• [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

  • [deleted]

Twin Paradox Or Absurdity?

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

"To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock. The clocks are arranged perpendicular to each other on a platform, with clock A oriented horizontally and clock B vertically. When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B."

Imagine a long line of vertically oriented clocks, all of them STATIONARY. Clock A (oriented horizontally) remains on the moving platform and passes the stationary clocks at a high speed. If clock A ticks faster than the stationary clocks, as Sorli and Fiscaletti suggest, then the travelling twin from the Twin Paradox scenario will return older than his stationary brother. That is, special relativity predicts that the travelling twin will return both younger and older.

FINAL SOLUTION OF THE TWIN PARADOX: When the light clock of the travelling twin is oriented horizontally (parallel to the direction of motion), special relativity predicts that the travelling twin will return older than his stationary brother. When the light clock of the travelling twin is oriented vertically (perpendicular to the direction of motion), special relativity predicts that the travelling twin will return younger than his stationary brother.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

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

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

Pentcho

The above involves all sorts of flaws in respect of time, timing and dimension alteration.

By definition, the twins will be of the same age (that being timing). They are both timed together at the outset and the finish. One of them did not go to some 'other world'. According to the hypothesis, the one travelling faster contracted whilst being accelerated. But in order to achieve the same relative spatial position as the other again, his dimension reverted to its 'rest/equilibrium' state (ie the same as the other twin).

Paul

  • [deleted]

Almost all posts of mine in this thread disappeared. Why?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    They were marked as spam. As a general rule, posts that are repeated or copied in multiple forums will be treated as spam.

    • [deleted]

    Regarding my post of May 28 @ 16:26, can someone explain to me where the new Space comes from in the balloon experiment? CIG offered an explanation. If it is wrong, I need a new explanation. What is current agreement? It is a very simple experiment. Is there agreement that there are new Spatial quantities INSIDE the balloon (if not, then I have no idea what the community is calling Space)? If there are new spatial quantities, where did they come from, that is, if CIG is wrong.

    Very simple question. Looking for the experts to answer in detail.

    Thanks,

    doug

      • [deleted]

      OK but the "variable speed of light" issue remains undiscussed. And it is crucial, as the essay contest will show.

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      Good grief, Pentcho, "the variable speed of light issue" is discussed (and refuted) all the time. The only serious -- i.e., purely scientific -- treatment of it that I can recall is in John Moffat's book *Reinventing Gravity.*

      Philosophizing in the absence of theory contributes nothing to scientific debate. What I personally find annoying about your nonstop cutting and pasting is that you editorialize by omission, and often add your own interpretation of statements contrary to the author's intent. The latest example I recall is your quoting John Baez on the barn-pole paradox as saying something about arbitrary poles fitting into arbitrary barns -- someone like me reads that and immediately thinks, "I find it unlikely that Baez ever made such a ridiculous statement," and then runs off to the source to find that he actually didn't. You undermine your credibility by sending readers off on these wild goose chases, and soon no one bothers to take the bait.

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Tom,

      Baez says that, according to special relativity, the 80m rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the 40m barn:

      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

      "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

      I say that, according to special relativity, an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container. Do you still think there is a contradiction between what Baez says and what I say?

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      I'm only going to respond once to this silliness. I don't think there's a contradiction -- I know to a certainty that there's a contradiction. The relative states of observer motion determine the measurements of barn and pole. Nothng arbitrary about it, which you would understand if you bothered to learn relativity.

      • [deleted]

      doug,

      You claim on your page " ... as mass approaches the speed of light, all that mass is shed and is converted into space."

      What you are saying essentially is that space is identical to energy. In Einstein's theory, what actually happens is that a body at relative rest gains mass when accelerated (mass and energy are equivalent) compared to its rest mass. In other words, because the potential energy of a massive body is converted to kinetic energy; a body in motion contains greater inertial mass-energy than the same body at rest.

      One of the cornerstones of physics is the law of mass-energy conservation, which your theory violates by creating "more space" (more energy).

      Your belief does rub up against a serious question among physicists: "What is the energy content of empty space?" In other words, given mass-energy equivalence, and given that space is not really "empty" but is teeming with virtual particles, can space have energy of its own. Current research and calculation suggests that though the energy content of space can vary point to point, the total energy is either zero, or negative (repulsive).

      It's hard to tell if you are really serious -- especially with your "Heads I win, tails you lose" challenge to skeptics. I got a chuckle out of that. :-)

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Tom

      It is not the "relative states of observer motion" which are determining measurements. Apart from anything else, it cannot be. The hypothesis is that objects alter dimension when force is applied. Why this occurred, if indeed it does, was unknown. The observer is an object, and will therefore alter in dimension, just as the pole or anything else does (supposedly). And maybe light, which is what is received to effect an observation, is similarly affected-I do not know. But the point is that the base presumption is that dimension is altered by force. Which, incidentally, causes changing momentum. That being then, an alternative means of identifying such is occurring. Changing monentum is another consequence, not a cause.

      Paul

      PS: I agree with your point about Pentch's style of 'discussion'

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      "It is not the 'relative states of observer motion' which are determining measurements."

      Yes it is. Your curious notion that "force alters dimension" neglects that length contraction is relative to the rest state.

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Hi Tom,

      I am in the unfortunate position to be disagreeing with the Great Professor.

      Matter, as it travels at higher and higher rates, toward its maximum limit of "c", does not gain mass. It sheds mass into its other manifested energy equivalent, Space. The conversion is:

      Equating energy to mass to space

      0.02762u = 25.7MeV= 14,952,942.08 pico meters cubed of space

      (Mass) = (Energy) = (Space)

      This is where the Space of the expanding Universe comes from.

      My full rationale for the claim can be found in my theory.

      Energy only represents the transition. It is not a fundamental. I view Fundamentals as space, time, and mass. (meters, seconds, grams).

      Concerning your note: "One of the cornerstones of physics is the law of mass-energy conservation, which your theory violates by creating "more space" (more energy)." :

      It may be recognized that since the mass turns to what you deem "more Space", that energy is conserved. Mass does not increase as it travels faster. What we term mass (the particulate matter of the Standard Model) turns into the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy, as that matter reaches certain percentages of "c" travel. Above all else, CIG does not violate Conservation of Energy laws.

      CIG takes the mass-energy equivalency (E=mc2) and combines it with the spacetime continuum. The resultant equation is MTS (see Cig Theory & try to find [Google ?] all my various postings). Matter doesn't warp Spacetime, rather, the Spacetime is actually turning into what we call matter. There is no distinction except "the degree to which thing are".

      In one of my postings you will find that I observed the same MTS concept in Einsteins field equation. I belive that CIG was there all the time, and that there is within the Great Professors field equation, the foundation for CIG. Therefore it is a new INTERPRETATION of Einsteins field equation, though discovered independently and through other means than an understanding of his work (because I admittedly lack the thorough even remote understanding). Let me know if you want my ramblings on the link of CIG to the field equations and my ramblings of same.

      THX

      doug (tails)