Faster than Light

pjackson

Akinbo,

That's a first step, but of many. Think harder. What if you happened to be observing the sun from 'underneath'? In space that is ENTIRELY equivalent to what you assume as the 'top'.

That's what I mean by the arrogant human self centric thinking we must escape to understand nature. The fact that there is NO 'UP' IN SPACE actually MEANS something VERY important.

You say viewed from the north BOTH poles 'spin anticlockwise', but then stopped thinking. In fact the obverse is also true, viewed from the south BOTH POLES spin clockwise. The whole point is that all bodies spin is the same, it's only the observer orientation'/b] that means we finds one or the other. In practice, it's the pole moving towards an observer that dictates which spin we see. The body can be turned round without affecting the spin (as in electron 'spin flip') whereon we see the opposite spin, but from the SAME body!

THAT is the massive realisation which resolves the illogical nonsense of 'quantum non-locality'and allows unification with classical physics.

When we understand that we have taken the next big 'Copernican/Galilean' step away from self centric thinking, which is just as important a step.

On refraction; another good Young paper is this; but I don't have a free link.

Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637 (2004). There are many others on the subject, but be careful as some use misguided assumptions.

Refraction by the sun's plasma will be much affected by both the density distribution varying with radius and the solar wind velocity, which also varies significantly locally. Precision is not possible, as consistently found experimentally (aberrations).

Stellar aberration (kinetic reverse refraction) by Earth's atmosphere also varies massively with declination up to 34 arcMINs! which has to be added 'by hand' to get accurate predictions for the current (AA2010) model, which most including the US navy use for navigation alongside DGPS. See my 2012 essay.

Finally. Newton was clearly wrong about the bucket and 'speed'. Throw as many stones as you wish but I hope you can find much better considered ones as all have bounced off without a scratch so far! I already tested it long ago with much worse than those you've found!

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,
"It therefore follows that light will be slowed by gravity, the value of CO is more than C"
I should have paid more attention to this claim of yours. Please see a discussion with John Duffield here.
Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

That was an interesting discussion with John Duffield. That diagram was also useful to make things clear.
I seem not to agree with John D, "Yes. You and your clocks go slower when you're lower, so you measure the selfsame frequency to be higher."
I think there is a mistake, When clocks go slower, frequency is lower. It is the PERIOD of the cycle that is higher.
You called me opponent but now I am happy we are comrade in arms to fight the government in Einsteiniana. More later as laptop battery running out.
Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

How Galileo and Newton will interpret what we call SR and GR.
Consider a rectangular column of matter (put in any type, air, plasma, dark matter or even beer) as in the illustration attached. Set it up to be stationary on earth surface. Affix removable sources and detectors at A, A', B, B', C and C', with the distances AA' = BB' = CC'.
SR
Measure the distance AA'. Affix a source to A and a detector to A'. Measure the time taken to traverse AA'. Value obtained is the value of light velocity. Call it cAA'.
Now reverse source and detector so light goes A'A. Next measure cAA' again. You get the same value, irrespective of the fact that this time the light is travelling opposite the direction of earth motion (see arrow underneath).
Inference 1: The value of light velocity is not influenced by earth motion. Why because the column of matter is in same frame of reference as the moving earth. No need for Lorentz contraction and Time dilation.
GR
Next, given the effect of gravity on matter, whereby the density of the beer at the bottom is higher than that at the top, measure the value of light velocity AA', BB' and CC'. The values are different. Why, the 'ponderable' matter in the light's path is different. AA' has the highest value and CC' is the lowest. For those who like fanciful description, it takes a longer TIME to traverse CC', i.e. clocks are slowed, the lower is the height in gravitational field.
Further, now send a light signal vertically from top to bottom normal to the surface, and then from bottom to top, knowing the values of light velocity obtained at the levels AA', BB' and CC'. From top to bottom, the light velocity appears to be slowed simulating a Doppler red shift. From bottom to top, light velocity appears to be hastened, simulating a Doppler blue shift. However, this is not due to source and observer motion but due to the effect of gravity on the medium traversed, so to differentiate, we should different call this a Gravitational frequency shift.
"the rate of a clock is accordingly slower the greater is the mass of the ponderable matter in its neighbourhood", Einstein,p.97
"... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity... We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena {e.g. of light}" Einstein,p.89. True indeed.
The value of light velocity on Earth surface (bottom of the barrel) is 299792458m/s.
Inference 2: the value of light velocity can vary with position. Why? The same beer in the barrel that is responsible for inference 1.
This in my opinion is how Galileo and Newton will interpret SR and GR without the absurdities of length contraction and time dilation. We argue, but Galileo, Newton and Einstein are at peace with each other. God bless their souls.
AkinboAttachment #1: Illustration.pdf

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,
I have rushed through your proposition. It is not too different from my early contemplations which I have since modified (both on arxiv but I need not draw attention to them). Your fundamental postulate is that there are Small space 's' moving within larger space 'S'.
There are similarities and differences between my current approach and yours.
Similarities - A local space is a ship unto itself hence my constant mention that phenomena within such space is exactly what Galilean relativity is all about.
Differences - It is possible but technologically difficult to distinguish since as you quote of Einstein, "...the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist." If this were possible, it would have been possible to make a distinction. As in my proposition, Galilean relativity and your recovery of SR postulates will be lost if the local space can be made devoid of ALL matter, including dark matter.
However, pending when such technology is available to make an experimental chamber completely devoid of any light carrying matter, we can use reduction ad absurdum arguments. Among these are:
- What determines the size of a local space? Why can an electron not have a 'local space' as big as Earth?
- What physical mechanism binds Earth for example with its local space so that they move together?
- What lies between the local space of one body and the next adjoining one? What is their boundary made of?
In my proposal, these difficulties are avoided. The mechanism binds the light-carrying matter to the Earth is gravity. And within this bound light-carrying matter, if a turn-table rotates, c+v and c-v is found as Sagnac did. The turn-table's local space of your proposition did not turn-round with the tur-table to prevent or "recover SR postulates".
I think that is a little bit I have for now.
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo.
The only 'difficulties' are what our assumptions create. Your questions have all been answered. In the simplest terms'
- The domain limits are a function of mass, wavelength, ambient density and relative velocity. Empirical evidence is precise; The Maxwell near/far field TZ for an antenna is 1 micron for light, increasing for greater lambda (at rest see surface plasmons). On space vehicle re-entry it increases to metre scales, peak temp cm scales off the surface. For comets its hundreds of metres (coma), for plnets it's hundreds of km, for stars it's ~100 AU's (to see one Google LL Orionis), for galaxies it's the Halo, at hundreds of k light years, etc. Seek and thou shalt find.
- The 'physical mechanism' is what we call the magnetic field. The electrons are propagated orientated on the field lines and, or course at rest wrt the body. The approaching electrons then form the turbulent Electrohydrodynamic 'two fluid' mixing zones, the ubiquitous 'astrophysical shocks' (just Google them!)
- Ooops I included the last answer above. The dense (10^14/cm/^-3) shocks; what's known as free or 'pure plasma' most commonly considered as electrons, but with high positron and proton fraction, each re-scattering to the new local c during it's short life. Nature does nothing without a reason, why on earth else could they be there, and how on Earth could they NOT have that effect?
But the proof is in the pudding. In comparison your proposal fails logically as well as (badly) empirically, as in and on ALL other solar systems and planets light speed could not be found as 'c'!
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, before you can say my proposal fails badly do take a trip to those other planets and solar systems and check if the value of c ON the surface of those bodies also measure 299,792,458m/s. I have done the trip and found otherwise. On the Sun, c measured 299791821.8369m/s and on the moon I measured 299792458.1906m/s. On the surface of a black hole I found c measured 0.0000m/s, no wonder light can't escape. So in each local space as you like to call it the absolute value of c varies. This does not imply that c+v or c-v does not occur for light arriving from distant sources.
If you want to borrow my spacecraft I can lend you :)
You also did not say why Sagnac's turntable measured c+v and c-v. Does it not have its own 'local space'?
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Your instruments must have aged more that their sister!, which is strange as all the probes sent by NASA have found the same thing, consistent with a constant LOCAL propagation speed for EM radiation. We've had over a dozen long range probes, not 'assuming' but 'testing' that and all other constants. Astronomy is also swimming in spectroscopic and other evidence precisely consistent with the same thing! Some evidence of some tiny fluctuations between wavelengths from certain specific sources has been found, but not yet verified.
On your way there did you notice a wardrobe door? then a mad hatter with a teapot? Even if you didn't I'm suggesting it was an imaginary journey. Good science is based on consistency of evidence and logic not flights of fantasy. That's how to be branded a crackpot!
Your proposition is simply logically untenable in any case. Qiuite apart from the overwhelming evidence there is no LOGIC to the speed of light in and wrt all galaxies varying. It seems clear you're only trying to cling to it as you've posted some papers. That's the WORST way to do science as you blind yourself to it's flaws. It's what mainstream does and what we need to work to overcome - not fall into the same trap!
Time to be honest with yourself Akinbo. It's not hard once you get used to it. The first job when you construct some theory is to test it to destruction, honestly and objectively! It's only the ashes of many such tests that the DFM grew from.
Best wishes
Peter
PS See also my specific response on 'speed of light'

Akinbo Ojo

No Peter. I use latest model instruments to do what you aptly called flights of fancy.
But more seriously. Given that we are agreed that 'plasma' cannot be excluded from our vacuum chamber and that plasma is matter. Can the plasma density in the vacuum chamber not be enhanced by the strength of the gravity at the surface of each celestial body? If that is the case, will light traverse the SAME distance of the vacuum chamber in equal time given the variation in density?
On the Sun's surface the density of the galactic background plasma density will be more enhanced than that on Earth surface. This is the mechanism by which it is said that the Sun's gravity slows light.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
There are two entirely independent effects. The 'make up' of the medium, which dictates refractive index n, and the relative kinetic state of the medium; K.
For pure plasma, as n=1, which is the 'same as a vacuum' it makes no difference what the density is, the only difference is then the relative media rest frame velocity v between K and K'.
The difficult bit initially is keeping those two effects separate as it's unfamiliar. The best way perhaps is to consider say two blocks of glass in space; One moves at v, one is at rest. When a light signal hits both it travels through each (in it's OWN rest frame at precisely c/n for that type of glass; say 200,000k/sec. However an observer at rest in the background frame would find the light in the glass APPARENTLY doing different speeds wrt *him*. (That may be because he's an arrogant human and thinks HE matters!)
DFM Golden rule from the 2-fluid plasma dynamic changing the datum at the domain limits; "Light is always re-emitted to do c LOCALLY, unless ALSO affected by varying medium refractive indices."
It's equivalent to 'Continuous Spontaneous Localisation', conveniently also 'CSL'! To test and find how that resolves everything is an epiphany!
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,
"There are two entirely independent effects. The 'make up' of the medium, which dictates refractive index n, and the relative kinetic state of the medium; K."
Agreed. That is why we have SR-related and GR-related discussions. Refer again the original post and illustration attached. I think we are beginning to narrow the differences in our proposition.
"For pure plasma, as n=1, which is the 'same as a vacuum' it makes no difference what the density is, the only difference is then the relative media rest frame velocity v between K and K'" and "..., you're correct for bound gas, Not for plasma.. (from Cosmic hologram thread)".
Disagree. This underscores my preference for Dark matter as the luminiferous medium. Dark matter does not require magnetism or electric effects to be bound to celestial bodies, including Earth. For dark matter, n > 1. Therefore it is is a viable mechanism for Gravitational lensing. And in any case, I contend our Earth 'vacuum' is not empty vacuum. How can this be? Dark matter is estimated to constitute over 80% of all the matter in our galaxy, so how can Earth be excluded from interacting gravitationally with it over the 4.5 billion years it has been wandering in the Milky Way? Empty vacuum may exist elsewhere probably in some areas inter-galactically.
"Akinbo demonstrates the issue. Once someone's got something in print they're mostly 'locked in' to it and objective logic or evidence count for nought (from Cosmic hologram thread)"
I disagree. Dark matter is a more widely spent currency, than Plasma. Talking about who is using modern tools to do flight of fancy. You may check out what others have in print and are 'locked into'. Dark Matter in the Solar System and Placing direct limits on the mass of earth-bound dark matter.. The former discusses the density enhancements around celestial bodies above the background dark matter halo density. So I am not saying something new. What may be new is the application of this to fundamental physics to discover SR and GR. So I disagree that dark matter cannot be bound. It can, but only gravitationally.
"DFM Golden rule... "Light is always re-emitted to do c LOCALLY, unless ALSO affected by varying medium refractive indices"
Agree partially, but skeptical of your absorption before re-emission mechanism. For now, I stick to change in speed due to change in refractive index. I don't think Sound gets absorbed and then re-emitted. It simply changes speed due to change in the medium.
Regarding the Sagnac effect on which you have the right to remain silent in this court of public opinion or anything you say may be used against you, a translation of the original German paper is on the web along with other links on Wikipedia. The essential thing is that within that which you prefer to call 'Earth's local space', c+v and c-v was found experimentally. This also means that the rotating interferometer did not carry its own 'local space' as it rotated. Check some more modern versions discussed here and here. Eckard, you may also want to check this to compare your views about how we should deal with light velocity when the receptor is moving.
Best wishes
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
You write "Disagree" to; "For pure plasma, as n=1, which is the 'same as a vacuum' it makes no difference what the density is, the only difference is then the relative media rest frame velocity v between K and K'" and "..., you're correct for bound gas, Not for plasma"
I can't make out what you disagree with, or could disagree with, It's a logical progression. Or perhaps you're unaware what n=1 'means', which is there is no 'time delay' (slowing down) of EM radiation propagation rate, which is c wrt the medium rest frame. In a vacuum chamber the rate of passage is slowed with ever increasing density of (bound) gas, also varying with constitution (BEC can slow it to a stop!). But when only pure plasma is in the chamber (electrons/positrons and free protons) there is no effect on light speed.
This is also a long established and well verified finding in astronomy. We can detect the electrons or 'fermion pairs' (more common terms for plasma) are there, but they have a zero 'EM profile' spectroscopically. It's not surprising if you haven't yet made that distinction as current doctrinal theory also hasn't coherently rationalised the effect. If you read just a few of the links I've posted for you you'd see the irrefutable evidence of the effect itself. Is that not 'science'!
Sagnac's findings, which I've been very familiar with from basic optics as a student, are entirely consistent. Note that a Sagnac ring gyroscope (moving medium) and open mirror rotation with the source NO on the disc give quite different effects to the one you've read. If you read my arXiv quantum optics paper with John Minkowski you'll find the full rational explanation (consistent with M&M, MGP and the modified Stokes/Fresnel/Heaviside 'ether' theory discussed).
I'm a bit confused by you not agreeing we must have absorption before re-emission. Again that's a fundamental logical progression and about the most basic concept of coupling interactions! I agree we should be skeptical of everything, but if you wish to challenge such well evidenced effects you must have some alternative mechanism to explain away all the overwhelming evidence! Even if you reject Compton scattering etc I thought you agreed with Planks loading theorem and Reiter's propositions anyway! It looks like you're using inconsistent 'cherry picking' to suit your prior ideas rather than honestly examine evidence and follow logic!
Time for some science and honesty.
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,
Is Plasma matter? If it is, is it not subject to gravity? If it is subject to gravity, will plasma density not be higher at the lower levels in the gravitational field and lower at higher altitudes?
If as you claim, n = 1 always for Plasma, assuming your absorption-emission hypothesis, when density is higher will there not be a higher number of absorption-emission episodes for a light beam to encounter for same distance than at much lower plasma densities? Will this not impact on the time taken to travel same distance at different altitudes?
On your statement, "Sagnac's findings, which I've been very familiar with from basic optics as a student, are entirely consistent."
Consistent with what? What those findings are consistent with is that motion of a receptor can hasten the arrival time of light in contravention of SR postulate, which holds that the arrival time cannot be so affected. Please check the paper also on the GPS that I linked written in response to Ashby's attempt to becloud the issues and claim the GPS findings as supporting SR. I find scant mention of Sagnac in your arxiv paper. And Sagnac's experiment is not about moving medium, but about moving receptors to incoming light.
You should wonder why c+v and c-v were found on Earth surface despite the experiment being conducted within the 'local space of Earth' you propose. What the experiment shows is that despite being conducted within the 'Earth's local space', the rotating disc motion is distinct from that of the 'local space' and c+v and c-v is manifest. Neither does the interferometer have its own local space to prevent this from happening.
When you read the paper by Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, that I mentioned above, in Fig.2 just substitute Air for Dark matter and you are done with regards to Sagnac's findings.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Matter 'creates' gravity it's not just a passive player! And I've referred you to the SPIM, where of course fermion pair density increases almost as much as bound gas fraction near massive bodies. But that does NOT lead to your assumption that free electrons themselves refract light anything other than kinetically. It's the bound gas fraction that's directly responsible for NON kinetic effects. We know the gas fractions precisely as they ARE detectable spectroscopically, but only when the free protons evolve to CO, H, He, Oxygen etc. (Actually even H' is very difficult to detect and CO is normally used as a guide).
So NO. Plasma density has no direct effect on propagation speed. Indeed it seems just as, or more consistent to consider that light get it's energy cross the universe at a consistent speed from the spin rate of the electrons it constantly encounters!
SAGNAC; "Consistent with what?" You suggest; "those findings are consistent with .. motion of a receptor can hasten the arrival time of light in contravention of SR postulate, which holds that the arrival time cannot be so affected."
That's the 'old' interpretation of the postulates, NOT the one I described. Einstein specified PROPAGATION speed, equal in all 'inertial frames'. The medium does indeed 'hasten the light', but not when measured as a propagation speed from within THAT medium! YOU must be at rest in the medium to find the valid LOCAL propagation speed. Riding past on your bo ike or standing in the lab is arbitrary, only giving you 'co-ordinate' speed which is only 'apparent'. THAT is the major breakthrough in understanding giving a new logically consistent interpretation of the postulates!
You only seem to have scratched the surface of the rich world of Sagnac. There are a number of DIFFERENT experimental protocols. (i.e. a Sagnac ring gyro is a continuous fibre optic cable). And GPS finding do support THAT interpretation of SR, (not current doctrine).
I well understand why c +/- v are found, which is as above. Once the mechanism is understood I don't see how it could be falsified. I promise I'm also intimately familiar with Wang's various experiments and findings, (and Ron's) which are again entirely consistent with that model (apparent 'dragged light' from arbitrary frames).
imagine this; Aim a radar gun at some traffic. Say you find speed as 60mph. Now jump on a motorcycle and head the other way at 30 aiming the gun. Your logic says you'd find the same speed! I'm pointing out there are TWO speeds; the 60mpg they are PROPAGATING at, and the 90mph APPARENT speed the gun tells you. I suggest it's finally time to STOP BELIEVING THE GUN in that scenario!
Is that fair?
Best wishes
Peter.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter thanks for reply, (Also to any community member with an opinion),
To avoid using too many terms and interpretations/ doctrines, some of which may mean the same thing, let me simply ask you...
If I set up a globe in my office, like one of those used in schools with the world map on it, then mount a light source, S and two receptors R at equidistant positions at its equator, viz. R-S-R. Then time the receipt of light from source, S. Next, (1) I spin the globe counter-clockwise at a speed 465m/s so that the beams are counter-rotating, will there be a difference in arrival times to the receptors?
Next, (2) I mount same type of source and receptors at the same position on the equator on Earth surface with receptors equidistant from source. Will there be a difference in arrival times knowing the Earth rotates at 465m/s?
What I expect is that in (1), Yes, there will be a difference in arrival times, which in my view will correspond to the Sagnac findings. In (2), No, there will be no difference in arrival times, which in my view will correspond to the Michelson-Morley type findings.
I avoid use of PROPAGATION speed, equal in all 'inertial frames', LOCAL propagation speed, 'co-ordinate' speed which is only 'apparent' for starters. After first answering Yes or No to (1) and (2), you may secondarily make use of these terms for the mechanism you propose for your Yes/No answers.
Expecting your brief but well considered reply.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Firstly, you can't spin a globe 'counter-clockwise'. I've written and explained that many times. (Brevity requires a priori precision!) It's a VERY important fact, key to understanding 'superposed spin'. Please read slowly this time and try to absorb it;
A globe always has BOTH spins. The pole spinning 'clockwise' we designate 'South'. The other pole will then ALWAYS spin counter clockwise ('North'). THAT is the crucial 'non-mirror symmetry'. That makes rotational 'Direction' entirely observer dependent Which end you look from). AN equator has ZERO N/S spin.
An equator may however be spun UP or DOWN relative to an orthogonal observer. That's also entirely observer dependent (if he spins it UP then goes round to the other side he finds it going DOWN!) Now think about that for a while till it's embedded as it becomes very important in deciphering nature.
So let's just say the globe 'spins on it's axis'. But your descriptions (1) and (2) are also unclear. Can I assume "at" means 'unfixed' to the globe and "on" means 'fixed? If not please clarify.
Lastly, if we're modelling planet Earth then we must do so faithfully and allow for it's atmosphere and ionosphere. The atmosphere both orbits with the planet AND rotates, so in average is; 'at rest with the surface'. The ionosphere (along with the magnetosphere) orbits the sun with the planet of course but in non-rotating (the bow shock always faces the sun, canted a little to Earth's orbital path). We can then ignore the orbit round the sun so treat the ionosphere as the 'rest frame' air of your office. For the atmosphere we need a thick sheet of clear low density plastic (or gas) rotating with the globe surface. The 'transition' between these two, the; 'Earth Centred Inertial' (ECI) and Earth centred reference frame' (ECRF) is actually very gradual (see the NASA authority Young links on atmospheric refraction which I posted for you).
Now we have the correct experimental kit and protocol we can analyse each ACTUAL experiments results - in the next post. I'll try brevity with the response. There are a number of different cases which should be analysed to unravel the present confusions due to oversimplification, but I'll keep it simple as poss.
tbc...
Peter

pjackson

Akinbo;
1) A set up (Observer-Source-Observer) fixed in your office ('lab') frame and ABOVE the atmosphere finds ~no difference in arrival time.
1a) The same set up at rest wrt your office but WITHIN the spinning atmosphere finds a difference equivalent to a significant part of the 465 m/s.
(The difference is due to the 'extinction distance' of light in air at that altitude - see the EM 'bible' J.D Jackson, as the links I also posted).
2) A set up fixed to the surface of the spinning globe will find a VERY SMALL difference. The difference is subject to altitude, precisely as found by Dayton Miller at different heights up Mount Wilson. That's because of the gradual transition between the rotating and non rotating (office) frames, and as the 'extinction distance' of light in air is greater than the vertical thickness of Earth's Atmosphere - (confirmed finding NOT 'opinion'!).
To explain "extinction distance". If a beam of light enters a new diffuse medium moving sideways it's optical axis is rotated by each interaction, so gradually. The less dense the medium the greater the distance it takes. In the interim we find 'birefringence' which means we can detect BOTH optical axes at once. In astronomy it's generally called 'scintillation', which is the 'twinkling' of stars. (Some astronomers haven't yet rationalised that as they fear it disagrees with SR!)
But there's one more REALLY IMPORTANT thing you must do; Consider independently from ALL observer frames, because you get DIFFERENT results! i.e. If you measure the speeds in case (2) from your OFFICE rest frame, you'll find there is a BIG DIFFERENCE! because it's an invalid frame; i.e. you're measuring RELATIVE speed (to you, who is not important!) not PROPER (propagation) speed.
Armed with that full suite of protocols embedded in your brain you can successfully consistently rationalise ALL interferometer experiments. Without it confusion will remain forever!; Golden rule; "Light propagates at c LOCALLY within and wrt DISCRETE FIELDS"
There are some common analytical errors. If you think you find a case that seems to violate the above point it out and I'll show you how the rule applies. I'm not sure how much Miller analysis is free access but this may be; Mineur H., The Experiment of Miller and the Hypothesis of the Dragging along of the Ether. Journal of the 1927. Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 21, p.206.
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, let me further simplify and clarify the scenario as you suggested and that let's just say the globe 'spins on it's axis' and "at/on" means Observer-Source-Observer FIXED to the surface of the globe in question, either office globe or Earth. Let us further leave the explanations till you give your clear answer. Lastly, let us leave 'propagation speed', 'coordinate speed', etc, but spin the globes on their axis at 465m/s. Also no need to add extras that are already known like "your office but WITHIN the spinning atmosphere", since all offices are already within the atmosphere and we are not talking of the international space station yet. The extras may come in when explaining your Yes/No answers which may or may not agree with mine.
1) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the spinning office globe set spinning by you from its initial rest in your office?
2) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the Earth globe, which is already spinning naturally?
You seem to have given some answers but to be clear, can you repeat because I want to refer you to some experimental findings.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
If both 'at and 'on' mean rotating with the globe surface then I don't understand what the difference is between scenario's 1 and 2. Please clarify.
You also didn't read my comment about frames properly. You say "all offices are already within the atmosphere" but in your scenario of a globe in your office there are TWO intertial frames involved. You must then distinguish between them and specify one or the other. The observer' is either AT REST in your office watching the spinning globe go round, or at rest ON the globe surface (so watching your office spinning round!)
I did give you 'clear answers' which resolved that question by giving both cases. Maybe best you read again more slowly and rationalise it for yourself or ask if not clear.
The same error of 'mixing up' frames was made by Lodge at a very critical time in 1893 with his spinning discs, falsely suggesting inconsistencies with the Stokes/Fresnel 'dragged ether' hypothesis. Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration..2010.
The problem is OVER simplification. Einstein specified 'Propagation speed' for VERY good reason. It's essential to understand and apply. The foolishness of ignoring that propagates confusion.
It's like explaining to a 5 year old about cars going past at 30mph being measured at 60mph if we drive the other way at 30mph. There are then always TWO cases, with different results. A 5 year old can understand that. Apparently many adults can't due either to embedded prior assumptions getting in the way or over-simplification!
SO; If you ask, "how fast will we find approaching traffic moving"? A simple answer is meaningless. If you specify if WE are moving or at rest in the background rest frame the answers (relative K-K's) become meaningful and coherent.
So drop assumptions and rebuild from simple logic. My telescope tells me the Lunar Rover is moving at 760kps. Is that valid from all frames!? or as a speed through the local dust storm?
Best wishes
Peter
P.S. You do need to understand absorption as you've yet to catch up to only 60 years out of date with 'superabsorption' and 'superradiance'! ('Dicke states', from particle 'rings'). http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1483.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,
This reply hasty due to electricity shortage...
"If both 'at and 'on' mean rotating with the globe surface then I don't understand what the difference is between scenario's 1 and 2. Please clarify".
Let us use Receptor-Source-Receptor because of conceptual problems that can arise with synchronization. Only ONE observer.
In the office stationary and at rest.
On earth globe, at rest wrt to earth.
Assignment measure arrival times to the equidistant receptors. Leave out speed measurement for now.
Is the scenario clear enough to now give a Yes/No answer to:
1) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the spinning office globe set spinning by you from its initial rest in your office?
2) Will there be a DIFFERENCE in light arrival times for the Earth globe, which is already spinning naturally?
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Tricky stuff electrikery. Hope they send more. Your descriptions still leave something to be desired, one problem being ignoring the unignorable fact that 'Receptors' are 'Observers'. However I see your intent to overcome confusions, so will answer on your terms, but your assumption misses real insight into actual mechanisms so I'll also clarify (as requested).
If you 'observe' the spinning globe and system from your office rest frame there are TWO possible cases, but we'll stick with yours; It's the same as Einstein's train/lightning gedanken with you on the embankment; There is NO DIFFERENCE. i.e. YOU will observe the flashes simultaneously.
The caveat is that if the globe has an 'atmosphere', then the signal will be 'dragged' while propagating within it, so the 'advancing' flash will be seen by you first.
Now we consider the case where you are at mid point (source position) at rest ON the Earth (with atmosphere, all 'in the rotating frame') watching the flashes reach the receptors, and thus the light returning to you. Again there will be NO DIFFERENCE in timing.
There are again TWO cases as there may be NO atmosphere, so light would NOT then propagate in the rotating frame but in the background frame, in which case you will be in motion during transit so there WILL be an observed time difference.
The poorly recognised solution to all the paradoxes here is that the observer on the train (Earth) is in a DIFFERENT LATERAL SPATIAL POSITION to the observer in the office (embankment) by the time the signals reach him, because ALL SIGNALS PROPAGATE AT c LOCALLY! Which means c in the medium frame they are IN, not any others they are NOT in!!
Once comprehended the clear logic shines through. It's difficult to grasp and assimilate, but just keep reading it and the dawn will arrive. Ask any questions. Reading the DFM's logical 'light clock' analysis in my 2020 vision essay may also help.
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Peter,
I think it has been worthwhile clearing some of the important cobwebs. We can deal later with 'real insight into actual mechanisms'. I also agree the unignorable fact that 'Receptors' are 'Observers', but this is sometimes used to introduce confusion in relativity discussions.This song is composed to celebrate vision 2020.
Your analysis makes PERFECT SENSE, even if the first NO DIFFERENCE answer got it wrong but was made up for in the latter part of your post that: "...NO atmosphere, so light would NOT then propagate in the rotating frame but in the background frame, in which case you will be in motion during transit so there WILL be an observed time difference".
The office globe has NO atmosphere so there WILL BE be an observed time difference as you now rightly stated.
In summary the differentiating participant in the proceedings whether or not there will be travel time differences is: the presence or absence of an 'atmosphere'. So when there is NO atmosphere there will be travel time differences. BUT when THERE IS, there will be no travel time differences.
The postulate of Special relativity was invented to explain and make sure that WHETHER OR NOT there is an atmosphere, there WILL BE NO TRAVEL TIME DIFFERENCES. It is on this that the validity of Special relativity rests and Einstein staked his theory's validity on this point. He has a quote somewhere buttressing that.
Experimentally, no travel time differences were found by Michelson & Morley type experiments. The explanation uses time dilation and FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction. As there remained the contention whether any 'atmosphere' played a role, since such experiments have been carried out in vacuum with SAME result.
Experimentally, travel time differences were found by Sagnac type experiments for his 'office globe', using a turn-table.
Ordinarily, this would have forced a re-examination of the SR tools of time-dilation and length contraction since these did not come to the rescue in this case, but the horse had escaped from the barn and is still on the loose 100 years on. Sagnac's experiment remained in French (till recently translated) and was virtually suppressed till let out of the bag by the Global Positioning System's findings. Einstein's 1905 German paper was translated to English and disseminated world-wide with time-dilation and length contraction becoming new participants in physics.
These discordant findings should have forced a search for a possible 'atmosphere' candidate remaining present even in vacuum. However, in 1905 and 1913, there was no viable candidate. But now in 2014, I think there is (but I don't think there is any need stating this again, haven said so earlier).
Please note that the commonly used and stated cliche, 'light speed is always constant' irrespective of the motion of the observer/receptor arises from this finding and is not really about Propagation speed at c. It is about resultant speed being always c, irrespective of what v is.
But Einsteiniana has succeeded in using words to muddle up the various speeds to cause confusion where it was not existing, viz. 'relative speed', 'propagation speed', 'resultant speed', 'absolute speed', 'coordinate speed', etc, all sometimes used interchangeably. Hence my requesting we leave them out so the cobwebs can be reduced.
Finally, I think we are reaching a point of convergence in realizing Vision 2020 as you call it. If you agree, we can now look at those atmospheric effects.
Low battery signalling...
Goodbye,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
I agree. I forgot there's one more journey for the light than Einstein's train -lightning gedanken, so if NO atmosphere then the first journeys source-'receiver' vary so there IS a difference.
But you can't simplify that for all cases. i.e. "when there is NO atmosphere there will be travel time differences. BUT when THERE IS, there will be no travel time differences." both because an observer at rest ON the globe finds the converse, AND because there are TWO journeys (the 2nd to your eye).
We agree there is ALWAYS a 'medium', but it can be in VARIOUS kinetic states. It also varies in a) density, and b) refractive index. There are then also various OBSERVER kinetic states possible wrt the two mediums, so we must take care to apply consistent rules to a number of cases.
I also agree Sagnac was suppressed and ignored as it falsified the INTERPRETATION of the postulates, but it's still been long and widely cited by dissidents. But we must also be careful with Sagnac experiments as some employ the different conditions.
Regarding the 'meaning' of the postulates you are reading your own assumptions into them by saying they're not really about 'propagation at 'c'. They're certainly about speed 'observed', but Einstein used certain words for good reason. No he didn't find the full solution, but his error was assuming 'no medium' in space for the 'Relativity of Simultaneity', when 'moving media' (DFM) did the same job. However, this all means we must have TWO cases for speed. One just an arbitrary 'closing' speed c+v. Einstein was perhaps less confused than you think about 'Propagation' speed and the difference between 'Proper' and 'Co-ordinate' time. He was very close. TOO MUCH simplification is over-simplistic!!
The interpretation I've described agrees verbatim with the postulates wording, and also with his (suppressed) 1952 paper. This brings a massive hidden advantage. Rather than just throw stones and shout at the citadel wall like other dissidents it provides a large peace gift for the (sic) 'Trogan's' within! (note the subtle positioning of 'sic' and 'g' not 'j'.) Arguing about the gift is fighting over our secret weapon. You need to 'converge' over here if you wish to win. Help me push this big horse, then wait till nightfall..!
The 'atmospheric effects and boundary mechanism are well described in the papers. It's a 'two-fluid' plasma, or electrons at rest in BOTH frames continually propagating, meeting and annihilating. It's a well known phenomena but only previously thought of in the 'shear surface' case, not the linear case found concentrated at Bow shock transition zones. Those who study the shocks translate the change as 'electron heating' to try to fit doctrine, but know it doesn't work.
The electrons BOTH 'sides' of the Transition Zone re-emit at c in their own rest frame. That's the DFM in a nutshell, also allowing unified SR and 'QM' descriptions without spooks (each electron implements Copenhagen!) as my essay. It's a speed change to maintain LOCAL PROPAGATION AT 'c', exactly as the postulates specify.
Einstein said SR 'doesn't have unlimited domain' and also 'nothing is infinite', so all we're really doing is limiting the domain of his space-time transition to Maxwell's NEAR FIELD limit, rather than infinity! The LT emerges as a power curve as wavelength approaches the minimum limit gamma; Reading through them again now should shed more light. Sa tart with the LT mechanism here;Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,
I have browsed through your two-plasma paper. It does not say anything new or different from the other papers you have told me to see. The model is useful but is incomplete as Tom would say.
Firstly, as I have said before you are trying too hard to please proponents of Lorentz contraction, thereby inventing mechanisms some of which are not needed. I have lost count of many of your 'mechanisms'.
A second aspect is the issue of whether plasma refractive index which you give an approximate value, 1 can be affected by its density, temperature, etc. You suggest it cannot, a pill I am finding difficult to swallow. I am however not expert in nor too interested in plasmas. I am interested in dark matter, which you a;so say is a form of plasma. You had told me earlier that plasma can be hot or cold.
Lastly, it appears inconsistent for you to say: "The plasma refractive index has long been established as ~n = 1 or slightly lower". Do you know what it means to say, slightly lower? That is, light will travel faster in plasma than it will in space completely devoid of matter. I beg to disagree.
Akinbo
PS. I don't see why you always insist that one must read your paper before they can understand what it is you want to put across.

pjackson

Akinbo,
If you wish to question effects invoked you should really do your own checking and use the references I provide. You can't be too lazy to do so than say you 'disagree' as that'll only be due to your ignorance of the subject! You'll have learned I only use well founded effects, and only will. In this case I'll take the time to cite and explain, but I have no time to be your personal professor.
You're wrong about plasma n, which is strictly ~0.9998 but it's a complex and interesting effect not implying FTL. To learn the subtleties of dielectric constants you'll need to read many papers (including 'between the lines') I have one free access paper which explains it quite well, and some related links;
"...Notice that for w< wp the dielectric constant is negative..."
A Broadband Negative Index Metamaterial at Optical Frequencies,
Transparency of an instantaneously created electron-positron-photon plasma. 2014,
Cosmic ray driven outflows.. (using a 2 fluid model).
Barkov et al;..two-fluid relativistic magnetohydrodynamics.
Comptonization of photons near the photosphere of relativistic outflows.
Optical signatures of the charge of a dielectric particle in a plasma.
Construction of a scale hierarchy by adiabatic invariants of magnetized particles.
But let's just dumb it down for now and call it 'c'.
"you are trying too hard to please proponents of Lorentz contraction," You didn't read my response, so completely misunderstand my objective approach. I don't 'TRY' do to anything! I only honestly report what emerges. It "is what it is." I don't agree Lorentz contraction or 'try to please' it's proponents. There are some REAL EFFECTS (misunderstood as 'contraction') that need the REAL EXPLANATION that logically emerged. You or I don't have to "like" it, that's unscientific!
"I don't see why you always insist that one must read your paper before they can understand what it is you want to put across."
It seems it's not so much a case of 'understanding' but of the false expectation to 'know' about things, so being able to 'agree' or 'disagree', before bothering to learn about them. That's why I research so many papers. I wrote recently that man's condition is as a darkened room. We expect to see and understand what's around us without bothering to look for the light switch. I did look, found it, and it is indeed enlightening. I recommend you try it.
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, I have a question for you that just occurred to me and decided to do here instead of opening another thread, if you don't mind.
On your post elsewhere, "As the ban on 'preferred frames' is lifted by making them discrete nested fields we can make light change speed to local c within each local rest frame (as SR's postulates!)", which is consistent with your quote of Einstein 'small space s within bigger space S' or 'bracket within bracket'.
My Question: If by some coincidence, all the spaces or brackets were for a moment stationary with respect to each other as a light signal traversed them, will there still be "change speed to local c within each local rest frame (as SR's postulates!)"?
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
No. As each set of brackets represent the boundaries between different states of motion (i.e. (K') within K) the brackets disappear if K' accelerates to become K. No 'change' of speed is then required to maintain local propagation at c. (as SR's postulates).
Thought of in terms of Einstein's; 'small space s in relative motion within bigger space S', if 'small space s' is not 'in motion' it becomes part of larger space S. (i.e. frame K).
On the other hand; A train at rest at a station is as much part of the planetary surface ('rotating') rest frame as one made of stone, or the platform (K). But the instant it accelerates it takes on a new (changing) state of motion. Once it's stopped 'acceleration' it will have a new 'rest' frame (K'), as will the passengers sitting within it. Any walking through the train have their own frame. All propagating fluctuations only change speed on arrival.'/b] Not before!
As I've explained before, anyone unfamiliar with the concepts needs to think through, visualise, internally rationalise and 'rehearse' (practice) that fundamental set of relationships to be able to remember and consistently apply them to unravel confused understanding. Did the above help?
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Yes, I agree with your No answer. Galilean relativity, which also admits of different states of motion also gives a No answer. So next is to differentiate between the two, i.e. DFM and Galilean relativity.
Talking of "each set of brackets represent the boundaries between different states of motion", "'small space s in relative motion within bigger space S', if 'small space s' is not 'in motion' it becomes part of larger space S.", it is helpful to realize two things. First is that a space or bracket devoid of matter of any sort cannot move. Thus what appears to move is a space or bracket consisting of matter. Second is that matter like space devoid of matter can transmit light waves.
So the operational mechanism for modulating change of light speed is matter-based. And if it is matter-based its refractive index must count in changing the light speed.
Although you give prominence to the role of matter, this prominence appears to me inadequate, your attempt to separate into two independent effects as you do earlier on this thread should be further scrutinized. As you said "There are two entirely independent effects. The 'make up' of the medium, which dictates refractive index n, and the relative kinetic state of the medium; K.". What I am saying is that space, s without matter cannot have a relative kinetic state. Space, s whatever or whichever way you define it requires matter to have any semblance of a kinetic state. I don't know if I am coherent?
If you give more prominence to the role of matter, you may find there is no need to use Lorentz transformation (length contraction and time dilation) to obtain the SR postulates. Galilean relativity is adequate.
Do you have a mechanism for Pound-Rebka's finding of difference in frequency at the Top of tower and below, both of which are within the "same bracket" since there is no relative motion between them? I suggest the difference again is a matter-based mechanism.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Galilean relativity is only given 'reality' and a non-linear boundary mechanism when the 'real' entities relative speed nears c. No 'differentiation' is need as it's all about more consistent interpretation.
You'll note that the same is true of SR because that 'non linearity' is what the Lorentz factor describes. (I refer to Einstein's postulated SR, NOT the 'interpretation' added afterwards - incomplete as each frame had infinite limits, so paradoxical). The LT is a natural and essential process which is experimentally irrefutable and needs explaining physically. I don't use the rather 'head in the sand' approach you seem to propose! No solution can be valid if it doesn't address all empirical findings. That one emerges naturally.
"So the operational mechanism for modulating change of light speed is matter-based. And if it is matter-based its refractive index must count in changing the light speed."
Absolutely, but some important caveats; the refractive index (n) effect MUST be distinguished from the additional 'kinetic' effect from the medium's relative motion. n is frame invariant. e.g. all dense clouds in relative motion (at v) can have the same index n, but when viewed from the background rest frame each will ALSO change the speed by v. I don't 'attempt' to separate those Akinbo, logic and nature do that. I've just identified it as the only consistent logic.
Physics also needs to overcome it's fear of the background 'dark energy/ condensate' rest frame enabled by these 'discrete field' dynamics. I suspect that may be the hardest bit. Below gamma and the Planck length there is a 'sub matter' energy pool flowing around, which condenses 'matter' as spin vortices when disturbed (compressed, so at shear planes), which modulates local c.
People use Maxwell's equations yet still deny the essential 'ether' frames each side of his near/far field TZ.
I can't believe you've already forgotten our long conversation about Pound Rebka from earlier in the year! I went to great effort to explain to you precisely how it emerged from the kinetics and thinning ambient density - and you seem to have forgotten! (except perhaps subconsciously as you do now see it's 'matter based' atmospheric refraction). I hope that means I'm not totally wasting the time spent answering your questions!

Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, I think we are reaching a convergence of ideas from different directions...
Can you please clarify,
"Galilean relativity is only given 'reality' and a non-linear boundary mechanism when the 'real' entities relative speed nears c." What do you imply by non-linear and the 'real' entities?
Also, I agree "Physics also needs to overcome it's fear of the background 'dark energy/ condensate' rest frame enabled by these 'discrete field' dynamics", but for now I will personally leave out 'dark energy condensate from the statement.
On "Pound Rebka from earlier in the year! I went to great effort to explain to you precisely how it emerged from the kinetics and thinning ambient density - ...as you do now see it's 'matter based' atmospheric refraction". Ambient density of what? Air?
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Good. By 'reality' I mean real matter with a 'state of motion', or systems of bodies with such an assignable group common centre of mass state (frame).
By 'non-linear' I mean a density distribution gradient producing a non-liner function or curve. Rather like a cosine curve or ellipse for instance as opposed to a circle.
Air will do fine, but the whole column of gases and electrons has a vertical density gradient, thinning out far more rapidly than we realize!
Best wishes
Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Okay your definition 'reality' and 'non-linear' sounds fine, with some addition which I leave for now.
ON "Air will do fine, but the whole column of gases and electrons has a vertical density gradient, thinning out far more rapidly than we realize!"
In the absence of Air the findings will remain the same due to the presence of 'ponderable matter' as an Einstein quote says. You call this DFM plasma, I prefer dark matter. But there is something you said sometime ago which you may want to review. You said the density of Plasma has no effect on its refractive index so I don't see how 'thinning out' can now have an effect on electromagnetic propagation through a column. By the way the gradient has to be a consequence of gravity, denser nearer source of gravity and thinner further up.
Regards,
Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,
Nice to find agreement, and well spotted re-pure plasma and the Pound-Rebka column gradient. You'll find there's no evidence of so called 'gravitational redshift' in a near perfect vacuum column (or I couldn't, but please do look).
In reality pure the plasma (free electrons, positrons and protons,) which doesn't annihilate quickly evolves to basic ions, CO and bound molecular gas (i.e. check out the AMS findings) the 'PMD delay' is always non-zero. (And yes, it perfectly performs the functions of 'dark matter') I also strongly suspect the dark energy (Casimir) 'condensate' is simply a smaller gauge fluid 'vortex foam' which has tiny non detectable (yet!) effects.
I'm glad you seem to have rationalised the key differentiation required between the 'charge delay' and 'kinetic' (reverse) lensing effects. However you've a long way to go in exploring the consequences, requiring the 'new way of looking' an many familiar things to complete the big puzzle. Hopefully a new pair of eyes will also see additional things.
i.e. Saying; "a consequence of gravity" is only one way to view it. What we call 'gravity' is also, and may prove even more, a consequence of the matter distribution we're discussing!
How much of the QM application did you penetrate? (proving quasi causality with no FTL) I'm currently in discussion with a Nobel Laureate on the new dynamics trying to simplify the explanation (I may try it on you if you understand the so called 'quantum non-local state reduction' fundamentals) and may hopefully move on to a new joint publication soon. Indeed I must get back to that now.
Best wishes
Peter

pjackson

Rebutting Brain Green's 'Twins Paradox' video. Excellent new video by Chris Kennedy.
Twins Paradox.
(for some reason this won't go straight to it, yet it did from my Email!?!) It's called; "Rebuttal to Brian Greene twin paradox video"
Peter

pjackson

Twin Paradox rebuttal video,
Found the direct path the the new video, here;
Twin Paradox
Peter
In discrete field dynamics there's no paradox. Light signal travel time produces all effects. If two clocks are co-ordinated in one place and taken 30,000k apart each will appear from the others position to be running 1 second late.
As the distant clock is brought back to the observer it will appear to be running faster, and will have 'caught up' on arrival. The postulates of SR are fine. It's only the 'interpretation' that's flawed.
Did you know Einstein himself never used space-time diagrams or tried to justify the twins paradox? He finally identified the flaw 1952; "SR is entirely contained within the postulates". A paper subjugated and ignored by somebody and supposedly still 'in copyright'!
Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »