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

      • [deleted]

      Why does E=mc2 ?

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

      doug

        • [deleted]

        Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

        "You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        A clever Einsteinian derives the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light, c'=c(1+gh/c^2), in the form dc/dh=g/c:

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

        "Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

        That is, in a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        Correction -

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

        I will personally hand dip them.

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=caramel%20apples&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

        www.CIGTheory.com CIGTheory (Caramel Apple Friendly)

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

        CIG Theory - not that hard to prove -

        Hope you are enjoying the day

        What more can I say.

        Doug

          • [deleted]

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

          Cheers LC

          • [deleted]

          Douglas

          "The author views TIME as movement Dependent" & "The theoretical

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

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

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Truth is unbearable sometimes. Abandoning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will take science back to the end of the 18th century:

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

          Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context."

          http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Changing-Worldviews-Physics-Studies/dp/0817649395/

          Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

          Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

            • [deleted]

            Sir Lawrence Crowell,

            Thank you kindly for your reply.

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

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

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

            experimentation as well.

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

            Thank you again Sir Crowell.

            doug