Faster than Light

John Cox

"This just figurative"

Pentcho, that is stock in trade. It's harassment and its insidious, and was as systematic of the Durzhavna as the Waffen SS. Is it still so commonplace in Sophia today that one feels as comfortable with it, as a modern northerner in the States with a Confederate flag on the bumper of his pick-up truck? Nine more innocent people were just murdered in their Church here in the States by a man spouting the same sort of 'figurative speech'. I am not alone in feeling deep political and personal offense. When will You dare say "Enough!" And it has nothing to do with logical expression of a competing theoretical discipline, especially one that has been falsified to the degree that it can be considered a good first approximation. jrc

Pentcho Valev

John Cox wrote: "It's harassment and its insidious, and was as systematic of the Durzhavna as the Waffen SS. Is it still so commonplace in Sophia today that one feels as comfortable with it, as a modern northerner in the States with a Confederate flag on the bumper of his pick-up truck? Nine more innocent people were just murdered in their Church here in the States by a man spouting the same sort of 'figurative speech'. I am not alone in feeling deep political and personal offense. When will You dare say "Enough!"

I am surprised you haven't yet compared me to a serial killer, John Cox (this murderer in the Church was not serial, according to the Wikipedia's definition).

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho, John C,

I don't see any reason to accept distraction from the need to reject arbitrariness affecting a scientific theory.

What about the question whether the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer, I am not sure who introduced the silly notion "speed of light relative to the observer". Can you please lecture me?

In my understanding, propagation of energy is independent from anyone who observes it, and the velocity of light or sound is not at all directly related to the velocity of emitter or receiver.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

"What about the question whether the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer, I am not sure who introduced the silly notion "speed of light relative to the observer". Can you please lecture me? In my understanding, propagation of energy is independent from anyone who observes it, and the velocity of light or sound is not at all directly related to the velocity of emitter or receiver."

If the speed is not "relative to X", it is a meaningless concept (I hope you will agree with that). Now for some reason

X = the observer

is embarrassing to you. Then let us replace it with

X = a point where some observer can be at rest

Is that acceptable? Concerning sound waves, we could have:

(A) X = a point at rest relative to the air (and the observer is at rest relative to the air too).

(B) X = a point MOVING relative to the air (and the observer is moving relative to the air too).

Then the speed of sound (relative to X) will be constant in the case A and variable (dependent on the speed of the point/observer) in the case B.

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

I was rather interested in a hint where I can find the notion "speed of light relative to the observer" used for the first time by Einstein or even before him. Einstein himself did use the word Lichtgeschwindigkeit. The distinction between speed and velocity in English language is here not of interest to me. Einstein often referred to "the system at rest". Instead I would prefer "the necessarily arbitrarily preferred system of reference".

Yes, in case of sound in a medium there is a naturally preferred reference for any particular propagating wave: medium.

Such a point or boundary is missing in case of electromagnetic waves that can also be imagined as massless particles. In this sense, there is nothing provable at rest, an assumption that corresponds to the most simple model of infinite space beyond CMBR.

Anyway, elsewhere you gave a link to animations that illustrate what is meant (by whom?) with the speed relative to an receiving observer: The latter may measure the frequency, and if he knows the true emitted frequency, only then he can infer the actual speed. According to the Doppler effect this frequency may be smaller or larger than the for physical reasons constant speed of sound or light. This way the observer may "hear or see" an apparent velocity even in excess of c. The speed relative to the observer is unreal.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard,

You said, "Yes, in case of sound in a medium there is a naturally preferred reference for any particular propagating wave: medium. Such a point or boundary is missing in case of electromagnetic waves..."

Nothing is missing. If you look properly you will find it. Space is a medium, it is not a nothing. Moreover, it is not all somethings that must have mass.

Space has permeability and permittivity values. Can a nothing have a measurable property?

Space is difficult to deform like a material substance. Its parts don't move from place to place, like air or water. Its parts move from existence to non-existence, and from non-existence to existence (as testified to in cosmology -big bang and big crunch). This is the purest and most fundamental type of motion. It is not infinitely divisible, in a sense its atom is the 'point', probably of Planck size. All these properties lead to vibrations to have a very high frequency exemplified by electromagnetic waves.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

"If the speed is not 'relative to X', it is a meaningless concept ..."

Sorry, but it is.

Not only is it meaningful, but the value of x is a measured value. You have wasted hundreds of thousands of words, and misled others. Stop it.

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo, Pentcho, Tom,

Give me a fix point, and I will lever out the world. Maybe, I didn't correctly recall and translate this ancient utterance. I hope you will nonetheless agree on the importance of natural points of reference and also agree on the lack of naturally preferred points of understood as endless concepts like space. Finite objects like air or the earth have boundaries which means they have a center point.

I agree with Pentcho on that speed must relate to something. However I also agree with Tom on that speed does not need relating to X, neither to X as observer nor to X as a point but to the distance I described. This means, the speed of light needn't directly refer to a velocity as was suggested with emission theory.

Akinbo reiterates the argument that space cannot be nothing. The mutual distance of two locations with nothing in between can even be measured. Why should we not accept that space is not more than the entity of mutual distances in which particles and TEM waves may propagate (T stands for transversal)?

Wave and particle are to engineers like me just models, each of which has particular benefits although they seem to exclude each other. Let's experiments decide. Isn't a motion of parts of the model "space" from existence to non-existence and return still a rather arbitrary speculation as are big bang etc. too? Even if atoms are nearly indivisible, the point as defined for good by Euclid is something ideal with zero extension. Therefore, such point cannot be of Planck size.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

I used to think that hate crimes were the preserve of more developed countries but I have since realized it is part of the animal nature in men of all races and in all places. We have witnessed hate massacres too here in Africa.

There are not that many regulars commenting here these days and I think we should shake hands all round and not allow the beast in us come out.

This space would also certainly be diminished if racism or anti-semitism is allowed to take root.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

"We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

This is written by Sidney Redner, Professor in the Boston University Physics Department. He is obviously correct, and his interpretation unequivocally refutes Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

You frequently claim that the velocity of light is relative to the source. And you use this to explain the findings of Michelson Morley type experiments, where the arrival times of counter-rotating light beams were not influenced by the rotational motion of the turn-table (Earth) on the basis that the velocity of the sources (v) can be added or subtracted to or from that of light respectively, in the manner, c+v and c-v in order to obtain a null finding. Truly, in this case the null findings can be explained.

But in other rotating turn-tables, like that of Sagnac (1913), the light beams arrived earlier or later notwithstanding the velocity of the source, but depending on whether the light was moving towards or away from the detector. That is, in that case the light velocity was not relative to its source! I suggest you therefore abandon that postulate and let us seek a better one.

Regards,

Akinbo

Gary Simpson

Akinbo,

Well done. To my understanding of history, the observation of binary stars was one of the empirical findings that caused the emission theory of light to be abandoned.

For emission theory to be true, something "additional" must be true for the observer to compensate for this. Anyone who now advocates the emission theory is therefore obligated to provide that "additional" something to explain the observed behavior of binary star systems.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

If Sagnac had confirmed Einstein's 1905 light postulate, that would be on the first page of any relativistic textbook. Actually the experiment is inconclusive - the calculations are extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible. I put a lot of effort in this 10 years ago - did not succeed, neither found satisfactory calculations in the literature. The light moves along a closed polygonal line, the polygon is different in the two directions... the difficulties are really insurmountable.

Pentcho Valev

Gary Simpson

Pentcho,

For whatever it is worth to you, I too want for the emission theory to be true. However, there are observations that almost certainly indicate that it is not. If, despite these observations, I choose to advocate for the emission theory, then I must provide an explanation for Sagnac and de Sitter and those binary stars. If I cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, then I must accept SR with its various transformations.

BTW, it seems to me that the recent thrust measurements of that micro-wave resonance chamber might be of interest. SR cannot explain it. Perhaps that might be an interesting topic for study and discussion.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Akinbo Ojo

Gary, Pentcho,

A few comments. Why go to binary stars light-years away when the Sagnac effect, i.e. arrival times of signals can be influenced by receptor motion is nearby? This is something that has now been confirmed by the Global Positioning System (GPS). Probably, Pentcho has not studied the Sagnac findings properly to claim it supports Special relativity. It refuted the SR postulate and the findings were suppressed till the advent of the GPS, when it was grudgingly rehabilitated and attempts made to claim it as supportive of General relativity. There was a big dispute between Ashby and Ron Hatch, et al, about this unconscionable act. What Georges Sagnac found with his own turn-table was what Michelson and Morley did not detect with theirs. That is, differences in light arrival times consequent on receptor motion. M-M found NO differences in light arrival times consequent on receptor motion.

The experimental arrangement was not so different with that of Michelson and Morley (both used interferometry), except that one used earth motion as its turn-table, while the other used a turn-table rotating with respect to the earth.

Bottom line: The motion of the source did not compensate for light arrival times contrary to emission theory, but supportive in my view of a wave theory where the medium is earth-bound like an atmosphere.

Regards,

Akinbo

Some references

Sagnac effect and references from Wikipedia

How GPS confirms Sagnac and refutes the SR postulate

your link text

Steve Agnew

Once again, there are no mysteries with the Sagnac effect interferometry, which is due to optical rotation instead of optical translation interferometry.

And the paper cited does not use GPS to refute SR. Rather it proposes an experiment that might use GPS to refute SR if the results followed some rather specious reasoning. The GPS as it now is fully supports all of the principles of GR and SR as we have gone over exhaustively in past posts. So we can just replay them again and again...

Pentcho Valev

Gary,

How do you know that de Sitter's scenario refutes the emission theory? Let us consider it:

"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics, however, the experimental result was negative. This was confirmed by Brecher in 1977 by observing the x-rays spectrum."

Here is Brecher's paper:

K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) applies the emission theory to a system with unknown parameters and informs the gullible world that, if the emission theory was correct, the system would produce "peculiar effects". For instance, Brecher has no idea how the gravitational field of the system affects the emitted light, and accordingly calculates the "peculiar effects" by implicitly assuming that the gravitational field is absent.

Needless to say, the system does not produce the strawman "peculiar effects". Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

A refutation of this kind can only be valid in Einstein's world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the binary star system are unknown prevents critics from showing why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

Pentcho Valev

Gary Simpson

Pentcho,

I have a few thoughts regarding de Sitter and regarding null results.

First, concerning null results. To me, null results are not generally convincing. I am more convinced by what is observed rather than by what is not observed.

Second, concerning de Sitter. I do not necessarily believe that anyone actually knows what would be observed concerning a binary star system as a result of variable light speed. In my opinion, what would be observed after a great distance would be variable intensity and nothing more than that. The other things stated by de Sitter seem to me to be speculation. Therefore, in my opinion, the variable intensity of many binary star systems is just as likely to be an observed effect of variable light speed as an effect resulting from occultation.

As I stated above, de Sitter seemed to be an historical turning point for the emission theory of light. That is historically correct. My understanding of why it is so is not clear.

While I share many of your frustrations, I believe that the best way for me to add something to the scientific effort is to focus on the mathematics. It can be shown to be either correct or not correct. And all that I need is a pencil and some paper.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Pentcho Valev

Gary,

"While I share many of your frustrations, I believe that the best way for me to add something to the scientific effort is to focus on the mathematics. It can be shown to be either correct or not correct."

If an axiom (postulate) is false, then the mathematics is 100 per cent incorrect - actually it is nothing but camouflage. In my view, any criticism of Einstein's relativity should be aimed at answering the following question:

Which of Einstein's 1905 two postulates is false?

Any different criticism is more or less a red herring (in my view).

Pentcho Valev

Steve Dufourny

In all case, a sure thing is your obstinacy since 3 years against the postulate of Einstein about SR.I don't understand you Mr Pentcho Valev.It is essential this postulate.But you don't listen and you are going to continue of course.

You are skilling , so please focus on an other thing,the gravitons for example and the gravitational spherical waves.

3 years of anti Einstein ???In all case, I respect your obstinacy , you merit a prize you know.

Gary Simpson

Pentcho,

I am not presently considering either postulate. I am presently at ~1865 attempting to guess how Hamilton would have continued his work had he not died. I will try to get the mathematical/geometrical structure in a different form than it is today and then add Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. Then I will think about Einstein's postulates ... They might look different when expressed as vectors and quaternions ... especially if something such as velocity is the ratio between two structures.

That is what I mean by working on the math ...

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

[deleted]

Eckard made reference to this page, Criticism of the theory of relativity, in which is stated:

"Another example is the Sagnac effect. Two signals were sent in opposite directions around a rotating platform. After their arrival a displacement of the interference fringes occurs. Sagnac himself believed that he had proved the existence of the aether. However, special relativity can easily explain this effect. When viewed from an inertial frame of reference, it is a simple consequence of the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source, since the receiver runs away from one beam, while it approaches the other beam. When viewed from a rotating frame, the assessment of simultaneity changes during the rotation, and consequently the speed of light is not constant in accelerated frames".

The author is obviously in support of Special relativity by all means, but in doing so contradicts himself.

Firstly, it is now admitted that on a turn-table with counter-rotating light beams from two sources and one detector in between and equidistant to them, the beam towards which the detector was rotating would arrive first. "...since the receiver runs away from one beam, while it approaches the other beam", the writer probably does not understand what is in dispute as it is only in Galilean relativity that running away from an incoming beam can delay its arrival time, not in Special relativity where length contraction would allegedly occur to prevent this.

Secondly, this write up says correctly that based on this finding, the speed of light is independent from the speed of the source.

Thirdly, Einstein says the validity of his theory depends on the speed of light being constant in ALL experiments, this is no longer the case experimentally.

Fourthly, on noting the contradictions some relativitists (Tom comes to my mind here) have invented the excuse that Special relativity is a special case only valid for linear motion (and not for rotational) and where there is no gravitational influence influence. This to use a possibly wrong word, is fraudulent, in the sense that there was never a time that the Earth was in any linear or non-rotational motion during the testing of SR's validity, neither was there any time when the earth's gravitational influence did not come to bear in any of the experiments (unless the sun has been commanded to stand still during experiment like is claimed in the bible). The MM experiment, just like Sagnac's is a turn-table experiment! The task is to reconcile the two discordant findings.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I posted some links above on Sep. 13, 2015 @ 10:53 GMT

Steve Dufourny

I am in a total agreement.I don't understand them .It is bizare their obstinacy.

They confound really maths and physics.They utilize maths with a non rational road trying to explain our objective physics.

That has no sense.

Eckard Blumschein

Anonymous (Akinbo),

Not just I don't see "MM experiment ... [and] Sagnac's ... two discordant findings" to reconcile. Incidentally, I am angry because of your misleading use of the incorrect expression MM.

Shouldn't we instead devote our reasoning to alternative interpretation e.g. of so called relativistic but elder than relativity mass formula without resorting on two-way velocity?

To me, Nimtz provides an example how difficult it is to reveal fallacies within seemingly correct findings.

++++

Steve Dufourny

In fact ,their errors are just due to bad understanding of the relativity special and general.Relativity is a tool permitting to class our local realism.

The lenght contraction for example is just a tool in function of referential.A simple proof is the tool of gravitational lens.Or an other tool is the SR which permits to class our cosmological evolutive scale for example, in the same logic that with our sun seen 8 min after.So we see our past simply.Never we see a reversible time.

Relativity is a tool and if it exists so many bad interprétations of relativity, it is because probably several persons donot understand its realmeaning.Relativity is a tool utilised in our present local realism.

« Previous Page Next Page »