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 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 . . .



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

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

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' ".

report post as inappropriate

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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...

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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 !

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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'.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate