close the door at the instant the front of the pole hits the front of the barn. Since the door-keeper has, effectively, marked the front and back of the pole simultaneously in the barn system the pole will be only 15ft X 0.6 = 9 ft long. It will just exactly fit in the barn at that instant. This problem is entirely equivalent to Flo and Joe simultaneously painting spots on the passing rocket ship. The spots end up 50 ft apart on the ship even thought Flo and Joe were only 30 ft apart. (I like the painting spots version better than the pole-vaulter problem because it is less destructive. Think of what happens to the poor pole-vaulter in the next instant when he slams into the front of the barn. Ugh.)"

Einsteinians,

Have you ever considered all "destructive" implications of this particular prediction of special relativity? For instance, a suitable geometry of the pole and the barn would allow you to reduce the volume of the pole as much as you wish. Is this absurd? No? Just awfully destructive? Ugh ugh ugh? Bravo, Einsteinians!

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 00:46 GMT
Einsteiniana: The Bug-Rivet Paradox

The bug-rivet scenario is in fact REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (proving that some postulate of special relativity is false):

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"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."

Yet in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world any absurdity can be "resolved" by superimposing an even greater absurdity (believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"). John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics has discovered that, apart from contracting objects (e.g. a very long pole is gloriously trapped inside a very short barn), Einsteiniana can also stretch objects much beyond their proper length (note that, just like length contraction, length stretching predicted by special relativity is independent of the material the object is made of):

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 20:35 GMT
Utmost schizophrenia:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lectur
enotes12_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf

"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world all those statements do not mean at all that light accelerates in a gravitational field "in exactly the same way as a massive test particle". They mean just the opposite:

"Light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle" =

= "La lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur" =

= "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else" =

= "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects" =

= "In a gravitational field light does not accelerate - its speed remains constant - while everything else accelerates".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Einsteinians know no limits when it comes to absurd explanations:

http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archi
ve.html

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

This particular physics is much more than great. It is idiotic.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 1, 2012 @ 12:23 GMT
The absurdity of the bug-rivet paradox camouflaged:

http://www.csus.edu/math/events/depillistalk.pdf

John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "The less well-known Bug-Rivet Paradox in which a bug is squashed by a rivet flying between two plates when viewed from one frame (point of view), while the bug is spared when viewed from another frame. Surprisingly, the analysis forces us to accept exactly one of the following facts: Either (1) The rivet is rigid and the future affects the present (standard causality has it the other way around - the present affects the future.) or (2) The rivet is not rigid in the sense that after the moving (shortened) rivet collides with the plate, the rivet must assume a length that exceeds its at-rest length before it returns to its at-rest length."

Fact (1) amounts to begging the question - it is assumed that special relativity is correct and accordingly the information that the head of the rivet stopped cannot reach the end of the rivet faster than the speed of light. Fact (2) fails to expose two absurd features of the stretching of the rivet - it is unlimited in principle (e.g. a 1 cm shank would have to become 100 cm or 1000 cm long in order to reach and squash the bug) and it is independent of the material the rivet is made of.

Let us replace the bug with a piston so that, as the rivet assumes "a length that exceeds its at-rest length", it pushes the piston and does work. How much could that work be? At the expense of what energy will it be done? Perpetuum mobile of the first kind? Einsteinians? No discussions anymore? Just silently leaving Einsteiniana's ship?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAA
AAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 1, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
As can be seen from the quotation below, in 1911 Einstein derived the gravitational time dilation factor 1+phi/c^2 based on three premises:

Premise 1: The measured frequency varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) when clocks of identical constitution are used.

Premise 2: The measured wavelength does not vary with the gravitational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 1, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
The lie that both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment have gloriously confirmed the principle of constancy of the speed of light is now an absolute truth in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. Einsteiniana's zombies brilliantly explain that truth in their bestsellers:

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


Why Does E=mc2?:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Pentcho:

"Maxwell's equations predict that light always moves with a velocity of 299,792,458 meters per second" (Fox and Foreshaw wrote this). Can you or anyone else tell me how this pretty accurate value was measured? Or was it calculated from mu and epsilon?

Isn't this exact value important with respect to OPERA?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 2, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Eckard

Roemer first did it from the period of Jupiter's moons as the Earth approached and receded. It's been done various ways with (largely) increasing accuracy since.

Binary stars also help, and make nonsense of basic simplistic emission theory, showing the time taken, so speed c=d/t, is irrespective of the emitters motion. This is confirmed by space probe signal timing.

It is however consistent with the DFM's atomic scattering or RE-emision basis, which then logically disproves an assumption used for SR. Just as light changes speed to the local refractive medium c/n on interaction at the ionosphere on arrival, it also does so on leaving, (even at n=1) changing speed to the barycentric (Sun's) inertial frame, again just like all our space probes, and signals both ways.

For a history of speed measurement I recall there's a simplified 'table' on wikipedia.

And for PENTCHO, if reading this. 17 posts but still no answer to my Dec 12 post above. Ironcially it seems it is you who will be to blame for the survival of SR.

Happy new year.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Peter,

I also still got not yet aware of answers to questions of mine. In particular I would like to know how you and others are judging what Marmet wrote: "The Lorentz equations [he meant transformation] become useless." So far, apparently most opponents of SR seem to be neo-Lorentzians. Did you read what he wrote on "Switching between Frames of Reference" in "The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light"?

What about the value of c, Roemer's contribution is well known and interpreted by Gift as evidence for an ether. My request addressed something quite different:

I highly respect the experts e.g. from NIST like von Essen, from PTB, etc. They are perhaps indeed able to reach such accuracy. I just would like to make sure that they are on a correct basis of assumptions. It is certainly difficult to directly measure distance and time with the due accuracy.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 10:07 GMT
From time to time naïve Einsteinians, unaware of the danger, discover that the wavelength is constant in a gravitational field:

http://128.84.158.119/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810030v13.pdf


Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of a photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along with its frequency (...) As both frequency and velocity change in this experiment the measurement of a change in a photon frequency is in fact an indirect measurement of a change in the photon local velocity. (...) The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the change of its frequency. (...) In such a way the gravitational redshift essentially shows that two photons emitted at points of different gravitational potential have different local velocities at the same observation point in contradiction with the standard curved-spacetime interpretation of general relativity which requires that the local velocity of light be c (i.e. be independent of light pre-history)."

Einsteiniana's priests have found a very silly way to neutralize such discoveries, silly but extremely efficient in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. They have redefined the meaning of the word "local" - the original meaning is completely abandoned and in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world "local" means "as judged from a system in free fall in the gravitational field". With the new meaning of "local" Petkov's claim that "two photons emitted at points of different gravitational potential have different local velocities at the same observation point" is wrong and the money-spinner is saved.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
Absolute crimestop in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://focus.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."

Should the detector see the light's speed increased as well? Einsteinians?

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "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 pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 11:20 GMT
In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Michelson-Morley experiment is double-edged: it gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory but also confirms, although in a non-glorious fashion, Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257

Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 20, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
The Sirius B Mystery

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B, Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona: "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 20, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
No Relativistic Doppler Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effe
ct

"Assume the observer and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v (v is negative if the observer and the source are moving toward each other). Considering the problem in the reference frame of the source, suppose one wavefront arrives at the observer. The next wavefront is then at a distance L=c/f_s away from him (where L is the wavelength, f_s is the frequency of the wave the source emitted, and c is the speed of light). (...) Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o=..."

The equation Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o characterizes the RELATIVISTIC Doppler effect only - its raison d'être is Divine Albert's 1905 whim (the speed of light is constant and that's it). For any wave other than a light wave the wavelength measured in the frame of the observer, Lo, does not vary with the speed of the observer so in the case of a stationary source and a moving observer the relevant equation is c'/c=f_o/f_s, where c'=c-v is the speed of the wave relative to the observer.

It can be shown that, even for light waves, Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o is contradictory so c'/c=f_o/f_s is the only plausible equation. Let us assume that Einsteinians are correct in that Lo somehow varies with the speed of the observer (so that the speed of light could gloriously remain constant yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity). Initially both the source and the observer are stationary so Lo=Ls holds good. Then the source starts moving with speed v and we notice that Ls, the wavelength measured in the frame of the source, remains unchanged (this is not valid for waves other than light waves). Since the observer has not moved, Lo remains unchanged as well, in accordance with our assumption. That is, Lo=Ls holds good again. Of the two equations, Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o and c'/c=f_o/f_s, only the latter is compatible with Lo=Ls.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 21, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT
A stationary source emits light waves. Initially the observer is stationary as well but then starts moving towards the source. Two hypotheses:

HYPOTHESIS 1: The wavelength as measured by the observer does not vary with the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
Stephen Hawking explains the Doppler effect:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawk
ing/dp/0553380168

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."

The mechanism of wavelength change Hawking describes is valid for sound waves but not for light waves. It is obvious that, for light, the wavelength leaving the stationary source is equal to the wavelength leaving the moving source. So the variation in frequency the observer measures can only be due to a variation in the speed of light (relative to the observer), in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the source relative to the observer).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
Einsteinians are shown the result (frequency)=(c+v)/(wavelength):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/ro
ger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

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

Einsteinians,

Does the result f'=(c+v)/(lambda) topple Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity?

Einsteinians ready to reply:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201
2/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 21, 2012 @ 19:08 GMT
Pentcho

Your scenario 2 with varying wavelength also falsifies SR. Your analysis is incorrect phenomenologically;

An observer cannot measure a wavelength without interacting with it. Whatever his state of motion, when a wave sequence interacts with his lens medium it becomes subject to Fresnel's refractive index n. (If you don't believe this please explain why). The signal passes through the lens at the local c/n.

The gaps in sequence will therefore be closer together or further apart subject to his motion.

Take any emitter, in any relative state of motion you wish, and change it as you wish. The wavelength will still vary, and the observer will still find the variation if 'at rest'. (you may also like to consider 'at rest wrt what!?).

Until the proper ontological basis is understood and consistently accepted by dissidents it will be maverick dissidents and their inconsistent theories who are responsible for the prolonging of SR.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 06:58 GMT
Pentcho and Peter,

Does Fresnel's refractive index matter in case of a radar antenna? I suggest focusing on the essentials.

I already did know that Michelson himself was unhappy having given rise to the monster of SR with his experiment with Morley, which did not, as Marmet explained, clarify the issue.

At http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sagnac_effect I found the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 08:27 GMT
Eckard,

You suggest "focusing on the essentials" but what you actually do is endlessly search Einsteiniana's mythology for evidence against the emission theory. Does the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer? Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential? These are "the essentials".

Best regards, Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
The essential in this context is to actually understand what SR was

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Einsteiniana's initial foray against human civilization:

http://www.chukw.com/Critters/Redwall_Detail_1.
jpg

The status quo after Einsteiniana's victory:

http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-caus
e/

"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Ten years ago Einsteiniana's priests already knew the end was coming:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/
dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
How clever Einsteinians leave, very cautiously, Einsteiniana's sinking ship:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-make
s-the-universe-tick.html

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Einsteinians,

The statement "the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO" can be found on Internet. It is clear from the context that the reference is to light waves:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Einsteinians looking for the author:

http://images.yume.vn/blog/20101026/halloween-31.JPG

P
entcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Eckard, Pentcho.

I suggest the refractive index of matter, and it's implications, is as fundamental as it is possible to get in the search for truth.

Consider; Light speed can only, ever, be measured by interaction with matter.

If that interaction itself first modulates the light speed to the constant c/n of the matter, which it must because absorbed light is re-emitted at c, then the whole sham and shipload of foolishness sinks.

Eckard, I agree, and when analysed systematically you will find this is consistent with all interferometer results and astrophysical telemetry (and don't forget Fizeau, Jones and Wang).

Pentcho. Please answer the specific point in my previous post as well as considering this. You are not seeing a simplistic error, and are therefore culpable for maintaining the present paradigm by continually proving that at least some dissidents are fanatical and foolish.

Paul. I agree. When you've done that perhaps try applying both it and common sense to the above.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 10:43 GMT
Peter,

Let's learn from failure of German police in case of NSU (national socialist underground) murders.

See http://discovermagazine.com/2003/nov/score-another-win-for-e
instein1106 for Lijun Wang and Marmet for Michelson & Morley. By the way, it is premature to interpret the failure of Wang as a win for Einstein. Science is a puzzle where anything must fit in.

Can you please point me to Jones?

Rckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 12:35 GMT
Eckard

I have a pdf of Jones incorrectly interpreted result, and found this link referring to it. http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v72/i7/p934_s1?isAutho
rized=no

He simply confirmed a spinning glass disc 'dragged' the light path of a 'beam' passed through it. But he repeated Lodge's massive error, considering it from his lab frame not the frame of the glass, only the latter equivalent to our observation of stellar aberration.

I obviously agree ref Wang. But you showed no sign you had grasped the conceptual basis I raised, and found it's important implications.?

It is also clear that Pentcho did not understand them, which I suppose should be less surprising. It seems that in some ways dissident dogma can do as much harm as mainstream.

Pass me a direct address if you'd like the Jones pdf.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 13:53 GMT
Peter

"Paul. I agree. When you've done that perhaps try applying both it and common sense to the above".

Sorry, I have lost what this refers to. Just give me the post reference

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 12:24 GMT
Paul

You say; "I do not need to understand SR because I know what Einstein said it was."

Then you know many things, and perhaps should write a book. Many wish to know what he said it was, though more may wish to understand what he said and it's implications. Most agree with, for instance, John Norton;

"..the question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature of the theory's foundations."

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

Look far deeper into the point about measurement of light speed. The solutions are all there.

If a 1cm sheet of glass slows and refracts light, and a 1m cm region of space has the same matter particles at 1m th of the the density. On what observed basis do we keep assuming it will not have precisely the same effect?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Peter

Obviously, as you know, I do not know how all that he wrote (especially the equations) in 1905, fits into either SR, as opposed to GR. And am frankly not interested. But that was not my point. Einstein clearly delineates what SR is about, even if did not then sort previous writings out into Sr & GR. And here and elsewhere, people keep on pointing out how SR is wrong, using concepts that are not applicable to SR, but generally occur in 1905 as opposed to 1916. Looking back, that comment aplies here. SR, GR, whatever, might all be wrong, but it would be a good start if people addressed the theory as is, or at least as close as they can given his definition. Or just stated what they think the objective facts are, without reference to Einstein at all.

In SR there is no gravity. Motion only involves uniform rectilinear and non-rotary action. Bodies maintain their dimensions. Rays of light travel at a constant speed, unhindered, in straight lines. Euclidean maths, ie that which assumes fixed points, is applicable. Einstein said so. Not Paul Reed. He said it many times.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 23:21 GMT
Paul

You say "Motion only involves uniform rectilinear and non-rotary action. Bodies maintain their dimensions. Rays of light travel at a constant speed, unhindered, in straight lines. Euclidean maths, ie that which assumes fixed points, is applicable. Einstein said so. Not Paul Reed. He said it many times."

As you say. And have done many times. I believe your problem is imaginary.

And then Einstein largely retracted his 1905 paper with the conceptions of GR, which 'generalised' the theory. But what he may or may not have thought then may be pointlessly argued to eternity. I have spent a lifetime understanding how he thought, I need to waste little more time.

Now, more importantly if you wish to find truth through thought, not history, as I said;

"Look far deeper into the point about measurement of light speed. The solutions are all there."

Let me know if you see them.

I wish you well

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Peter

1 "As you say. And have done many times. I believe your problem is imaginary".

AND

2 "And then Einstein largely retracted his 1905 paper with the conceptions of GR".

Really? Well here are some of many quotes which define SR. Where are the quotes that explicitly retract whatever in 1905?

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. (Einstein 1916 SR & GR section 18 para 5)

The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it… 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 SR & GR 1916 Section 28)

Also we see immediately that the principle of the constancy of light velocity must be modified, for we recognise easily that the path of a ray of light with reference to K’ must be, in general, curved, when light travels with a definite and constant velocity in a straight line with reference to K. (Einstein Foundation of GR 1916 section 2)

There is no mystique in the measurement of light speed. It exists, and like anything else, travels, at a speed. Practicalities aside, establishing a quantity for this proceeds in the same logical way that it would for a bus.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 11:41 GMT
Einsteinians,

Any sound interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) unequivocally shows that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

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 and 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 ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

PREMISE: "...in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t..."

CONCLUSION: The speed of the waves relative to the observer is c-Vo.

Einsteinians prostrated with grief:

http://rtlstatic01.host25.com/repository/images/_varia
tions/4/d/4dad435c97f48cc1a88b4870c053530e_slideshow_bg.jpg?
v=25

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
A difficult problem solved by Divine Albert:

http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/publicaciones/ranada/
RanadaEPLSep03.pdf

"A variation of c should not be a matter of concern. Einstein himself made the following enlightening comment in 1912: "The constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Einsteiniana: Anything Goes

Truth (light accelerates in a gravitational field like cannonballs):

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/
PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

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."

Camouflage (it is true but irrelevant that the speed of light "stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by"):

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html

Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

Blatant lie (light falls but does not accelerate in a gravitational field):

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/030
6817586

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."

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why truth, lie and camouflage should not be taught simultaneously.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT
The top of a tower of height h emits light towards an observer on the ground. In a unit time, the number of wavecrests which reach the observer are those in a distance:

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

where c' is the final speed of the light (relative to the observer), L is the wavelength, f' is the frequency as measured by the observer, f is the frequency as measured by the source and c is the initial speed of the light (relative to the source). The equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2) has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Einstein shows how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.htm
l

Albert Einstein: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

Einsteiniana's zombies sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". This is "perfectly valid and makes good physical sense", explains Steve Carlip, "but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLigh
t/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."

Einsteiniana's zombies know nothing more consistent than Steve Carlip's explanation. The ecstasy gets uncontrollable - zombies tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Einsteiniana: Glorious Gravitational Redshift

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-e
instein-relativity/

"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of 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."

Einsteinians,

By definition, any effect, the gravitational redshifting included, gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory. There can be no doubt about that. But could the gravitational redshift somehow interfere with the so-called cosmological redshift which also gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory? For instance, you measure some huge redshift and declare that the object is very far away from you, receding with the corresponding huge speed, but then Halton Arp spoils the harmony in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world by claiming that the redshift is "intrinsic" and has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe (an expansion which also gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory)? Einsteinians? Where are you? Why don't you reply? Einsteiniana's priests (who understand the question):

http://skipper810.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/062310_1437_co
uldsharia1.png?w=640

This hugely decreased frequency that you measure, Einsteinians, could it be the result of a decreased speed of light? "The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light", the lower the coming light's speed? Divine Albert's Divine Theory teaches you that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential so... Einsteinians? Now Einsteiniana's priests (who understand the question) do reply - they sing "Lasciatemi morire":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q99q_0zcc_U&feature=related

Lasciatemi morire! Let me die! Let me die! And how can I possibly be consoled? In this cruel fate? In this great suffering? Let me die!

Einsteiniana's zombies find that song irrelevant (they are already dead) and offer a different reply:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/w
all1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
Paul

You didn't find it then.

How fast is the speed of light on each moving bus with respect to you at home?

Pentcho

When light changes buses to travel at c locally in the bus it's wavelength and frequency are found changed proportionally by all observers in each bus, to maintain the local c (read c/n) and the law of conservation. E = f x lambda and c = f x lambda are found as constants in every bus in the universe.

This is not Special Relativity, it is called both Science, and Nature.

If you wish to maintain SR as the ruling paradigm just keep doing as you are and showing that dissidents can be ranting fools. That will do the job just fine.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 30, 2012 @ 10:10 GMT
Peter

"How fast is the speed of light on each moving bus with respect to you at home?" That depends on what particular ray of light is under evaluation, and what reference point one happens to choose to make the evaluation.

Light, like a bus, is just an existent entity. We happen to use it for observation, which is irrelevant.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 30, 2012 @ 20:24 GMT
Paul

100 observers watch a bus go by, all from different points.

Do any of them see a flash of light, or indeed an arrow, pass through a bus at any different speed (wrt themselves) than any other of them?

I suggest quite obviously not.

But. ..if each observer was in a different state of motion.... ....!

I only suggest that the state of motion of what we happen to "use for observation," whilst it may be irrelevant to the way you perceive things, is relevant to nature to the extent that analysing WHY it is relevant holds the key to lifting the confusion many don't even yet recognise as such.

I'd suggest Willhelms comment from Goa is more perceptive than you noticed. He was possibly searching for the word 'Local'.

In his last paragraph the word 'apparent' would also help clarify, because the information about the position of A and B is carried at light speed.

Light and arrows pass through each bus at c 'locally'. When would we believe otherwise and ignore the implications when no-one has ever found anything different? Perhaps when science is belief based.

Regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Peter

If the speed of something is being established with reference to something else, in this case, any given entity known as an observer, then the speed, which is a difference established by comparison, cannot be referred to another speed, which was established using another reference point. Any comparison must be from the same reference point.

The actual rays of light which obtained and conveyed information to the entity known as observer, are different. They carry the same information, but this is not reality. It is a representation thereof, based on some form of encoding of photons. But the main point is that while the information is common, the particular existent state is not. And as a real physical phenomenon, it is subject to environmental circumstances in its travel.

States of motion are important because that is alteration in spatial position. Therefore, delays can be affected, an any new position could be within a different environmental circumstance. Also, according to Einstein. Changing motion is the consequence of force applied, and that results not only in changing velocity but changing dimension.

“Apparent” is precisely that, if there is no dimension change, apparent, or more precisely an optical illusion. Distances (or space) obviously does not alter because of observation. Neither does time change, once one understands what it actually is.

It has nothing to do with ‘local’, which in your case revolves around the misapplication of reference points.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 6, 2012 @ 19:05 GMT
Ritz's Theory and Einstein's Theory

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapte
rs/origins_pathway/index.html

John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity. Einstein later recalled that the theory he developed was essentially that developed later by Walther Ritz in 1908. In Ritz's theory - and thus probably also in Einstein's theory - all electrodynamic action, not just light, propagated in a vacuum at c with respect to the actions source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many."

So Ritz's theory doesn't work? Because Divine Albert somehow found many problems with it? And Divine Albert's Divine Theory does work? Because Einsteinians find no problems with it? Let us see. According to the emission theory, the speed of light relative to an observer moving away from the source with speed v is c-v. According to Einstein's special relativity, the speed of light relative to an observer moving away from the source with speed v is c. The following video clearly shows that the emission theory is correct (it works!) while special relativity is simply wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy
E2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Pentcho,

Ritz's emission theory does definitely not apply for sound waves. Their velocity with respect to the medium does not depend on the velocity of the emitter wrt it. The only reason for science to reject the Maxwellian view was the unexpected outcome of the experiment by Michelson and Morley. Marmet convincingly explained why the expectation was flawed and therefore irrelevant.

I also do not consider Shtyrkov's experiment confirming Stokes' ether hypothesis.

Instead Marmet aptly wrote in his illusion paper on GPS: "10. Absolute Frame of Reference".

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
"It suddenly dawned on Einstein" how he could convert physics into a silly fairytale:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativit
y.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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
"His struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory" were only enforced by the unexpected and seemingly compelling result of the experiment by Michelson & Morley, cf. Bohm: The Special Theory of Relativity, Chapter IV.

According to Ulrich Schroeder (with reference to G. Holton): Die Spezielle Relativitätstheorie, Einstein himself denied the role of M & M for his theory of relativity. As he mentioned in 1905, he did know that electrodynamic interaction depends on relative motion and conjectured that "dem Begriffe der absoluten Ruhe nicht nur in der Mechanik sondern auch in der Elektrodynamik keine Eigenschaften der Erscheinungen entsprechen".

Wave equations, in particular Maxwell's equations are not covariant under Galilei transformation. Perhaps, relativity is not strictly correct but a good approximation.

Marmet's rendering of the M & M experiment as ill-designed is does indeed explain why this paper of Marmet is still "to be published".

Eckard

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT
Einsteinians feel no threat from antirelativists - Peter Hayes explains why:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880

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."

All the threat comes from inside Einsteiniana when careless or unfaithful Einsteinians bring grist to Newton's mill. Here is an Einsteinian who enthusiastically proves that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

Another Einsteinian, Fermilab physicist Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) and naïvely explains that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy
E2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
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). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory because he could think of no form of differential equations that described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed up"."

Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is conclusively discredited by most scientists. If the initial dicredit brought on such a theory proves fraudulent, the final dicredit brought on it is absolutely honest and conclusive:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html

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 projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
As P. quoted from wiki/Emission_theory: Em. th. was ... explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Eckard, Pentcho.

Eckard

You confusingly seem to say for some bizarre reason that you don't find Shtyrkov evidence of Stokes thesis.

May we separate the undeniable kinetic effects of Shtyrkov and the ECRF with the notion of 'ether'. Consider it purely as scattering at c by local particles.

We now have a non ether theory which, for all the important kinetic purposes, provides the precise results of Stokes. Ypou may therefore not disqualify Stokes thesis but may call the relevant frame 'ether' or not as you wish. I prefer to call it the local 'frame last scattered' or CMBR rest frame, as Smoot.

Ref M&M Einstein actually said (1952); "Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest." (WRT the Earth). He was wrong about much, but no more fool that many around us now.

Pentcho

Join me at the start of a 'moving pavement' (MP). With tellers to measure distances and frequencies of passing light.

A line of men holding lanterns approaches, 1m apart, each representing a wave peak, walking at a certain speed we'll call c. Each in turn steps onto the MP and continues walking at c.

Our teller at rest watching the MP finds the frequency they pass has not changed, but that the wavelength has increased, yet they are still walking at local speed c, and c = f x Lambda is supposed to be a constant!!

But he also finds their speed, though remaining c wrt the emitters (his feet), is now 'APPARENT' c+v. To 50 guys racing around on roller skates their speed is also APPARENT c plus or minus the various skaters v's.

Only a teller ON the MP can use 'Proper Time' so finds the speed of lanterns c. He also finds the wavelength INCREASED and frequency decreased. This all reverses when they step off.

So; Both wavelength and frequency vary subject to observer frame because c is conserved in the 'frame last scattered'. If we're to correct Einstein we need to use MORE intellect not less. There seems a shortage.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 06:46 GMT
Pentcho and Peter,

To what degree do you agree on: "the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 07:49 GMT
Eckard,

The crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (see his 1905 original paper). This, combined with the principle of relativity, entails that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer, a corollary which, true or false, is incompatible with both the ether theory and the emission theory. I am going to stick to and analyse this original logic of Einstein and, frankly, do not understand your excursions in other directions.

Best regards, Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Pentcho

It is not an assumption, but a fact. Bcause light (as in that particular configuration of photons) is created as the result of a reaction with the source. The reaction determines the speed of the 'light'. Same reaction results in the same start speed, in all circumstances. The speed of the source, or indeed the speed of the 'light' before reaction with the source, is therefore irrelevant.

It is not 'that combined with...' Neither does he say what you attribute him with saying anyway. In the special circumstance of SR, where there is no gravity, things are fixed in shape, rays of light travel in straight lines and 'in vacuo', etc, etc. In the real world (ie GR) everything is more amorphous.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT
Pentcho,

I quoted the text from a CBMR FAQ without adding my own judgment. You are certainly right: Einstein's 1905 paper of concern is incompatible with both the ether theory and the emission theory. Peter made me aware of Smoot whose web page is "aether" and who perhaps felt forced to anyhow justify that his opinion was at odds with the mandatory belief in Einstein's theories.

Let me add details:

At first, if ether is thought dragged by the earth then it is not identical with absolute space at rest.

If Marmet is correct and M&M does not prove anything, then I see no argument against ether or absolute space, and relativity (invariance) might be strictly speaking illusory while nonetheless a nice approximation comparable with linearizing in acoustics.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 11:56 GMT
Eckard, Pentcho.

I suggested a shortage of an essential commodity, which I hope you don't confirm. Pentcho, you say you "do not understand." Yes I can see that, and you will continue to not understand if you make no effort to try. Please consider and comment on the important and enlightening ontology my post, and the below. I suggest you are currently doing more harm than good!

Eckard. You say; "There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe." Hmmm. That is an assumption.

I will now pass you the key to understanding this. You may also need to read at least the last part of Smoot's 2004(2006 Nobel Prize) paper. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601307v1.pdf and extended analysis by Sheffield (Sheffield, J., Jnl.of Physics, Series 227. 2010. EM Plasma scattering). http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/227/1/012001 etc.

There has been no single CMB rest frame since z>>1000. All CMB rest frames are LOCAL background frames. Light always propagates at c wrt each. LOCALLY. It is always emitted at c, as Pentcho says, but, more importantly it is always then 'scattered' (absorbed and re-emitted) to c in the local frame if the emitter is in motion within that frame. All frames are therefore entirely equal.

This means

A; Emission theory is even more correct than thought, (but not the simplistic version).

B. Einstein's conception, the only bit consistently evidenced, of equivalent frames is also correct. The ARE NO special frames - period. (But the rest is nonsense). They are all 'Discrete Fields' in relative motion, constrained, so defined, by scattering. Shtyrkov would find equivalent planetary centred reference frames at every planet and to every body and system, at all scales. It may be termed 'Hierarchical Kinetics', explaining the kSZ effect.

This discrete field model works, 100%. Nothing else does. Please study rigorously for faults.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 07:19 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for pointing me to 0601307v1.pdf. While I am not familiar with z and ℓ as measures for redshift and multipoles, respectively, I nonetheless tried to understand: "The implied velocity for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2kms−1, assuming a value T0 = Tγ, towards (ℓ, b) = (263◦,48◦). Such a solar system velocity implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB. The derived value is vLG = 627kms−1 towards (ℓ, b) = (276◦,30◦). The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the ‘absolute rest frame’ of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero."

You wrongly ascribed the following sentence to me: "There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe." As I already clarified I quoted the text from a CBMR FAQ without adding my own judgment. I may add that the FAQ has been maintained by Douglas Scott who is an Associate Professor at UCB and coauthor of the mentioned paper.

I do not see Marmet's critique of the M&M experiment challenged.

A derived velocity of 627kms-1 is still much smaller than c while larger than the 27kms-1 of earth.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT
Peter

The discrete fields only 'work' because they are discrete fields. By definition, anything is intrinsically correct, ie logically relates to the reference point. But then comparison of one 'discrete field' to another, breaks this down. Because, in doing so, one must create a new reference point encompassing the discrete fields being compared. This is the simple rule of reference points.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Gravitational Redshift and Time Dilation

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20
Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Einstein said in 1911 that the effect would take place even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. This means that the two clocks are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them runs faster than the other. Is that true? Of course not. The above fairytale about fast and slow clocks is part of the zombie education. Clever Einsteinians (David Morin included) know that the clocks go at the same rate - the gravitational redshift arises from the acceleration suffered by light signals in a gravitational field:

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

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 13, 2012 @ 12:50 GMT
Eckard

"Such a solar system velocity implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB."

I agree with the above from Smoot, up to the second-to-last word, which reveal the last barrier to understanding the implication.

It is purely how we look at it. We must escape pre-assumption and think more holistically; If we consider for the moment just OUR galaxy, in the rest frame of the cluster, then the galaxy frame IS the LOCAL CMB rest frame for the motion of the solar system.

The Solar System IS the local CMB rest frame for the Earth. The Earth (ECRF) frame IS the local CMB rest frame for us, including for a space shuttle after re-entry, a train IS the local rest frame for a passenger etc.

Each is entirely equivalent! They ALL act as background frames! (states of motion for measuring c against) The implications of this are massively important, but still missed by most (including you Paul, who believe only 'points' are important).

It is of course true that an ultimate CMB frame of the universe is implied, but that is not 'THE' CMB frame in terms of any relevant photon speed for the purposes of classic observation or explaining relativity. Each local background frame IS a CMB rest frame. So each CMB rest frame IS one of "infinitely many 'spaces" (AE 1952) or 'discrete fields' in relative motion.

AND we know the mechanism which defines these kinetic 'entities.' It is the fact that all particles re-emit at their own (so 'LOCAL') c, whatever their state of motion. The bodies EM field limits give us a good physical approximation of extent.

An 'Absolute' frame is thus only relevant to Cosmology. And I agree, as did Einstein that M&M only supported 'dragged ether', which is entirely equivalent to the ECRF and all the above.

It seems to take a leap of dynamic comprehension, but I will not tell you it is difficult for fear that you may just scold me and ignore the advice again. I will just tell you that it is beautifully simple once seen. The word 'revelation' seems to best describe it.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. Paul. It is quite well known that there are no such things as 'points' in reality. It is in any case only relative motion (reference 'frames') that are important. As Einstein used. If you cannot see that, then do report back one day on the successes of your 'rule'.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 08:07 GMT
Peter

"The implications of this are massively important, but still missed by most (including you Paul, who believe only 'points' are important". "It is in any case only relative motion (reference 'frames') that are important. As Einstein used".

I do not miss it, neither am I talking about 'points', neither did Einstein say that only relative motion is important in this context.

Given reference point/frame A then B. Given reference point/frame C, then D, E then F, etc, etc, etc. Now, either one is stuck with this myriad of discrete, but somewhat pointless, facts. Or one compares B, D, F, etc. That necessitates invoking a new reference point/frame, from which to compare these, or selecting any one of those already utilised, but comparing and establishing difference in all cases with respect to it only.

As Einstein correctly identified, any reference point/frame will suffice. His concern with relative motion was nothing to do with some form of philosophy about reference points/frames. It was because he thought (and he may or may not have been right) that matter altered dimension when its momentum was changed (because a force is being applied to cause this). And if this is so, then the reference point has altered (eg it is contracted, therefore the distance is elongated, therefore it takes more time than it otherwise would have done to travel the (new) distance).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
Peter,

You wrote: "all particles re-emit at their own (so 'LOCAL') c, whatever their state of motion". How do you define such speed c without scaling distances and elapsed time, and what state of motion do you refer to? If I recall correctly, you arrived "globally" at velocities in excess of 300 000 km/s.

Incidentally, do you consider any expert including Smoot and Marmet except for Einstein a moron?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 15, 2012 @ 08:25 GMT
Eckard

In the first instant, because light (as in that effect which can be realised as an optical representation)results from a reaction. Same reaction, same start speed, always. A value for this within our existence can be determined.

The real question is, what is the speed after that (see also Topic: Hanny's). And that cannot be established at the local/discrete level. All that results there is a series of intrinsically correct measurements which are not comparable. One needs to utilise one reference point/frame for more than one instance. Indeed for the entire journey of the light, from source object being represented to eye. Light is not some form of bizarre phenomenon that functions to different rules. It just exists and travels, like anything else. The problem is we see with it.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Eckard

"all particles re-emit at their own (so 'LOCAL') c, whatever their state of motion"

Firstly this is empirical fact wrt all particles, measured in each particle's inertial frame, since around 1920. An important point.

You then ask; "How do you define such speed c without scaling distances and elapsed time, We do have both. We define it terms of the distance travelled...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 15, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Peter,

What measurements "around 1920" do you refer to?

For the sake of simplicity let's begin with movements of sources/particles and propagations of belonging emitted light without acceleration along a single previously scaled straight line of locations in empty space. Then I see two reasonable of three options:

- Any light front propagates wrt the belonging emitter (Ritz).

- Any light front propagates wrt the position on the line (Maxwell).

- I know that Einstein in 1905 claimed propagation with velocity c without attributing "a velocity vector" to a location on the line. Here he lost me for the first time.

When Einstein in 1905 denied the necessity of an ether, he avoided the (wrong) objection that the M&M result disproved at least a not entirely dragged ether. He even denied any space absolutely at rest. In the twenties, he admitted the necessity of an ether while nonetheless anyhow maintaining his principles.

If there was evidence for any motion in excess of c for our galaxy wrt CMBR, or our sun system wrt CMBR, or earth wrt CMBR, or something on earth wrt CMBR, etc. then this would require to reconsider not Einstein's anyway rather paradox dogmas but Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic fields.

If I understood your trick correctly, you imagine global velocities in excess of c. At least for acoustic waves such reemission does obviously not happen.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Peter

What are you saying here? That light (as in the 'effect' which is realisable as an optical representation by us)'re-freshes' itself at every point in its journey, because of its contact with other 'particles' or whatever? Re-freshes being a word to indicate reaction occurs, but not of the sort that alters/ceases the 'effect'. Now, if this is the case, then 'light' will certainly travel at c, because it is constantly the result of a new reaction, albeit one that does not destroy/change the realisable image. Except when travelling in certain substances where its speed is affected (indeed, the image can get distorted somewhat), but presumably on emergence from these it reacts and egains base speed.

It is not a question of what it appears to be to the recipient (last observer) of the 'light'. Neither is it relevant, in terms of what actually happens, as to whether we can measure something or not. All that does is make proof difficult. The point is that 'light' is a physical phenomenon, and it travels, from source to recipient. How fast was it effecting that journey.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2012 @ 08:20 GMT
Peter,

I am seriously interested in the measurements you referred to.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 17, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Eckard

"I am seriously interested..." Good, I think we all should be.

Lord Rayleigh was one of the first to find c in the particle frame, without of course seeing the consequences (his scattering turns the sky blue).

Chandraseckara Raman then did the same in 'turbid media' liquid and diffuse gas, (1921) again not knowing he's really found birefringence, extinction, relativity...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 17, 2012 @ 23:08 GMT
Peter

"Paul. You are now seeing chinks of light. The speed light travels across space is always c wherever it IS. (i.e. Locally). It does not however know how fast we or any other future observer is moving, so obviously can't always be doing c wrt each of us until it ARRIVES. That is the Discrete Field Model (DFM). Light does c in all discrete fields, however fast they're moving relatively".

This is not an answer to the question I asked, which was to try and discern if there was some physical reality behind your assertion about the speed of light. The point is what is light c wrt? Light does not "know" anything. It is a physical phenomenon that is travelling, What is this point about it is doing c upon arrival? The question is what have been its overall speed between origin and reception?

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Peter,

I maintain: At least for acoustic waves such reemission (where a global velocity exceeds the locally maximal possible c) does obviously not happen.

You wrote: "You seem confident that sound isn't re-emitted. But now think more openly, and explain to me wave field synthesis (WFS) and how sound can travel through dozens of layers or sheets of different rigid and elastic media and gases."

Waves may convey energy through pieces of a different impedance along a transmission line. For electromagnetic waves the impedance Z typically amounts e.g. 50 Ohm for a cable which is less than the impedance of free space given by SQRT(mu/eps). It is sometimes favorable but not necessary to consider the waves re-emitted if Z changes along the line.

You guided me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rayleigh_scattering . Here I found: "Strictly speaking, in Rayleigh scattering the photon is not absorbed and reemitted".

I did not yet find "Particles scatter EM signals at c, whatever the relative arrival speed." Unfortunately, your link to the original paper did not work.

If I recall correctly, the estimated orbital speed of an electron is anyway questionably much in excess of c. So Raman might have found the correct order but not evidence again absolute space.

What does "relative arrival speed" mean? I guess, you meant the front position of an EM wave wrt the position of the hit particle.

Do not get me wrong. After Marmet revealed that the experiment by M&M is inconclusive, I feel confirmed to imagine the front of EM signals propagating in empty space with c WRT CMBR. Aren't exact one-way measurements of a velocity as large as nearly c and wrt space rather difficult? I did not yet check your hints to Alfven, Compton, Thompson, Feynman, and Hau. I am curious for the confirmation of OPERA by Fermilab-MINOS.

Thanks so far,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT
Eckard

Can you think of a way light is not re-emitted at c locally by a particle? There is no evidence suggesting this, at all! - only that on going through the fine structure surface ions of the emitters 'limits', it miraculously changes speed to c wrt to the 'distance' between emitter and receiver.

The evidence then shows it does precisely the same ON ARRIVAL at the fine structure or 'ionosphere' of all receivers.

That is the paradox in a nutshell. All I'm saying is that it does not have to be 'mysterious' or paradoxical at all!

Such 'Ionospheres' exist at ALL matter. They are in two kinetic parts, the inner one of the matter, the outer one of the surrounding background 'space' EM field. (outside the ECRF is the sun's EM field). These ions then have the continuous (Alfven) turbulent magnetohydrodynamic mixing process so well explored now by the CLUSTER probes (Google the results).

The Discrete field Model simply says what is always found, but makes sense of it, that light is re-emitted at c wrt the ('inner') particles in the Earth's frame and also re emitted at c wrt particles in the suns frame. And also, it is a 2 WAY PROCESS, it works both ways, keeping c locally no matter what the Earth's motion.

Same with a bus. Light approaches at c wrt the road, (so c plus v wrt the bus) but is re emitted by the windscreen glass at c wrt the bus. THAT is what I mean by "relative arrival speed." Or would you claim that light has NOT changed speed to be c in the bus!??

Discovery is about finding better ways to understand what we've already found.(Bragg).

Try this refreshed Raman link. He didn't see the implications of what he found. http://ia600309.us.archive.org/15/items/moleculardiffrac00ra
mauoft/moleculardiffrac00ramauoft.pdf

Actually this is of secondary importance. Rayleigh also on guessed about what his findings meant. Proper interpretation of the findings is important, not the first guesses.

Best wishes

Peter

PS Paul. Do read my last post again, then this, and it should all come together.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
Peter,

I could not yet find something directly relevant to our contrary views in the 122 pages of Raman. It seems to deal in a somewhat speculative rather than purely experimental manner with velocity distributions.

Maybe, your reasoning is based on the same basic assumption as Pentcho's emission theory and Paul's arguments. I was educated as an electrical engineer who did not calculate with particles but with continuous fields even in case of acoustics where the fields are obviously idealizations of large ensembles of molecules.

Accordingly, I always ask for the medium or space any velocity refers to. Any velocity between objects within this frame of reference can be expressed as a difference between such absolute velocities. Electric and magnetic fields in empty space have a peculiarity. They are thought to endlessly extend. Limitation to the field surrounding the earth, the sun, or a galaxy are reasonable but strictly speaking just approximations.

Consequently, I am sharing the many compelling arguments against emission theories. Let's take acoustics as an example. If a source of sound is moving relative to a medium at rest relative to a receiver, then the sound does propagate relative to the medium with the constant speed of sound, no matter how fast and in which direction the sender is moving. That movement merely changes the received frequency according to the Doppler effect. If you were right, would this apply for EM waves too?

Again, the experiment by Michelson and Morley seem to disprove the absolute frame of reference. Did anyone prove Marmet's criticism of it wrong? Otherwise, the principle of relativity might be just an approximation.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 20, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Peter

"Can you think of a way light is not re-emitted at c locally by a particle?..."

But this brings me back to the question I asked recently in one of the threads (you keep creating new ones). That is, how does light (as in 'image') work. Are you saying it, or at least the photons conveying it, have their speed re-set &/or it is re-freshed at every instant in its travel, as it encounters 'particles'. But that re-freshing/re-setting occurs in such a way that the original 'image' remains.

"Same with a bus. Light approaches at c wrt the road, (so c plus v wrt the bus) but is re emitted by the windscreen glass at c wrt the bus. THAT is what I mean by "relative arrival speed." Or would you claim that light has NOT changed speed to be c in the bus!??

This is another example of confusion with reference points. If the road is the reference point, light appears to be travelling at c wrt to it (whatever c actually is) and the bus is travelling at v. That's it. From the perspective of the bus, if both are travelling in the same direction, light appears to be travelling at c - v, and the road at -v.

It has nothing to do with windscreens and re-emmitting, or just arrival speed. All these phenomena exist, and are travelling. The selection of reference point just affects the measured rates thereof. From the perspective of how fast any given phenomena travelled over the length of its entire journey, a different calculation is required.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Eckard

"I always ask for the medium or space any velocity refers to."

I agree with virtually all you say, and of course with the above as speed is only ever a relative concept.

BUT

Contrary to your apparent assumption I am not an emission theorist. There is a very important subtly here I wish to explain. I will use sound as you know the territory.

We will place a siren 300mm INSIDE the windscreen an ambulance. Sound speed = c.

Now think through your scenario again, but this time also add in what happens to the sound in the space between the siren and the windscreen.

This should tell you something completely new. But all I am pointing out is that the sound first propagates at c with respect to the SIREN.

An observer on the pavement, at rest in the outside air, hears it Doppler shifted. It has CHANGED SPEED to the local c AT THE WINDOW!

But something else now; The guy driving the car in front does NOT hear a shift! How does that work!?? The sound must do the same speed through his car as it does inside the ambulance. (wavelength change due to time, at c, = frequency change)

Think carefully. This means it changes speed AGAIN at his back window.

The guy on the pavement watching all this (if it were visible) would see the sound slow down at the ambulance windscreen, (he then sees and hears the compressed waves) and 'speed up' again as it enters, and is 're-emitted' by, the car rear screen glass!

You will agree then that the emitter emits everything at c, but that it immediately slows or speeds up to c wrt the MEDIUM IT IS IN.

This is the Holy Grail Eckard. Because light does precisely the same thing! c is local, as we always find, and now we know why. It is continually absorbed and re-scattered always at the local c, but just at a very tiny (quantum) scale. We call the free electron (ion) scatterers 'surface charge', and they form the physical boundaries of discrete 'kinetic' fields for the purposes of local c.

Well,.. I say "we" know why,....just you and I, and a handful of others know why.

It appears that Occam's truth is invisible to most human minds. How is it best explained?

Or did you see any other solution that also removes the paradoxes?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT
Peter,

Well, "light does precisely the same" as does sound. In that we agree. I wonder if I am the first one to suggest an acoustic Michelson & Morley experiment with c the speed of sound wrt air blowing with a speed of wind wrt ground. If Marmet is correct then such simple experiment will also give an unexpected by theorists null result.

What paradoxes did you refer to? My English is shaky. I guess, the ambulance is a car driven with v wrt ground having a siren inside. The sound propagates inside wrt the medium air inside and would in my understanding also do so if the siren did move wrt the car.

You wrote: [the sound] "has CHANGED SPEED to the local c AT THE WINDOW!" Well, inside the car, the speed of sound referred to the air inside. The change is just a change of reference. The speed outside refers to the air outside. According to c+v or c-v, the sound is there heard there with Doppler frequency shift. Where is the paradox?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2012 @ 20:33 GMT
Eckard

Excellent experimental idea. But I've done similar experiments and been unable to publish as they violate SR.

The paradoxes I refer to are all those attached to SR, mainly relating to the SR postulates, but also the deep division with QM. The picture that sound can give can resolve every problem in physics when also applied to light.

I really don't think you've recognised the simple truth you've found as the revelation it truly is. I agree the sound in the ambulance does c wrt the ambulance even with a moving siren. But go back to a fixed siren, one blast, and think it through separately for observers in each inertial frame;

Measured in respect to the guy on the pavement, using a video camera and a metre stick; Starting from a REAL sound signal DEFINITELY doing c in and wrt the ambulance.

1. How fast does he find the signal in the ambulance going? I suggest c plus v.

2. How fast does he find that signal in the air outside going? I suggest c.

Conclusion. In his frame the light has CHANGED SPEED. when it enters the back of the car in front it CHANGES BACK. (The wavelength change is just the evidence).

The sound signal is like a real Minkowski 'interval' or 'period'. start and finish close up on hitting the outside air because it HAS, REALLY, SLOWED DOWN! - to maintain c LOCALLY.

It's speed measured by the video, c plus v, was however only APPARENT. The REAL speed of light is; C LOCALLY. And it changes speed whenever necessary to keep at c locally in all co-moving media. (all light entering the camera does c).

It REALLY DOES change speed. Light REALLY IS like sound in this respect. It REALLY DOES CHANGE speed locally to c, ..everywhere! - on 'acceleration'.

-including when it hits the lens of our eye, or of an instrument. It is then no wonder at all that light always does c "irrespective of the motion of emitter and receiver."

It simply changes speed because it couples with all particles it meets, and they re-emit it at their own, NEW, c.

This changes over 100 years of physics.

Are most humans really blind to the unbelievably simple process and it's absolutely massive implications???

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 20, 2012 @ 04:44 GMT
Peter,

Michelson & M. did perhaps not see a necessity for performing a check of their reasoning with acoustic waves. Moreover, acoustic waves must have a small enough wavelength as to provide sufficient spatial resolution. This requires ultrasonic equipment.

I would like to learn what kind of experiments you performed. Your reasoning does not yet persuade me.

I still agree with 1 and 2. When the wave enters a medium with the same c but different velocity wrt ground then its speed changes correspondingly. Changing c with the properties of the medium can also affect the speed of the wave. Hau managed to slow light down to impressive 17m/s. In empty space, neither the properties of a medium not its speed wrt itself may change.

I question your statement: "The REAL speed of light is; C LOCALLY" because you do not directly specify what your "local" speed refers to. Obviously you are referring it to the emitter. This is definitely wrong at least for acoustic waves.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 20, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
I question your statement: "The REAL speed of light is; C LOCALLY".

So do I, and always have done. See my post above just now. Can we please keep to one thread, as this is getting fragmented, but I am not going to repeat points just in case they are missed from a thread that has become 'redundant' overnight.

Paukl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Eckard.

The speed of light is always c locally. As I have said, we must read c/n for c to avoid complication. Lena Hau's Harvard lab actually stopped light completely in BEC more recently.

Your last sentence jumped to a conclusion, forgetting what I actually said, or rather not applying the ontology agreed from the lesson of the ambulance. As the ambulance showed, 'local speed' may...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Peter,

So far I only considered the far field of waves. The speed of its propagation (aka photons or phonons) does not refer to the emitter. The near field is considered immobile wrt the emitter. This might hold true even in case of a moving wrt the medium/space emitter. Admittedly, I am not yet aware of experiments that confirm or refute this guess of mine.

Incidentally, you mentioned your own experiments. I am still curious.

I did not deal with the Croatian priest Father Roger Boscovich who already died in 1787.



imagine your local c

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT
Peter

It is, as said above, nothing to do with what you are suggesting. 'Light' is 'light' is 'light'. As an identified entity, just as any other, 'it' travels. It just so happens this enables us to see. But one needs another 'light' to see the first 'light'. You are confusing the process of observation and reality. And reference points, as again pointed out above, because you have the entities speeds calibrated to different reference points but deemed to be directly comparable.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Eckard

The change in light propagation 10^-6 (1 micron) from the surface in the transition zone from Maxwells near field is an excellent analogy. I hesitate to use it as fools often misinterpret it, but as you understand;

With light, it is equivalent to the emitter emitting at c wrt the emitter, then the signal encountering the turbulent magnetohydrodynamic 'surface charge' zone, whereon it propagates, as you say, at c in the medium irrespective of emitter motion. This is precisely what 'always does c LOCALLY' means (still reading 'c/n' as c of course).

'Locally' means 'where that particular photon or wave IS at any moment in time'.

The transition zone is perfectly represented by the ambulance windscreen, and due to the change, the refraction changes, (from Fresnel to Fraunhofer - as the wiki link you gave, but which was rather dominated by macro antenna theory).

If we then scale this up to planetary size, we find the transition zone as our ionosphere, where light speed is c wrt earth in the ECRF but c wrt the sun in Barycentric space.

'States of motion' are by definition mutually exclusive. They also are by definition 'inertial frames'. So anything at rest in an inertial frame that accelerates, is no longer part of that frame but creates a new one, a kinetic state WITH physical limits for the purposes of local c.

That takes some consideration!

The inevitable conclusion is that light propagation is at c wrt it's environment. If two adjacent Environments are in relative motion; the light 'speed' may then appear to change when moving between them (to an observer remaining at rest). This is precisely as Doppler shift. If the pedestrian accelerates and sprints to the speed of the ambulence, he finds no shift. (The 'boundary zone' propagation change works both ways of course- i.e. for arriving light as well).

Paul. Yes I can see what you're saying thank you, but I am NOT confusing observed reality with emitted reality. Indeed I originally explained those concepts here and to you, and 'points' do not exist in any reality, have trivial relevance in kinetics, and even notionally cannot move in geometric space. I'm sorry but your comprehension is many light years behind this discussion at present.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Peter

Yet again you alight on my word 'point'. It is not a point, I am saying reference point.

And yet again, I ask how does 'light' work? In the sense that your conceptualisation of its speed as always being locally c can only be valid if it 're-freshes' at every 'local' position, ie by virtue of constant interaction, the photons retain that 'start speed', which is the function of an atomic reaction (see an above post), but the realisable image remains intact.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT
Eckard

Anon was me. The experiments covered duality and the propagation of light and were very 'enlightening'.

The Planck institute have also found many surprising results inconsistent with current theory but consistent with the DFM's relative kinetics.

I describe a few in this old paper which I thought you'd read. It explains much if you didn't. http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

It also explains Lodges' error and implications, inherited by Einstein as he changed Bradley's viewpoint, because that (ballistic model) implied an 'absolute frame' so 'ether' when viewed from the correct state of motion (frame) i.e. that of Earth. Note Einstein gave a positive (plus) 'sign', to aberration, the opposite to Bradley's correct - sign! Neither are however accurate or consistent. The 2010 Astronomical Almanac model gave an entirely new formulation with sidereal hour angle to try to fix it, but will also fail. (not yet tested for accuracy near the ecliptic polar).

The experiment did not consider in terms of Van De Waal (sphere ~4x mass volume) or transition zones, that followed later, beautifully consistently, resolving current chronic lack of understanding and cohesion. Tell me what you think.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
Peter,

Because I failed to get your reference 35, Fleagle 2007, I cannot see to what extent your own variations of the double slit experiment are new and reliable. I have to apologize for being light years remote from any proficiency in that matter. Anyway, I guess you are trying very much to get recognized, maybe too much. Referees are also humans. Already the title of your paper is overly demanding.

Cannot you separate the aberration issue from your experiments. If you will add a more careful description of the experiments and provide original interference pattern, then you might have a chance to begin with a publication of nothing else than the experiments. I see some details of your belonging interpretation hindering any acceptance. Let the result of the experiments speak for themselves. Isn't the aberration issue including Lodge's error worth a separate paper?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
Eckard

If you want my advice, I would concentrate on the basics here, as per when you were asking about local c. All the complicated stuff builds up from the basics. Though it is difficult to follow the drift since new threads are constantly being created.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
Eckard

Thank you. My complex twin slit experiments were just to confirm the Fleagle findings but falsifed a better interpretation, consistent with the Maxwell field equation transition better interpreted, and also some Max Planck Inst. results.

I agree I cover too wide a range in my paper as human minds struggle with multiple complex conceptions. The problem is that when propositions are not fully evidenced people simply dismiss them. This is a serious Catch 22 problem.

The DFM says the near field transition zone is equivalent to our planetary ionosphere and shock, with two kinetic states of particle mixing. Light crossing the zone ends up at the new local c. It is very simple. The evidence is overwhelming in all senses, and conflicts with beliefs so becomes invisible or uninterpretable. Witness Pauls view.

It is again good advice you give, but simpler limited papers have also been ignored as explained above. the incremental approach is needed. Will I live long enough?!?

I am not 'trying to get recognized' at all. Science can only be successful if ego free. There is precious little of that. I believe it important for humanity to find it's way out of these dark ages, this deep rut. Troglodytes rule and fools abound, but I am doing what I can. A further joint paper went in today.

Can you see the whole construction now? and how the classical may be derived direct from the quanta? Help and independent advocation is needed.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT
Peter,

If I understood your last posting correctly, your own experiments confirmed what Fleagle found out. Fleagle's own interpretation was improved by the MPI. However, you are claiming having managed to falsify the improved by the MPI interpretation. If so, the MPI would certainly expect you to clearly explain what was wrong with their improved interpretation and how compelling is your experimental evidence in support of your claim. MPI is a pretty widespread and renowned successor of German pre-WW2 research institutions to which many famous experts were affilated. Even in Magdeburg a powerful MPI has been established. Did you try and discuss the matter with the belonging experts of MPI?

What about the near field transition zone, the extension of the near field is said to be of the order of two wavelengths. The wavelength of light is about 10^10 times smaller than the extension of ionosphere.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 11:56 GMT
Eckard

My findings and interpretation were consistent with Max Plank Inst (MPI) findings. I did not say or mean that I disagreed with any MPI interpretation. MPI researchers, sensibly, rarely offer interpretations. This is normally because the findings are very specialist (limited) in scope and cannot be interpreted within mainstream theory and without some wider ontological basis. Such is science!

I have tried to discuss the comprehensive consistencies with the DFM, and theory generally, with some key people at MPI but they simply don't respond! They seem terrified of saying anything that may overtly seem to contradict Einstein, so remain completely non committal beyond experimentation. I have managed to find nothing they have done which contradicts DFM predictions,. But who cares? no-one.

Think carefully about your comment re the 10^10 scale difference of the near field and our bow shock. Compared to the size of a single mass particle >1 micron is reasonably equivalent to the ionospheric radius around Earth, the heliosphere, and the galactic halo.

Now add in the element of relative motion. I propose the transition zone grows with relative field motion, which is not inconsistent with any findings. Consider the beautiful HST shot of LL Orionis in my essay, with her bow shock. We are observing a solar system in relative motion through a gas nebula. The solar system has a single assignable group velocity, irrespective of the relative velocity of the components within it.

Those components are only 'moving', so only have a 'local velocity' wrt the star. Now think harder; Inside the shock, EM wave propagation (at c) is then wrt the star. 'Outside' the shock (due the the mixing of the two lots of scattering particles) c is only c wrt the gas cloud. So; ergo: c is ALWAYS LOCAL, really and physically.

Now, The greater the relative speed, the more particles are needed to effect the modulation of c and the resultant change in distance between wave peaks, i.e. wavelength.

Obviously no-one at MPI has tested for change in the transition zone position for particles at significant relative speeds! Tricky task. but all we need to do is compare the size of comas of comets doing different speeds wrt 'nothing' (actually wrt EM fields) and the evidence that they are bigger with greater speed slaps us directly in the face. The shuttle re-entering the atmosphere is another example.

Did you know that we have also found that the coma's refract light!? Oh yes. Another smash in the face with evidence, which we ignore as it conflicts with our religious beliefs ('science').

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
Peter,

Concerning Lodge 1893, I compared your paper with Don Johnson's "On the Transverse Emission and Propagation of Light from Moving Sources", Gal. ED 16, 1, 3-7, Jan/Feb 2005, easily available for free. Why did you not quote it and deal with it as well as with in particular the following references?

F. Wilczek: The Persistence of Ether (1999)

Paul Marmet: Stellar Aberration, Phys. Essays and newtonphysics

Georges Sardin: Measure of absolute speed through the Bradley aberration (2001)

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 20:39 GMT
Eckard

They are all barking up the 'absolute ether' tree, where the solution is not hiding. There is much correct and much sense of course, but as with any theory just one wrong assumption can make the conclusions false. Many thousands have been up, down and examined that particular tree inside out. Some chew it's leaves, Many hug it, and cling to it as a liferaft.

But as any good spy knows, the best place for a solution to hide is in plain sight. Right under our noses. Disguised as all we are familiar with, but truly have made wrong assumptions about all our lives.

Many of the citation assumptions are correct, as are many findings, but none are 100% correct and complete, so all conclusions may be false and confuse.

All the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle lie before us, but also other pieces from many more old jigsaw puzzles too. Finding the picture on the box is of course a massive help!. But the other way is to find the code to which are the correct parts, so the rubbish may be discarded and the puzzle solved. I suggest part of the code may be this;

DFM;

1. A 'background' frame is not of necessity also a single absolute frame.

2. Light interacts with all matter and complies with the STR postulates on doing so.

3. States of motion of matter are, by definition, mutually exclusive, not Cartesian 'frames'.

4. Any system, i.e. a galaxy, may have an assigned group 'state of motion'. Any matter or smaller system is entirely equivalent with, within and without any other system.

5. We cannot SEE light unless it arrives and interacts; so light 'passing by' is only evidenced by OTHER, scattered, light, sent and arriving at c

Does the logic of the apparent puzzle start to appear?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Peter,

I expected you to confront your "Lodge's error" with the opposite written by Don Johnson.

As soon as we got this settled, we may consider which tree might be the correct one. You wrote: "They are all barking up the 'absolute ether' tree".

Perhaps you are aware of Carel van der Togt's Gal, ED paper "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether (16,4,75). He argues in favor of a dragged ether.

So far, I only see the absolute space, maybe an absolute ether, convincingly consistent with all correctly interpreted observations. I disagree not just with proponents of SR or emission theory but also with neo-Lorentzians. Your "group-'state of motion' " is not acceptable to me at least as long as you do not clarify what its motion refers to. You are reiterating what Einstein did when he did not clarify what his c refers to. Moreover you will run in trouble with overlapping groups.

Juri asked Wilczek for a comment on my 833 essay and did not get any reply. Wilczek suggested the ether like a grid. I do not trust in this idea because I cannot imagine any ordered grid or crystal without preferred directions in space.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 09:53 GMT
Peter

“Does the logic of the apparent puzzle start to appear?”

No.

1 What is a background frame? What is being referenced to what in order to produce whichever outcome?

2 “States of motion of matter are, by definition, mutually exclusive”. What can this mean, given that the calibrated state of motion is dependent on referencing another. It is purely difference.

3 “We cannot SEE light unless it arrives and interacts; so light 'passing by' is only evidenced…” This is irrelevant. A ray of light is an existent phenomenon. It travels from a to b. So like anything else that does so, for that journey, it has an overall speed. Or indeed, at any point in that journey it has a speed.

Can you please respond within this thread, ie press ‘reply to’ not ‘new post’. I asked a question about whether you envision light as working in such and such a way, which might explain your ‘local c’, I also commented on some example, etc. But when I return, there’s a new thread on each occasion.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 12:36 GMT
Paul

I'm really not sure I can help you as you seem unable or refuse to take yourself to the place I have specified from where the new vista can be observed. Perhaps read my post to Eckard. In which case try these answers;

1. The 'next frame up'. As you walk through a room it is the room. If it is a cabin on a moving ship it is still the cabin. If we are then considering the state of motion of the cabin? It is ONLY the ships motion wrt the Earth, and so on, and on. In inertial terms, nothing else matters. Think each one through carefully. Do you drive your car at an assignable speed wrt one of the birds flying above, wrt the road, or wrt Andromeda? Once you find the solution, investigate the whole of 'WHY' with a fresh view.

2. Precisely. It is not only 'purely' but ALWAYS 'difference'. You must think only in terms of kinetics. One we then accept that all spaces are mediums in terms of light propagation speed, the reference frame for c may start to appear.

3. OK It is irrelevant. I agree; to those with blindfolds on, turning on the light is entirely irrelevant. If you refuse to remove the blindfold and engage your brain at full power it will remain so. The blindfold may fall off by re-reading and then searching for new implications. But I suspect you feel all the answers you need are behind it. Also; You ask in Q1 'what does the speed refer to?', then entirely ignore that golden rule when important in Q3.

I think you are too far off the pace, or stuck in another place. I have spent much time trying, but suspect I cannot take on the task.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 12:13 GMT
Eckard

I clarified both that speed always had to be referenced to something, and what it was referenced to, but you missed it. (in this respect 'speed' is equivalent to motion).

The whole reason for there BEING background frames is to provide that 'static' reference frame. The only case of background frames which had been considered so far (the 'Tree') is a single 'absolute' one. My option is kinetically entirely equivalent to the Stokes, Van Togt etc 'dragged ether', but considered more carefully in terms of what it provides. It provides;

LOCAL BACKGROUND FRAMES, WITHIN LOCAL BACKGROUND FRAMES, ETC ETC. The only relevant frame is the 'next one up', which everything is moving with respect to. You seem to keep grasping this, but then it's implications slip away again.

The Earth and it's dragged EM field (and 'ether' if you like) is moving wrt the background field. It makes NO DIFFERENCE the that realtionship which way the solar system is moving in the galaxy, or the galaxy within the cluster. But ALL frames surround MATTER, and include the fine particle 'halo' or 'near field.'

It also make NO DIFFERENCE what smaller thing is moving WITHIN the Earth's dragged frame, It is entirely EQUIVALENT, but this time the Earth's frame is the background. If you run in a train? the TRAIN is the background! - You can run at 10mph but only EVER wrt the TRAIN!!, whatever speed and direction the train is moving at makes no difference. Only the 'NEXT FRAME UP' counts for ANYTHING as regards inertial motion. (acceleration, is also simple, but only once the inertial foundation is understood).

You can't imagine how frustrating it is explaining this 'local background' kinetic basis a dozen times in so many different ways, then STILL having you claim that I haven't referenced "what the motion refers to."!!

I warned you you need to drop preconceptions. Do you disbelieve me? just chose to ignore me? or is it really not possible for some?

Can something that simple really be so difficult to hold in a human mind? Please explain to me how I might better explain it so it is both understood and sticks in the mind. How about a cheap 'catch phrase' - perhaps; 'Next Frame Up'?. Please try embedding that in your mind and let me know if it helps.

Many thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Peter,

I quote from "The Postulates of Special Relativity" by Walter Babin in his gsj:

"... there have been innumerable attempts to find this universal frame of reference (the aether) with no avail [Dayton Miller is the only dissenting voice.].

Paul Marmet has revealed an unexpected compelling reason why this might be wrong.

Concerning your idea of nested backgrounds for velocities, I do not consider me more intelligent than the experts of MPI who allegedly did also not grasp it.

Nonetheless, I would appreciate a clarifying comparison between your opinion that Lodge was wrong and Don Johnson's who wrote: "I will show that Lodge's intuitions and logic are not only in conformity ... his reasoning avoids an inconsistency of logic that has persisted in mainstream texts to this day."

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 26, 2012 @ 07:51 GMT
Eckard

Yes, but SR is only a particular circumstance. There is no gravity (ie force), so bodies only move in uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, rays of light travel in straight lines at a constant speed, and bodies have a fixed shape. Einstein said so.

Which is fair enough. But, how can such a conceptulised circumstance prove anything, or be used in other arguments. [Actually, it does not, which is why there is GR, which represents (supposedly) the real world].

Otherwise see above for my response to Peter.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 26, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT
Eckard

A few dozen have grasped the kinetic relativity, many of those have not found the implications, or have subsequently lost their grip. the mind needs 'pictures'.

Lodge; Johnson failed to understand that there can be both a 'real' speed of light, as moving in the observer frame so 'received', and an 'apparent' speed. The 'apparent speed' is that moving, say, within a passing block of ice or fibre optic cable doing v wrt the observer. The APPARENT speed alone may be c plus or minus v.

In physical terms this is because we are not 'seeing the light'. We are only seeing the light scattered to us from the particles the original light illuminates. (at c). We cannot then use 'proper time' to find speed c in another, moving, medium, because by definition 'proper time' is only possible within the observer frame.

This is easily confused by a dozen red herrings and wrong assumptions, but is pure and simple once grasped. Johnson stood no chance.

Even when explained, it takes much contemplation to rationalise. Walter Babin was correct in that there is not ONE local universal frame. It only exists at the centre of our universe, so is not local. There is however a local background frame to every frame. So Marmet was again largely correct, but not spot on. E H Dowdye was closer to the core kinetic basis.

Does that help?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 27, 2012 @ 07:36 GMT
Peter

"In physical terms this is because we are not 'seeing the light'. We are only seeing the light scattered to us from the particles the original light illuminates. (at c). We cannot then use 'proper time' to find speed c in another, moving, medium, because by definition 'proper time' is only possible within the observer frame"

"Does that help?" No. Because: a) seeing the light is irrelevant, the light (ie some specific entity) exists and is travelling, just like anything else, and b) we now seem to have time, which is non-existent, or timing, where it is altered to different circumstances, which it cannot be. The whole point of the measuring system of time being, like any other measuring system, a constancy of reference (common denominator).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 29, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Peter,

Mentioning "Heugyens" and "Reletivititaet", a Prof. Kaucher praised Dowdye's confirmation of SR as "geniale Nobelpreisverdaechtige Leistung". I also wonder why Dowdye often spoke in churches. Anyway, I found here an anything but correct reference "[8] Ewald-Oseen, Annealed der Physic 1915". Lucas and Lucas certainly meant Annalen der Physik. Is there a trustworthy source that explains how the putatively discovered "extinction effect in electrodynamcis" was measured?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 13:21 GMT
Eckard

Dowdye did not confirm SR, but did confirm the POSTULATES of SR, as does the DFM. This has caused much confusion, but is also a perfect Trojan Horse virus to correct the cancerous malignancy in mainstream understanding of physics.

A good paper on extinction is here; http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-68-
5-602

Though the basic Ewald-Oseen model was quite raw. It is however in all godd text books, i.e.; Hecht, Eugene. Zajac, Alfred. 'Optics'. Addison Wesley. Menlo Park California. (1979).

Related birefringence in plasma; Http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/PLASMA.2010.5533983 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=553
3983

and; http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v98/i15/p151501_s1? isA
uthorized=no

and; Current Opinion in Structural Biology Volume 6, Issue 5

and an excellent insight; http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/304/1478/303.
short

Ref the NPA, there have been just two more recent cases of seeing the light and the logic. I regard each as a major success, but have not yet found a good simple route to changing 100 years of indoctrination.

Ref Paul's suggestion about a 'flaw', this is of course what we've been searching for as falsification but no-one has yet found one. I hope you can use your best efforts to seek one out and identify it. For those who can comprehend, and make the effort to do so, the only 'disagreement' raised now is purely 'belief' based, which is falsified by the solid evidence base.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Paul

When somebody explains that something is relevant to a proposition being constructed, then saying that it 'is not relevant' does not help comprehend the proposition.

Considering, and searching to explore what relevance it is proposed to have to the proposition would prove far more enlightening.

You are still not thinking kinetically. Light is about change over time and position, and you cannot seem to take aboard that different observers also move through media.

If you accept that a flash of light transmitted within a space ship moves at c wrt the space ship, whatever speed it is doing wrt anything else, then you have a solid foundation.

Now consider seven identical space ships on different vectors. Your whole proposition is suddenly exposed as simplistic. Any one 'reference point' as you call it, perhaps an observer on an asteroid with fixed video cameras, would find seven different apparent speeds for the flashes of light on each moving ship.

Thus should tell you that you need to look further than your simplistic conception. Only once you accept that you need to look further will you be capable of SEEING further.

The solution is simple once seen, but is currently beyond your sight, because you are convinced you already know better.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Peter

“When somebody explains that something is relevant to a proposition being constructed, then saying that it 'is not relevant' does not help comprehend the proposition.”

No it does not. Except that I explain why.

“Light is about change over time and position, and you cannot seem to take aboard that different observers also move through media”.

Yes, ‘light’ as an entity, over time, changes (including position). Which is what I keep saying. And the relevance of different observers moving, and through media, is that each ray of ‘light’ may be affected differently. Which may or may not, also affect the ‘light’, as in image, being conveyed. Because, at the start point, many of the resulting rays of ‘light’ which were created as a result of an interaction, were identical in the sense of image instigated. Which is also what I keep saying. One can either track a photon, or, by extrapolation from articulated perceptions, one can track an effect in photons (commonly called an image). It does not matter. Both are existent entities. Which travel. At a speed. And the resultant observer, ie the thing which any given ray of light happens to hit, as opposed to another observer, or a rock, etc, has no effect whatsoever. It cannot have. Any ray of light is travelling to an observer.

“an observer on an asteroid with fixed video cameras, would find seven different apparent speeds for the flashes of light on each moving ship”

Not so. Assuming conditions were identical in every circumstance, and the spaceships are not hermetically sealed (ie in which case they would be a ‘solid’), then from one extrinsic reference, all rays of light would be measured as travelling at the same speed.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Paul

"And the resultant observer, ie the thing which any given ray of light happens to hit, as opposed to another observer, or a rock, etc, has no effect whatsoever. It cannot have. Any ray of light is travelling to an observer."

Who told you that? Only a fool. Of course the observer and his motion can have and does have an effect on what he 'sees'.

Are the observed frequencies the same when one observer is moving towards the source and one moving away?

Who converts the signals to an image, and where? Before arrival? No.

Where do the different Doppler shift come from when the light arrives at each observer?

And why is it always found at c once interacted with and Doppler shifted?

Where DOES Doppler shift come from apart from changed wavelength lambda, (because frequency is only a derivation of lambda and c).

What is happening at the transition zone of dense turbulent free electrons between the near and far field, 1 micron from the lens, and why does light in each field behave so differently, with totally different refractive result?

Do you not understand or for some reason not believe in atomic scattering. And if you do, is light not re-scattered at c, giving the Doppler effect? If not, then at what speed do you think it is emitted? and how is the changed wavelength manifested?

Neils Bohr explained to students in danger of failing their thesis that to understand anything about light they has to understand how a lens worked at a quantum level. Many knew better, and failed to progress. One did not, his name was Heisenberg.

(But even then they knew the real answer was beyond them, as did Einstein, who said so).

Peter

PS; 'Ray' of light' is an 18th century conception which will mislead.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 29, 2012 @ 07:39 GMT
Peter

“Who told you that? Only a fool. Of course the observer and his motion can have and does have an effect on what he 'sees'”.

Precisely. On what he sees, ie the ‘condition’ of the information received, and when he received it. But not on the reality, which is what we are trying to establish. Which was a physically existent occurrence which interacted with photons (and other phenomena) to create many identical representations (commonly referred to as light), which then travelled, through specific circumstances and took a duration to do so, before being received. [Those representations are also a reality, in themselves-see below].

“Are the observed frequencies the same when one observer is moving towards the source and one moving away?”

The observed frequencies are not the actual frequencies. By definition, an observer, who has yet to receive a physical entity cannot alter that actual entity (it being in this instance a representation, an effect on photons). This is an optical illusion, which I have explained so many times before. It is:

Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. Whilst the perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The intrinsic rate of change (duration, in reality) in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised. [NB: This explanation takes no account of the possible influence of length alteration].

“Do you not understand or for some reason not believe in atomic scattering”

Yes, and I asked about this in thread Peter 15/2 15.46 (my post 16/2 09.02). And referred to it later a couple of times because I did not get an answer and you keep on creating new threads. Essentially my question being, is there a properly validated physical explanation for what you are saying, rather than a justification based on a particular framing philosophy.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 29, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Paul

"The observed frequencies are not the actual frequencies". That is a poor understanding stemming from poor assumption.

Frequency is never 'actual', it is only an observed derivative of wavelength and time. It may be 'emitted' as measured in the emitters frame, or 'received' as measured in the observers frame. You should refer to "Emitted Wavelength" and relative observer v to derive observed observed frequency. Only then can you gain some intuition as to the real processes involved.

You ask; "is there a properly validated physical explanation for what you are saying,".

Science is about new discovery, which is 'change' to old stuff. New discovery by definition has not yet been discovered so not yet explained!! If it's already in the book it is worthless, and not scientific discovery. You are thus asking an entirely illogical question.

Falsification is about consistent interpretation of all evidence without paradox or anomaly. No other theory has achieved this. The DFM simply does so, but it is not in a text book, it takes the application of intelligence and logic to falsify.

There are plenty of previous similar theories were slightly off track or which went off track, or remained incomplete. Stokes 'ether drag,' Raman's atomic scattering, Minkowski's space-time, Fox's extinction; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965AmJPh..33....1F Dowye's Extinction Shift. Far more complex evidence if you can understand it, such as; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature1
0561.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714 , and all the evidence of astrophysics anomalies resolved. All the evidence itself is fully 'validated.' There is no 'framing philosophy', just consistent interpretation of evidence, and consistent postulates, including those of SR.

But it is very different from old physics, the difference being that it is consistent with observation. But it seems most prefer old 'belief' to logic, so I have an impossible task.

Peter

Eckard - A handful at the NPA site have comprehended so far, though few have also seen the implications. It seems most dissidents are as dogmatic and blinkered about their own theories as most mainstream physicists about MS.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
Peter

"The observed frequencies are not the actual frequencies". That is a poor understanding stemming from poor assumption. Frequency is never 'actual', it is only an observed derivative of wavelength and time”.

So you are saying something else is actual. Which is fair enough. I was just repeating your word (your post 28/2 18.52). My point was, there is an actual occurrence, and there is an observation of that. Which was correct.

“You ask; "is there a properly validated physical explanation for what you are saying,".

I made yet another reference to my question in thread Peter 15/2 15.46 (my post 16/2 09.02). Where I made an attempt to identify some way in which ‘light’ could work, actually not in terms of observation, which could then justify your framing concept. It remains unanswered.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Paul

Sorry if I missed a question. The answer is important. I did reply on 17.2 at 11.25 and 2 following, including referring you back. It seems that didn't help.

You suggest;

"It is not a question of what it appears to be to the recipient (last observer) of the 'light'. Neither is it relevant, in terms of what actually happens, as to whether we can measure something or not....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Peter

The specific question I was referring to was posted on 16/2 09.02 in response to your post 15/2 15.46, which started a new thread. Though there are many other comments/ questions posted, in what has become a very disjointed set of threads, with now the same points being made in different ones.

The specific question was (16/2 09.02):

“What are you saying here? That...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Peter,

Concerning your claim to agree with the principles of relativity I would like you to clarify. You wrote to Paul: "The speed light travels across space is always c wherever it IS. (i.e. Locally). It does not however know how fast we or any other future observer is moving,... "

Could you please explain how you imagine space differing from how we usually understand it: a universal frame of reference with no known central point for reproducible description of relative distances which is valid for any two objects regardless of their motion relative to each other and also relative to any third object.

If you agree with the usual understanding of space then I wonder with which justification you are speaking of a local velocity c.

In case of acoustics, the velocity of sound always refers to the medium. This velocity does of course not know how fast any observer moves relative to it.

The medium air is definitely anisotropic. Nonetheless, Feist measured what he called an isotropy curve corresponding to c^2-v^2 not to the anisotropy curve SQRT(c^2-v^2).

There is only one reasonable explanation for that: Usually everybody overlooks the effect of aberration. Consideration of it is rendering all Fizeau-inspired double return-trip experiments inconclusive. Michelson was not just unhappy because his experiment gave rise to the monster or SRT. His unjustified expectation is indeed to blame for misleading many generations of physicist.

The null result does not at all exclude an absolute frame of reference. The second postulate and belonging behavior of light corresponds to the far field behavior of acoustic waves too. I see it slightly contradicting to the first postulate. Galilean relativity is correct due to restriction to proximity. Electric fields are thought to extent without limitation.

Can anyone provide to me free access to possibly also relevant papers, e.g. to V.V. Ragul'skii: An experimental study of the optical isotropy in space, Phys. Uspekhi 1997, 40, 972-974? I got aware of it via A. A. Shvartsburg.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 2, 2012 @ 13:32 GMT
Paul

I'm grateful you last paragraph shows that you have grasped the kinetics. If you now spend a little time surfing the cosmos you'll find the anomalies resolved.

But, in science, seeing implications is far more important than just finding thing out. In this case, if you follow the logic, you will find that your last line will be proven very wrong.

But first establish the concpet in your mind before it's lost. Perhaps imagine a torch with a glass handle flying through space. Light arriving from behind will change speed due to TWO factor, one the refractive index n of glass, and one kinetically subject to the speed of the torch.

Yet, and let's say it's the same light just passing through, the beam is always emitted at c wrt the lens. NOT the relative arrival speed! So the distance between waves is changed. Remember that; WAVELENGTH IS CHANGED. Then, if the torch is moving through the background em field particles, the emitted light is gradually absorbed and re-emitted at the PARTICLE c, so the wavelength returns to that of the light when it first approached, as the latest c is in the SAME background.

The concept of speed always relating to the local NEXT FRAME UP is crucial.

You lost it above once you forgot that I'd referred the emitted speed c to the particle state of motion. Read and think more carefully. All particles of mass do and of course must have a state of motion.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 2, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Eckard

You ask how it differs "from how we usually understand it."

The Earth's magnetosphere and ECRF is a perfect example, as is the Sun's (Heliosphere) and Galaxy's (Halo). All are equivalent to Maxwell's transition zone.

They all have an assignable and real group 'state of motion.' Light does c through and wrt each. Only the 'NEXT FRAME UP' (remember the catch phrase) is valid for assigning that speed, or 'relative state of motion'. The particle systems themselves modulate light speed so no 'ether is required, (except perhaps to condense the particles).

So; Boscovitch, Minkwski and Einstein were literally correct; All mass has a 'field of influence', there are "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion," and all mass is "spatially extended". Light simply changes speed to the local c at each limit.

Yes, the velocity, as with sound, always relates to the LOCAL medium it is in, (not any other). Space is anisotropic, in more than one sense.

But there is no contradiction to the first postulate. Only a the assumption of a relevant 'absolute frame' brings contradiction. The Universes 'absolute' frame is only relevant to the motion of our supercluster filament, and is the ONLY background frame relevant to it. (witness the 370km/s anisotropic flow, which is NOT 370km/s wrt our Earth OR Galaxy!)

You only have to think about it. Voyagers maximum speed was wrt the sun, not Andromeda, Earth's, or wrt any other frame. Now it is leaving the Sun's frame, it has 'mysteriously' slowed down. Not strange at all. It's v max will now be wrt our spiral arm, or the galaxy.

I agree em fields are considered as infinite. They are not, which distinguishes them from gravity. They stretch to the transition zone. We cannot detect our own once outside the bow shock. Everything then relates to the barycentric (Sun's) frame.

My reply to your other string gives a fuller ontology. As I said to Paul the principle must be consistently applied.

As Thespians say; rehearse rehears rehearse, or it drifts away.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Peter,

"rehearse rehears rehearse"??? This is perhaps not the way to convince serious scientists. While your rather vague description is anything but quantitative and it lacks experimental substantiation, I feel a bit reminded of proponents of dragged ether like van der Togt. Do you know that the near field does not propagate?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT
Peter

Eckard asked a specific form of the general principle I keep stating. Picking up on your phrase: "The speed light travels across space is always c wherever it IS". He asked, so how is (your) space constituted to be able to do that?

I must also pick up on your 'spaces/spatially extended' comment. This has been the subject of an exchange previously, when you referred me to a 1952 paper. As I said then, the point was (simply) that space was that which was not object. It could be extrinsic to one object whilst being intrinsic to another, larger, object. And in this space forces occurred, which are a function of the objects, hence the concept of object being spatially extended. The particular concern of Einstein being that, if objects alter in dimension due to force applied, then space alters. Space being, in effect, a consequence of object.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Paul

Space does not require a constitution in the DFM. If there are no particles about, then light will do what light does with or without 'ether', just cross it at c, and keep on going with no speed change.

But, if there is a lump of matter flying past nearby, surrounded by an EN field and a big particle halo or 'shock', then the light reaching those particles will be absorbed (over space and time subject to particle density) and re-emitted at c. the 'old' speed is thus gradually extinguished (extinction co-efficient).

Let's envisage it's a really big collection of matter, a galaxy say. The 'dark matter' halo moving through space and rotating with it (if a bit slower) stretches out well over 10 times the galaxy radius. It is the interaction with the halo particles that changes the incoming light speed to c with respect to the motion of the galaxy. i.e. The GALAXY is now the NEXT FRAME UP'. No ether is required for this process.

BUT the process means that an 'ether' frame would be 'ALLOWED' (as Einstein knew was wanted -from Leiden 1921 on.) And the shock particles must of course condense from somewhere. So Smoot's troublesome CMBR 'frame last scattered' also becomes consistent.

Yes Paul, you did explain your interpretation of Einstein's views very well before. It seems that you took your prior assumptions and applied them to what you were reading. I have studied Einstein and all his works and writings for many decades and entirely disagree with your view. I believe he meant precisely what he wrote, and put the same thing in different ways on other occasions, including at Gothenburg. This is consistent kinetically with the latest astrophysics. If you disagree, do some research on SAURON, ATLAS 3D, the kSZ effect etc. work out the kinetic implications, then read the '52 paper again.

Velocity can only be validly measured and have a limit of c wrt a single LOCAL background. Do the particles at CERN do 99.999% c wrt your train to work? or Jupiter? Find something that breaches this rule for me.

Best wishes

PS. Eckard. You made a statement that 'dragged ether' was inconsistent. With what? Nobody I know has demonstrated that. Where did you get it from?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Eckard

You understood a simple concept, but I explained what would happen if you did not practice applying it, in your own interest.

You took offence and chose not to listen but to ignore me.

It then happened exactly as I predicted.

So now, after firmly agreeing that the wavelength altered when moving between co-moving dielectrics, you have completely changed your mind, and revert to an old belief that frequency changes as an independent real quality. That is very inconsistent.

I think here should not be the place for old beliefs Eckard. I had though you agreed with that. I am very disappointed in you.

Please explain WHAT you say the near field does not 'propagate'. Did you know that if you ask six electrical engineers for the formula for the position of the transition zone they will all know precisely. But all their answers will be different. And why?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 16:25 GMT
Peter,

Logic is not a belief. Consider two antennas/cannons A and B moving with velocity v towards each other and sending pulses/bullets with a frequency f of repetition. Due to Doppler effect, they receive the other ones pulses more frequently than they are emitting their own until A and B will meet each other.

This can be made even more plausible if we admit that there is a positive and decreasing number of pulses on the move between them at any moment before A and B meet each other.

What about near field issues, I recall good books e.g. Fourier Acoustics by Earl Williams. Laymen might first look into Wikipedia.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT
“Logic is not a belief….”

Quite so. In one of the many threads we now have, I copied out, yet again, my explanation of this effect in response to some point of Peter’s. It revolves around the timing of delays. But the thread became redundant overnight. In terms of light (but same applies to sound), it is:

“Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience.

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The actual rate of change in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised. [NB: This explanation takes no account of the possible influence of length alteration]”.

The point here is that waves are irrelevant. Light can travel in corkscrews. It does not matter, from the perspective that it is a physical entity (ie a particular effect-not lots of effects) and travels (somehow) from a to b. There are lots of these ‘effects’, both in terms of many of the same existence, and subsequent existent states. But when we refer to light, we must focus on one. When we refer to a number 15 bus, we are referring to a particular vehicle, which is one of many number 15s at different stages of the route.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 19:48 GMT
Eckard

If we believe a misnomer then any mistruth may appear logical.

Consider yourself at rest between the antennons watching the 'waves' passing by the other antennons. Is the distance between the waves changed?

The frequency is therefore "observer dependent" and all observers, being 'kinetically discrete' can move independently so f is infinitely variable.

But now here is the new philosophical truth that emerges and shines a light into the 100 year dark ages.

The LOCAL bits of the waves that interact with the observers DO change length, because the first 'peak' arrives BEFORE the second peak. In this case the meaning of KINETICALLY DISCRETE is kinetically 'mutually exclusive'. (So all differently moving observers find different Doppler shifts).

Now think what that really means. It means all light changes speed a DIFFERENT AMOUNT to THE NEW c relevant to EACH OBSERVER's state of motion (frame). THIS is then why the calculated frequency received changes subject to observer motion.

The actual process is perhaps not so important, but is simple Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamics. Two electron clouds hitting each other and mixing up, just like in the solar winds and ionosphere. (inside which the ECRF starts). But at small masses it is within 1 micron of the surface. Maxwell's transition zone is only equivalent to surface plasmon resonance, where we find the surface Kerr effect and the extraordinary non-linear optics effects, termed 'not well understood' because the laws of physics and refraction seem to break down. This is because they haven't worked out that the wavelength change is because light speed is changing!! (paper still in review)

Remember the term 'mutually exclusive'. Kinetic Mutual exclusivity is a crucial concept. Any massive system can only have one state of motion. Any smaller mass within it is mutually exclusive. Just google/wiki the above terms. But of course it needs consistent application to see how it resolves all the anomalies. Perhaps you could first comment on the logic? - but NOT set against your own prior assumptions, in which setting I promise you will not find the logic!

Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Paul

A No.15 bus has a front AND rear. Whatever shape a wave is, it too has a length between 'fluctuations', represented by a time of passing. Subject to it's speed we than calculate a frequency. A mathematical derivative. But one we are so familiar with (as we can't SEE fluctuations directly) we have forgotten what the really are.

The received apparent 'frequency' varies infinitely for infinitely many moving receivers, or receivers at rest in moving fields. You correctly say;

"when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion."

Precisely; The apparent FREQUENCY is a perceptual illusion for each observer. Not one of the moving observers has changed the fundamental distance constant d of v=dt.

Yet for a fluctuation moving BETWEEN inertial frames (fields), because the front meets the new field before the rear, the wavelength will then alter. This is very important, and precisely what Lorentz viewed as 'length contraction'.

You say 'waves are irrelevant'. Only as you perceive them Paul. In Nature they are seminal and must be understood as they are not as we believe.

In logic one imperfect assumption invalidates a whole theory, and turns it into belief masquerading as logic.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
Peter

My point about the number 15 bus was nothing to do with front and rear. And as said above, waves/frequency are irrelevant to this particular point. Something travels somehow.

When you refer to ‘light’, you must refer to one physically existent example of an effect in photons, which was replicated n times. This effect being created n times when photons interacted with any given existent state (ie reality). That is repeated with subsequent existent states. The extent to which photons, via this process, are able to capture all the detail possible, and certainly the extent to which organisms can capture/process all the information made available to them anyway, is of doubt. But that is irrelevant to the logic. It just means the optical imaging of reality involves an abridged version. The point is that ‘light’ refers to some definitive existent entity. It travels, which involves delay and the possibility of some form of interference.

Lorentz viewed, rightly or wrongly, length contraction as a real physical occurrence.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT
Paul

"My point about the number 15 bus was nothing to do with front and rear."

Yes I was aware of that Paul, and was pointing out that in the DFM the fact that it has a spatially separated start and finish point, so temporally separated interactions, is at the very heart of understanding how the macro is derived from the quantum mechanism. I was also pointing out that it was the fact that this non zero temporal differential had been neglected as 'unimportant', that led us to still fail to comprehend the apparent paradoxes of nature.

The point of Minkowski's transmitted 'event' is that it had both a start and finish. We have ignored Minkowski and misinterpreted his conceptions. Re-appraising that interpretation, to explain HOW light speed changes locally in quantum mechanistic terms, is what will unify physics, which is what Einstein was seeking.

In your 6.46 post there are a number of assumptions and preconceptions which would lead you away from the right track, but I congratulate you on the overall conception you describe, which is excellent as a window on a part of the ontology, and at the 'fuzzy' level. for instance, a really exciting discovery nearby is how 'causality' is preserved by a kinetically based rotation derived from interaction asymmetry. Those who believe the back of the bus may as well be next to the front will not be able to see this. But I think you are now starting to conceive of the importance of relative motion, or 'kinetics' in nature and our experience of it.

The next step will need to be comprehending the reality and crucial importance of the 'next frame up' to any motion as the 'local background', and thus the importance of the Proper Time rule in properly understanding the SR postulates.

And the 'entity' you consider as light may not be quite as 'real' as you envisage. It is a change of something. A fluctuation we may consider as a 'signal'. Our own electrons neurons and complex systems convert it, translate it, 'tag' it, send it round our pre-set pathways, compare it with previous oscillations, and in out own language we call 'sight'. The original fluctuations reaching our eye lens fine structure may be just complex fluctuations OF a non-mass entity. All I mean is that ALL assumptions are dangerous and misleading and should be 're-interviewed' and re-appraised for the position we give them.

I agree Lorentz was correct about that, as well as in his 'reservation' about not being able to see apparent c+v. But in other areas he was way off track.

By the way, GR falls straight out of SR once SR is properly re-interpreted.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 07:17 GMT
Peter

“Yes I was aware of that Paul, and was pointing out that in the DFM the fact that it has a spatially separated start and finish point, so temporally separated interactions, is at the very heart of understanding how the macro is derived from the quantum mechanism”

Is this a complex way of saying ‘light’, which must refer to a specific physical entity, travels from a to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT
Paul

Again you totally missed the important point about the spatially separated start and finish in co-motion interacting over non zero time. Please slow down, go back, read more carefully, think far more and write less.

I have defined light in detail, in the DFM it is NOT 'and entity'. I repeat; I won't repeat things again, so again return and read carefully (on both the above).

1) Yes and Yes.2) Yes, and No. 3) Because all observation is via light.

I have explained Proper Time. again go back. If a clock is moving wrt an observer the time does not appear to tick the same as one that is. If you do not understand and accept that then I have to give up.

The only physical constituent of light is the wavelength, and amplitude. Time between fluctuations (giving frequency) is subject to speed, which is a derivative of time. If you think of it in the wrong terms, as an 'entity, I promise you will never understand how it behaves and why.

"I am nor sure about that". I am telling you what the DFM is, and what emerges from it, because you asked. I am not asking your opinion about something of which you know absolutely zero.

Einstein would laugh his socks off at your assertion thay SR and GR are nor connected. He spent his life trying to connect them with the unified field theory which emerges from the DFM. If you wish to ask about something you are going entirely the wrong way about it. I am not going to the effort to explain to those who make it clear they will not even read it properly let alone have a chance of understanding it.

If you can change your approach here completely you may be far better received.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Peter

“Again you totally missed the important point about the spatially separated start and finish in co-motion interacting over non zero time”

Precisely what can this phrase be referring to? A start and finish must, by definition be spatially separated. What is in “co-motion” with what, and why does this matter, even if this occurring, assuming that one of the ‘whats’...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 10:18 GMT
Paul

"But in reality this is not the case." And I am discussing reality.

If you can't go back and re-read to understand, then, as I have said, I cannot keep repeating things, and you are proving Tommy et al correct.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 08:01 GMT
Peter

""But in reality this is not the case." And I am discussing reality".

Sorry, I do not follow this.

"If you can't..."

I made some considered comments on your last post. Why is it me who has to "go back and re-read to understand"? So long as it's not 'technical'-in which case I do not comment-I do understand (and you tend to say the same to Eckard). Clearly if there was something wrong with what I was saying you could point it out, but you keep repeating your point(s) as a response.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
Peter (Eckard)

This is a response to your post (19/3 15.18) in Topic: On the Origins, thread Anon (you) 12/3 13.05. Since this is not directly concerning the debate about Joy’s mathematical framework, I have posted it here, rather than Disproofs (the new Topic), where we were originally, having had an excursion into Elegance & Enigma and I never did understand why we went to On the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 22:30 GMT
:) now we are going to apply a Bose Einstein condensation to photons !

N photons and a frequence v.

conclusion time is irreversible, the light is constant...lol

v+dv........and the planck radiation equation is ?

It is the only way to see the frequences !

Now we can see the entropy !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.