Hi Jason,

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

Fred

  • [deleted]

Jason, Fred,

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

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

Atomic bombs *were* built.

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

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

Pentcho

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

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

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

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

Paul

  • [deleted]

Douglas

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

Space is the corollary of 'thing'. The same spatial positions deemed to be extrinsic space when considering one thing, can be intrinsic when considering another. In your balloon analogy, the "new space" is not new, because it did not "come from anywhere". The balloon (thing) altered dimension, ie the balloon got nearer to adjacent things-it occupied spatial positions which were previously, given the definition of the things involved, unoccupied. You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are 'things'.

Now, expansion of the entirety of reality, as known to us, is a different matter. By definition, this is not detectable, except on an historical basis. Because it is an effect which is omnipresent, so there is no comparison possible to identify difference. In that sense then, whether this is occurring or not is irrelevant.

Forget about the "speed of light" and "inertial frames of reference". Whether the derivation was correct, or indeed the original observation was so, and irrespective of whether it actually happens or not, Lorentz postulated a physical alteration in dimension, in the line of travel. This, although on each occasion he put forward some simple explanation he also expressed reservations, was never rescinded and is the real variable in Relativity. The point being that for a law to be valid it must be possible to choose anything as the reference from which then to consider it. Note that any judgement inherently involves a reference. But, not only must one then continue to use that reference, but any change which occurs to it, or the other things being referenced, must be factored into the calculations. And they 'discovered' that matter alters dimension when differential force is applied, which also causes changing momentum. That is, the latter is an alternative indicator to the fact that dimension alteration is occurring.

An example. 2 buses. The momentum of one of them is altering. According to the theory, that indicates it is being subjected to a differential force (ie it is no longer in equilibrium/at rest) which causes an alteration in dimension. [Incidentally, there is a tendency to only talk of contraction/acceleration, but the concept was of a state of equilibrium size, ie that which it reverted to-which must involve 'expansion'-once forces regained a 'balance']. If this alteration in dimension is not taken into account, then space and timing will be incorrectly calculated. Because the 'squashed' bus would be considered as per the normal state one. But a squashed bus has further to travel as space (ie that which is 'not bus') to (say) the bus stop has increased, and it will take a longer timing, than would otherwise have been expected, to travel. That's it. No strange effects with 'time', or different observers, or light.

On Dark Matter/Energy, do not forget that light is just a physical phenomenon that organisms utilise in their sensory detection systems. There can be no presumption that it is capable of 'detecting' everything.

Paul

  • [deleted]

Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second, I think I heard a purrrr

Thanks,

doug

    • [deleted]

    E=mc² was not sufficient because only the linear velocity of the spheres is considered. the spinal rotation and the orbital rotation must be inserted for a real quantization of the mass.

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

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

    ps eureka :) SPHERIZATION THEORY !

    • [deleted]

    The real question to ask here is what can light, and specifically its speed, have to do with the attributes of other, different forms of matter???

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

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    Pentcho

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

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

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

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    Douglas

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

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

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

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

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    Hi Doug,

    Will you be entering the essay contest?

    Doug

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

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

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

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Hi,

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

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

    • [deleted]

    Paul,

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

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

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

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

    Regards

    • [deleted]

    Hi Georgina,

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

    I hope you win.

    THX

    doug

    • [deleted]

    Variable speed of light or variable wavelength? Variable speed of light of course:

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

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

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

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

    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.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)."

    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) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

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

    Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Data, I need data!

    Thanks again Peter for reading my theory.

    THX

    doug

    • [deleted]

    Variable speed of light or variable wavelength? Variable speed of light of course, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

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

    "Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

    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.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.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."

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf

    The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    Correction to my post above:

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

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

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

    THX

    doug

    • [deleted]

    Time to remember Bryan Wallace:

    https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics/ECqkFKYIxH8/discussion

    Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object travels!"

    http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf

    RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pages 361-367, ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

    http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

    Bryan Wallace: "Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    Panic in Einsteiniana II

    http://edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics

    "Carlo Rovelli is a leading contributor to quantum gravity, who is also made influential proposals regarding the foundation of quantum mechanics and the nature of time. Shortly after receiving his Ph.D he did work which made him regarded as one of the three founders of the approach to quantum gravity called loop quantum gravity - the other two being Abhay Ashtekar and Lee Smolin."

    But Lee Smolin does not seem to care much about the relativity of simultaneity and Divine Albert's Divine Theory in general:

    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. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

    Joao Magueijo is even more radical:

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

    Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

    Yet neither Smolin nor Magueijo want to see Divine Albert's Divine Theory gone. It is a bad old rat but the only one they have:

    http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framechapter10.html

    "Hum! Hum!" said the king. "I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him at night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com