Peter,
I am aware of the binary star evidence and the much older moons of Jupiter evidence. But there remains the problem of the difference between phase velocity and group velocity.
Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson
[deleted]
Peter
I remembered your post
" My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course."
I often watching community rating and wondering when i see lady among leaders
Her submission was Sep. 6, 2012
Robert
I agree waves are still poorly understood. I've written the odd paper from optics and more original viewpoints. I eventually resolved to the term 'signal velocity' for the purposes of c, more equivalent to group velocity. I have no clue how this may relate to information theory. Does it?
An aspect poorly considered in representations is that, considering a soliton as a 'wave bundle' moving at c, the phase of the waves moving within the bundle only has a relevant speed wrt the rest frame of the bundle. Indeed they 'die out', as they are only 'fluctuations', or in a 3D particle model represent 'spin' so may 'return symmetrically' anyway. This puts to bed the issue of electron spin being superluminal. It's also consistent with light waves being re-emitted on an 'optical axis' NOT normal to the causal wavefront plane (as proved in Calcite crystals etc.) rather than; "'rays' made up of photons on 'vectors'!"
So the 'flight time' across space of the 'entity' or wavefront containing the information would remain the tool we have to work with wrt c.
But now my point. We have to consider the propagation 'medium', which we can consider as Boscovich's 'particles with sphere of influence' or Einstein's 'mass spatially extended' without invoking 'ether'.
My proposition is that massive bodies, from particles upwards, can move, WITH their local 'spaces' (i.e. Earth atmosphere & ionosphere, and the Sun's Heliosphere), which is why we find the dense astrophysical shocks at the boundaries (See Kingsley Essay Fig 2.)
Now everything else falls into place. And I do mean everything. CSL, CMB anisotropy and frames last scattered, the BCI/ECI frame issue, the aberration problem, Pioneer/Voyager/Flyby anomalies, Local Reality, Twins Paradox, etc.
But as those are all swept under the carpet what value has a model that explains them?
Does that make any sense to you?
Peter
Yuri
Decrypting natures fundamental secrets was tricky, but somehow seems a little easier than decrypting you messages!
I've seen a few good ladies essays doing well. Has this one admitted her sex?
I'd hoped you may have read and gleaned some of the findings worth discussing from my essay. (This is after all the intent of the blogs here, yes?)
But I know there is much to read and digest.
Peter
[deleted]
Peter
Accepting the reality of space as a medium not big discovery
Major question to guess all picture one cycle
I see the Universe only this way
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
Yuri
Agreed. What IS big and missed is the implications. If something IS there, like all the pair production ('fluctuations') then it modulates light speed by re-emitting absorbed light at c.
If is simple kinetic logic that then UNIFIES PHYSICS because all such matter can only re-emit at c, so we, a 'detector' can only ever FIND c!!!!!
When applied, this mechanism not only gives 'Local Reality' but also resolves about every one of the many scores of anomalies in physics. Unfortunately is doesn't 'LOOK' the same as the old familiar assumptions, so isn't recognised. It's simply dismissed however successful it is.
'Seemple' as the Meercat said to his human audience. Was he correct?
Peter
[deleted]
Who is Meercat ?
Yuri
A meercat is an animal. They appear to have learnt the English language very precisely and rapidly (I'll try to find their teachers if you wish). They now look out at human beings and say; 'Seemple' (Which is 'simple' with a meercat accent.
I'm not sure if humankind is bright enough to yet understand to irony and veracity of the meercats opinion.
Peter
[deleted]
Now i understand your sarcasm...
Hi Peter,
I'm looking now at the Doppler equations in your essay near the end. First of all, I should point out that a couple of posters have asserted that the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is due to refraction. That's close but not quite true. Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds. The proper description of the origin of the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is dispersion.
I've not yet seen what I consider a rigorous derivation of the relativistic Doppler effect and haven't had the time to develop one myself yet. So what will follow is only a preliminary analysis. I'll post again shortly as I need to hop off a train on my way to work now.
Cheers,
Steve
[deleted]
Stephen,
What dispersion at c locally achieves in my model is a differential in the speed of energy propagation within different spaces (frames), by implementing a boundary interface mechanism so that different parts of waves progress at different speeds.
The key here is that relative closing, or APPROACH velocity, is v + v, so therefore also c + v, but that at the moment of interaction (detection, or 'absorption'), because the absorbing boundary particles can only emit at c, then the speed is changed to the NEW, particles own, c. This then fully meets your (agreed) requirement"
"Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds."
It is so simple and self apparent that it seems it does take a massive intellect and visualization skills to assimilate and rationalise, though I was pretty sure you were already most of the way there.
But the Lorentz transformation does 'fall by the wayside' except as a close replica of, for instance, the synchrotron frequency curve of a bunch of protons being accelerated towards c in the LHC. This curve closely matches the increasing electricity bill they face during the acceleration process. At almost c almost infinite energy is needed.
If we study the increasing 'virtual electron' (pE) density around the bunch, and look at the oscilloscope reading, it is quite intuitive that we CAN discern a 'speed' in the vacuum, and that the LT curve is a resistance 'power' curve.
The LT itself is then simply the acceleration between media in different states of motion (frames), or rather it's effects.
All this is embedded quite deeply in my essay, and each part of the essay evidences a crucial component of the ontological construction. It seems that just a cursory read, or using old assumptions, will mean it's missed.
The essay shows just the tip of the iceberg, which seems to me to be about the biggest advance ever in physics, so I suppose if it was that easy to initially comprehend it would have been done in the 1800's. Or am I missing something.
I hope you didn't hop off the moving train just behind someone else, the Doppler effect of the LT would have compressed the pair of you, leaving you a bit bluer!
Peter
[deleted]
Very good Essay, Peter. I am going to give you an high score.
Cheers,
Ch.
[deleted]
Peter,
The following "simple answer" of yours is absurd (and accordingly catapulted your essay to the top of the community rating list):
"If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."
Pentcho Valev
[deleted]
Dear Peter,
You have written yet another essay in defence of SR and I appreciate your saga regarding that.BTW,please go through the essay of Benjamin F. Dribus who, like your DFM, wants to use 'quantized reference frames' inorder to describe reality.
Please,go through my essay too and send in your comments to my forum.
(http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.)
Warm regards and good luck in the essay contest.
Sreenath.
Fortunately I hopped off the train last, well behind everyone else. However the train had just come to a stop so that the dwindling Eddy currents sparked into a micro wormhole catapulting me several tens of minutes into the future where I could safely step out ahead of everyone else ;^)
I'll have to peek more at your paper...
Steve
[deleted]
And this is both absurd and mysterious (the combination is highly valued by Einsteinians):
"In SR only one case was assumed for observing 'speed' with constant c. We describe a second case, where c is unaffected but where an 'apparent' speed c+/-v is also allowed."
Pentcho Valev
Dear Peter,
While I think you do make some useful observations regarding the importance of plasma in the universe, I am compelled to point out a crucial misrepresentation of the right image in 'Figure 1'. The superimposed image caption states: "Visible 'Dark Matter'. Galaxy Cluster CL 0024+17."
The Figure 1 caption states:
"Space. Different constituents of the Inter-Galactic Medium (IGM) are visible at each waveband. X-ray (left) and visible (right) 'dark matter' around clusters, galaxies and stars. The 'clouds' represent a diffuse plasma medium of ions, CO and molecular gas..."
It's not entirely clear what 'clouds' you're referring to, but I'm certain that the so-called "visible" dark matter is not visible in any waveband. As briefly explained in both the NASA announcement and Wikipedia - CL0024+17, the image shown in your essay attributed to "visible" 'dark matter' is actually a composite telescopic image overlayed with a 'gravity map' illustrating dark matter as it seems to be inferred from identified gravitational effects. Those gravitational effects are very tenuously identified from minute optical distortions of likely many thousands of background galaxies, statistically evaluated to derive the location of the weak lensing medium. The total mass required to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects is compared to the estimated mass of the clusters' galaxies and the intracluster medium (thought to represent most of the cluster's mass) - the difference is thought to be the mass represented by the inferred dark matter. This exceedingly complex process is subject to significant error.
The illustrated CL 0024+17 dark matter is not visible, and cannot consist of any ordinary detectable matter and does not emit any EM radiation including X-rays. Since this identified peripheral dark matter ring circumscribing the galaxy cluster, conveniently aligned to the Earth's line of sight, is thought to have been dispersed by some collision, it is not collocated with the hot, X-ray emitting intracluster medium. Hubblesite contains a newsy discussion and interviews, concluding with the statement: "Cl 0024+17 is the first cluster to show a dark matter distribution that differs from the distribution of both the galaxies and the hot gas."
Most tellingly, both the NASA announcement and Wikipedia entries referenced above includes both the unaltered telescopic image of CL 0024+17 and the illustration overlay you described as "visible" 'dark matter', for ease of comparison.
Of course, if you read my essay entry Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter (you did post a comment) you should have found that I argue that imposing the specific laws of planetary motion on vast spiral galaxies is invalid, and artificially produces the falsely perceived galaxy rotation problem that seems to require the compensatory mass thought to be provided by imaginary dark matter. As shown in the "Supplemental Information" section of my essay, there are a number of physicists that have produced models of spiral galaxies that accurately describe their observed rotational characteristics without requiring any dark matter or modified gravity.
Best wishes,
Jim
Dear Pentcho,
We haven't been taught to think about, let alone understand the actual physical processes involved where fluctuating EM fields interact with charged particles in the general sense that Peter's essay explores. So it is no surprise that you might think an exploration of its effects "absurd". I could point out a number of papers here which propose highly extravagant new types of physics (which conflict with rather than compliment known physics). But of course none of that is necessary. It has been shown that the Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force law are perfectly able to say exactly what the physics are.
Steve
[deleted]
Steve,
The absurdity is in Peter's claim that the speed of light is variable (c'=c+v) prior to the light meeting the observer but then on arrival miraculously becomes constant c'=c (so that Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity").
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho
You have misunderstood the model. It would indeed be absurd if speed varied "prior to the light meeting the observer." You have not absorbed the body of the essay, which says the contrary; Nothing happens to speed of propagation until the change of medium. This is as optical science, just poorly interpreted until now.
Consider a light wave in a diffuse medium, 99% of which passes by a co-moving lens, but 1% of which interacts. The 99% caries on at c wrt the background medium. The 1% changes speed in accordance with the refractive index of the lens, and passes through the lens at new speed c/n WITH RESPECT TO THE LENS MEDIUM.
It is simply that last sentence that most human brains have not yet evolved to comprehend and visualise kinetically. The 'n' is due to the different dispersion delay, but the SECOND factor, delta v is due to relative media v.
The 1% meeting the lens is absorbed by the free electron particles at the lens surface. They then re-emit at c, but Doppler shifted because THEIR c is NOT the same as the BACKGROUND MEDIUM c.
The confusion is due to our forgetting to adjust for observer frame. If a single observer at rest in the background watches the whole process, he will see the apparent combined speed change as the light enters the moving medium.
If the observer ALSO accelerates into the lens frame WITH the 1% of the light signal, he will then of course find local c/n.
We have merely been, until now, incapable of dealing with that number of variables all in one go. This result removes all the paradox and anomalies from our observations. It does NOT quite support SR as interpreted up to now. The assumption of length contraction of rigid bodies is not required, as there is both real and apparent light speed (the latter from real c in another 'passing' frame). It does however make logical sense of the postulates themselves.
If you didn't absorb all that you really do need to read it about three times and assimilate it or it will evaporate, because it is quite different to the old paradoxical assumptions we're used to when applied.
Peter