• [deleted]

An important text from Joao Magueijo's book that (unfortunately) I can only quote in French:

http://www.parutions.com/pages/1-85-428-3935.html

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51: "En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein, alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi? Que la vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même. (...) La théorie de 1911 était fausse, et Einstein la jeta à la poubelle sans regret, en compagnie de quelques autres impasses."

Joao Magueijo,

You should have explained that in 1911 Einstein believed in the variation of the speed of light with the gravitational potential, phi, predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c(1+phi/c^2). Then in 1915 Einstein did indeed reject this variation but only to make the speed of light even more variable: c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). So both the emission theory and general relativity predict that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. This implies that, when we measure the gravitational redshift, we in fact measure the decrease in the speed of light caused by the gravitational field of the emitter.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

The observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v so the frequency he measures shifts from f to f' and the speed of light he measures shifts from c to c'. f'=? c'=?

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

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

We also have f'=c'/(lambda) so c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's special relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

Does anyone know why under VSL, the speed of gravitational waves (indeed all wave mechanics) would not vary monotonically by energy density together with the speed of light? It seems like that would be a more elegant picture, but I must be missing something.

  • [deleted]

Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs. Does this imply that, in a gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v?

ANSWER: 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 V'=V(1+gh/V^2) (it is assumed that V>>(V'-V) and air friction is ignored). If the cannonball is shot from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/V when it meets the cannonball. Accordingly, the speed of the cannonball as measured at the bottom is V'=V(1+gh/V^2)=V+v.

If, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, then the speed of a light signal emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). If the signal is emitted from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/c when it meets the signal. Accordingly, the speed of the signal as measured at the bottom is c'=c(1+gh/c^2)=c+v.

The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity. In the context of the above argument, its truth entirely depends on the PREMISE:

"Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs"

If the PREMISE is true, the equation c'=c+v is true. If not, not.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

I disagree with the faster than the speed of light theory.

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

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

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

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

waiting for comments...

THX

doug

  • [deleted]

clarification of my last post:

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

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

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

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

THX

doug

  • [deleted]

Does anyone out there know how to get a theory assessed by the scientific community when one is not part of the community?

    • [deleted]

    Variable Speed of Light in a Gravitational Field

    http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

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

    Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

    IMPLICATION 1: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs.

    IMPLICATION 2: The Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the variation of the speed of light with the gravitational potential predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

    Earlier I showed that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory, then in gravitation-free space it varies with the speed of the observer again as predicted by the emission theory. The fundamental equations of Newton's emission theory of light:

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

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Doug

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

    I wish you luck.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

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

    Enjoy,

    doug

    • [deleted]

    Einstein wrestling with an unsolvable problem:

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

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

    So "how can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam"?

    Answer: It simply CANNOT happen. The speed of light "is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference":

    http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf

    Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

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

    Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) [and an observed speed c'=c-Vo] when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

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

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

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

    LC

      • [deleted]

      Sir Lawrence Crowell,

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

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

      THX

      doug

        • [deleted]

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

        Cheers LC

        • [deleted]

        Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: "The problem with this is the speed of light is just a conversion factor between spatial basis and time. (...) The speed of light is a conversion factor associated with light cones. (...) The Magueijo double relativity and related ideas are interesting, but they seem to fly in the face of this fundamental definition of the speed of light."

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

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

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

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

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

        Cheers LC

        • [deleted]

        My "anti-relativity diatribes" boil down to the claim that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong:

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

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

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

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        As I said I am not interested in defending relativity in this case. It is clear that you and some others have in some manner become mis-educated or that you have internalized some set of erroneous ideas. Experimental demonstration that light is invariant with respect to the velocity of the emitter is trivial with today's technology. In fact it is not only just experimenally demonstrated, but used in various applications.

        LC

        Pentcho, Lawrence.

        May I suggest that Maxwell considered you both correct, although he himself knew not why, viz;

        He had a problem with his equations for emitters, i.e. antenna. In the end he had to derive a second set of source terms, but mostly on an empirical basis, for the 'far field', where normal Fresnel refraction and the Laws of Physics seemed to break down after a 'transition zone' (TZ) from the 'near field'. (See Fraunhofer refraction and 'non-linear optics, which are termed "poorly theoretically understood"). The terms work, as antenna engineers will tell you, but with widely differing formula for the TZ position, 10^-6m from the surface for light, but wavelength dependent, and up to almost infinity! With moving emitters it becomes more complex still.

        If we consider it this way it resolves, itself and many paradoxes; Light is emitted at c wrt the emitter in the near field, but changes speed to c in the local background frame by crossing the TZ, which is a dense ion (including photoionized) surface charge/ magnetohydrodynamic shock. Let's test it;

        Light from a moving car's headlight bulkb does c wrt the bulb, until it exits the lens and is changed (Doppler shifting to the blue) to c wrt the Earth, whereon it carries on at c (c/n) until the Earth's TZ (shock), where it is compressed or stretched yet again as it changes speed to c wrt heliocentric space (The BCI frame). of course it then changes speed again at the Helioshoeath to c in the ISM frame of the Galactic arm.

        This then may be seen, as you prefer, as simply providing a quantum mechanism for SR, or replacing it. It just is what it is. Nature.

        In this case you would both be correct, as would the Discrete Field Model (DFM). It is quite falsifiable, but if you test it you may find in clarifying nature it extracts some of your deepest held assumptions. No worry, because, though entirely logical it is so different to our indoctrinated nonsense and beliefs that our brains will normally find nowhere to 'hang it', so it will be forgotten.

        If that glimpse does 'stick' do please let me know how you did it.

        Thanks. Best wishes

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        Leonard Susskind: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

        http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-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. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

        John Norton: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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

        JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

        http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

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

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com