• [deleted]

  • Post #57

Paul,

My message was not an invitation for you to misinform persons about your belief system here in my blog. It was meant for others to read so that they would not think that you know what you are talking about.

To others:

"In section 4 note the word moving in the title. The point was that everything must be deemed to be moving, so this refers to changing momentum (ie acceleration/ deceleration) caused by an imbalance in forces upon the object, which also causes the dimension in the line of motion to alter (allegedly). ..."

The word 'moving' does not refer to acceleration of the object nor does it involve the application of force. The rest of his message is also full of misunderstandings. Do not be misled by Paul. Please ignore his messages should anymore show up here. His belief system has no relevance to what is discussed in my essay or my messages.

James

Getting this thread back on track: Special relativity involves both length contraction and time dilation. That 1905 paper includes the derivation of equations for both. Special relativity does not involve forces or changes of momentum or changes of velocity. The equations derived by Einstein in his 1905 paper use velocity. Anyone who understands elementary physics knows that velocity is constant unchanging motion in a single direction.

Azzam has presented a new interpretation for length contraction. My message to him had the purpose of pointing out that our mathematical treatments of length contraction are different. "The equation that I derived for length contraction is analogous in form and effect to Einstein's derivation for length contraction in special relativity." This statement says exactly what I want it to say.

James

Hi Frank,

I am struggling with writing a response to your question. Whereas I found little difficulty in putting forth a reasonably short explanation for electromagnetism, gravity is not so straight forward and simple. I am working on it. This exercise is valuable in making clear to myself that I have something coherent to say. :) I can say, in short form, that gravitational effects are not the result of light either attracting or repelling other light.

My view begins with visualizing photons of various frequencies arriving from all directions to the location of a particle of matter. This point of view can be approximated at the start by imagining two photons arriving from only two directions, one above the particle and the other from below the particle. Those photons out in free space would have equal energies. However, the influence of the Earth is to cause their speeds to vary. The photon moving upward has an increasing speed. The photon moving downward has a decreasing speed.

When these two photons arrive simultaneously at the particle of matter, even though their frequencies would be identical in free space, their frequencies vary slightly because of their slight differences in speed. The photon arriving from below will have a slightly greater energy than the photon arriving from above. My contention will be that it is that slight difference in energies caused by the Earth's effect on the speed of light that produces the force of gravity.

I recognize the gross inadequacy of this simple explanation. My challenge is to write a more detailed explanation. It may require writing a paper and provide a link to it. But, lets see first if I can write it. This message was meant to give an indication of some of what that explanation would entail. It hopefully gives you a chance to determine sooner rather than later whether or not you think this concept has merit and interest.

Thank you again for your question.

James

James

You asked; "When you say the energy is conserved and then follow it with (ergo blue light is more energetic than red), it appears to be a contradiction. Could you please address this?"

Sure. You must think kinetically for the implications of interactions; The number of waves (of = amplitude) dictates the energy. The same wave number (say 10 peaks) so the same energy is compressed into a smaller space/time with blue shifted light. Propagation speed is constant so Ergo, the energy of blue light is greater per unit time. It is the 'evolution of interaction' (progressive acceleration) on entering a new co-moving medium that causes waves to Doppler shift.

Analogy. Say 1 person = 10kw. A line of people walk past at one per second; In a 10 second period you will find 100kw.

Now stand bedside a moving pavement (representing a moving atmosphere). If heading the same way; the frequency they pass you is still 1 per second, (=100kw) but the wavelength is increased (red shifted). If going the other way, they are compressed (blue shifted) but STILL only pass you at 1m/sec!! = 100kw. So the energy is conserved.

Interestingly walking speed (c) is also conserved locally, as is the wavefunction.

It is wavelength lambda that is not conserved.

If you, the observer, also move onto the moving pavement (accelerate, or 'change frames') you will find their REAL walking speed conserved (co-variant c) but frequency altered to balance wavelength, this conserves the constant f - f x lambda as well as energy E.

A brilliant person may need to read that twice. The rest of use three times!!

[You may find an non real c plus v (non observable in a vacuum) but only 'apparent', or 'imaginary ('Minkowski') as it is not real, in your frame or in 'Proper Time'.] Real detection of real speed requires interaction with a lens.

I'm sure you'll see it. The implications are trickier but fundamental. (my own essay should appear any time).

Best wishes

Peter

James

Can you point me to any empirical evidence of the change in n with angle of incidence. By definition n is considered a constant invariant to angle except in birefringent and anisotropic media. It does not seem consistent with Sagnac, including Wang's linear Sagnac results, or 'kinetic reverse refraction', (KRR) which are the main phenomena I'm familiar with which seem relevant here.

In those two cases the refractive index (representing propagation speed) and consummate (in KRR) refraction angle always seems to obey a constant n.

I'd certainly be interested in any other experimental results as they may also help falsify the models I'm investigating.

You should find the KRR model and Wang are consistent with my above response ref energy conservation.

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Peter,

We do see the interaction differently. I have not used a wave nature up to this point. My goal is to demonstrate ever present consistent unity due to a single cause for all effects for all time. However, in deference to your view, I have proven nothing to anyone. Furthermore, I have still a long way to go theoretically speaking. However, here is my opinion: If I did view the photon in terms of a wave nature and if the number of cycles were squeezed into a shorter distance because of length contraction, I would differentiate between the local view and the remote view.

The interaction takes place locally. The length involved, I refer to it, only because of the model I use in my own work, as photon length is a constant locally everywhere. Locally the waveform appears to be unchanged. Even the cycles per second do not change. That is due to my assertion that every photon everywhere passes any given point in the same constant period of time.

From the perspective of my essay subject, the increase in energy is due to the increase in tilt of the photon. That increase in tilt is observed for both the remote observer and the local observer. Its effect, during interaction with a particle, is to cause more force to be applied over a distance that appears to not have changed from the local perspective. I redefined Maxwell's equation in my first essay, The Absoluteness of Time

I don't use electromagnetic field theory. I must account for wave type effects without the wave model. I haven't yet put that case forward for testing by others. So, as weak as it probably appears, I am still only presenting an introduction to the photon model. My perserverence is due to the resulting equations that have developed from its use. It is those equations that I am still in the process of introducing to others.

I recognize how well prepared you are to support your own case. My work is still very much in progress and it is risky for me to speculate beyond what I have prepared. I think the most important point, from my perspective, is that no escape from unity can be allowed anywhere along the development of physics theory.

What I mean by that is that: There is a single cause and any effort to introduce any additional causes is viewed as accepting an artificially imposed theoretical roadblock that has the effect of ending the search without epirically justifiable reason. No separate natures are permitted. Either wave type effects are explained without a wave nature or particle type effects must be explained without a particle nature.

I am not insisting that I now know the absolute true nature of the universe. I am offerring some clarifications regarding the path I have chosen to follow. In the end, I fully recognize, that path must produce results that are consistent with empirical evidence. Usually this is not known until results are compared to experimental results. However, I have included in my work, right from its beginning, something that will hopefully keep my work in line with empirical evidence.

That something is my introduction of mass as a property defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which its existence is inferred. That change allows for all additonal properties to be defined in terms of distance and time.

James

Hi again Peter,

It is good to receive real physics messages. No I do not have any empirical evidence to point to. I will search and see what I can find. However, I will explain why I said what I said. I said that n is changing with angle. Here is what I meant in detail. The path of the photon begins perpendicular to the direction of velocity of the train. As soon as it begins to turn toward the parallel direction, it has two components. One is perpendicular and the other is parallel.

The perpendicular component never sees a change in n equivalent to the stationary n. The parallel component always sees only the same constant n, the n that includes the effect of the train's velocity. When I said what I said, I was thinking in terms of the resulting effect on a resultant n from the viewpoint of the photon. Right now I am not so sure. I need to think it through some more. Your message is a help. Thank you for it.

James

Frank,

This is in response to your point about instantaneous effects. I am writing it as I think about it, so, I may have to later adjust or correct it. This is my view based upon the adoption of a variable speed of light:

The manner in which I view the implementation of a variable speed of light is that the variation is instantaneous. Photons move at the required speed of light, but, the cause which dictates that they do so is treated as varying everywhere instantaneously.

If two very dense stars are moving closely around one another, I expect two detectable types of effects. One is that the photons that are affected near the stars will eventually communicate their history throughout the universe. The other effect is that those two stars and their interlocking dance will have instantaneous effects on the speeds of all photons everywhere in the universe.

Instead of speaking about these two effects as types of gravity waves, I view them as immediate variations in the background light-field. The light-field is the hypothetical cause for maintaining and varying the speed of light. Usally both effects from the pair of stars will quickly become difficult to detect as distance away increases. In theory though, I expect that they both exist and are potentially detectable.

Using the Earth as a location for establishing a local point of vew, all photons encounterred by the Earth will undergo changes in their velocities due to the motion of all other objects in the universe. Most of these effects should be insignificant and undetectable in practice. However, the photons involved with the Earth will be constantly experiencing immediate variations in their speeds, and thereby also their energies, due to changes in the position of the sun and the other planets.

If the Sun ceased to exist instantaneously, we would not see that occurrance until the last photons arrived here. However, we should experience the effect on our local speed of light immediately.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #65

James

In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Light speed variable when passing through the gravitational field depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Schwarzschild geometry illustrating that. Same as when the light beam passing through a tube of length L full of water, the light speed will be decreased for the lab observer. That is because according to my theory vacuum energy of tube full of water will be greater than the vacuum of our laboratory. In my theory what is determining the speed of light is the space-time that is drawn by the field or the vacuum energy. In the case the light beam passing through the water, it is passing through a uniform field for the lab. observer. But in the case of the gravitational field, it not uniform, it is depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Relative to a train moving with constant speed, in this case when the light beam passing through moving train, in this case for the stationary earth observe, the light speed is passing through higher vacuum energy than the earth and thus the speed of light will decreased inside the train and measured to be c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5 for the earth observer depending on L/t, where L is the length of the train, and t is the time measured by the earth observer by his clock for the light to pass the length of the train. c' here doesn't depend on the direction of transmitting the light beam comparing to the direction of the velocity, and the length of the train during the motion for the earth observer is L same as if it is stationary. Now if the earth observer has an empty tube of length L and he cooled the tube to temperature -237C degree. In this case and according to my equivalence principle, the vacuum energy of the tube is less than the vacuum energy of the lab observer. That is equivalent to as the lab observer is moving with uniform speed v relative to the tube. Remember, in my theory, the light speed is locally constant and equals to c, the speed of light in vacuum. In my modified relativity theory we have got the lost key to unify between quantum and relativity, and by that I could interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement and what is the meaning of faster than light and my interpretation is agreed with the latest experimental results in quantum. Also my interpretation is applied on faster than light relative to the wormholes in general relativity, which is the same interpretation as in quantum.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #66

    James

    in my theory as measuring light speed in a higher vacuum energy to less than the speed of light in vacuum, that lead to refractive index greater than 1. but in the case of measuring the light speed in a less vacuum energy to be greater than light speed in vacuum, the lead to refractive index to be less than 1. I agree with that principle, But in my theory in the case of measuring the refractive index less than one. there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #68

    James

    "My message was not an invitation for you to misinform persons about your belief system here in my blog. It was meant for others to read so that they would not think that you know what you are talking about"

    Er, they were quotes from Einstein and Lorentz, albeit a limited number, that demonstrated what they actually said. Not statements of Paul Reed's belief system.

    Specifically re para 4 Einstein 1905. The first sentence reads: "We envisage a rigid sphere of radius R, at rest relatively to the moving system k". They are both moving, because, as he says elsewhere, everything is moving. "At rest" is not absolute stillness, it is constant movement which appears still when referenced to another constant movement. K is, for want of a better phrase 'moving more'. This is why he then says a few sentences further on: "A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed from the stationary system--the form of an ellipsoid of revolution with the axes". This being a reference to Lorentz's latest hypotheses (1904) about electrons becoming flattened ellipsoids when they are caused to alter their momentum. "Viewed", of course, being nothing to do with observation, it is to do with referencing.

    "Special relativity involves both length contraction and time dilation. That 1905 paper includes the derivation of equations for both"

    SR neither involves length contraction or time dilation. Einstein said so, as previously quoted. The 1905 paper is not SR. He came up with that phrase later in order to distinguish a 'special' (the clue is in the title) circumstance, ie one where there was no gravitation.

    I really should note, as I did in my first post, that this is not a point about something you personally have stated, it is an urban myth that you are just repeating, like many many others.

    Paul

    James

    Thanks. An interesting and novel view. I also agree with your distain of present interpretation and intuitive desire for simplicity. It did take a re-assessment of assumptions to understand your approach. I hope you will be able do the same with mine, which is the ultimate in causality, and reality based (though does also represent 'All the Universe' as a 'stage' in the Shakespearean sense)! . I'll greatly look forward to your comments.

    Peter

    Peter Jackson,

    I understand how unreal the things I say appear to be. However, just to complete my message for anyone at all, I need to add this: The reason for staying with one cause and accepting workable theory that follows from it is that allowing theoretical physics to add on new properties that are not definable in terms of pre-existing properties, amounts to a free license to fill in gaps of knowledge without having to establish that missing knowledge.

    This practice allows theory to continue in its development, but, it is at high risk for mixing imaginary properties with real ones. When I speak of dispensing with cherished long used properties what I am really showing is that those cherished properties are not needed if the knowledge gaps are filled. The most important gap in knowledge to be filled is to change mass from an indefinable property into a defined property. Defined means in terms of pre-existing properties. Defined units are expressed in terms of pre-existing units. At the point at which mass enters theory, the only two existing properties are distance and time.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #71

    James,

    My question on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT was, "Are you suggesting that gravity is an electromagnetic (EM) force, and the field characteristics of light waves are the mechanism that represents the force of gravity?"

    It seems your answer has gone full circle right back to my original question. In your Jul. 3, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT response you stated, "My contention will be that it is that slight difference in energies caused by the Earth's effect on the speed of light that produces the force of gravity."

    If I eliminate the term field, which was in my original question, I can state your answer thus, "The Earth's effect is changing a characteristic of light waves, and this is the mechanism that represents the force of gravity."

    Also, I contend you need a mechanism to transfer the instantaneous action at a distance. You introduced the term "light-field," and I have no idea what it is. It is something like a Higg's field, or, if we retrograde back a little, the aether?

    Hi Frank,

    The instantaneous action at a distance is not offered as something thrown in add-hoc. I know it has to look that way. I recognize that my own version of it could be in error. However, the existence of instantaneous action at a distance seems to me to be required by the existence of order in the universe. Order exists always everywhere meaning that control of the universe consists of instantaneous action at a distance.

    For example, the speed of light is declared to be a universal constant in free space. Assuming that innumerable areas in the universe can be usefully approximated as free space, the existence of a universally constant speed of light in those areas demonstrates satisfactorily for me that the speed of light is controlled instantaneously over all distances. While this point seems clear to me, if it seems flawed, I would appreciate your opinion.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #73

    Peter

    Frequency/wave/etc, involve more than one, it must do in order to achieve the comparison. It might be the same physical entity, but it is in a different existent state, eg it has changed spatial position. In calibrating this, a reference is necessitated, which can be any option, but that must then be used consistently, in order to ensure comparability.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #74

    James

    "At the point at which mass enters theory, the only two existing properties are distance and time".

    Time is not a property, there is no physical existence which corresponds with this. Alteration occurs, which can be identified by comparison, a change is thereby revealed. That change has substance (ie what changed) and frequency (ie how quickly it did so). The latter being calbrated by timing which compares rates of change irrespective of their substance.

    Distance is not a property either. The physical existence of something can, when compared to something else, be conceptualised as occupying a spatial position, ie it has size and presence/footprint. So as a consequence it is a certain spatial distance from another thing, when so defined.

    Paul

    Paul,

    Write your own essay. Fill your own blog with your misinformation.

    James

    A question on an employment form my daughter was filling out: All moops are tazzies. All tazzies are fazzies. Therefore, all moops are definitely fazzies. True or false?

    James