• [deleted]

  • Post #259

Peter,

"Get a line of people 1m apart to walk past you at 3mph (or call it 'c' mph) and record the frequency."

OK. In an analogous (Doppler) scenario, I am stationary relative to the light source and the wavecrests (=people) pass me at c.

"Now stand beside a travellator and get then to do the same but stepping onto the travellator and continuing at c mph. You will find they have increased apparent speed, and increased wavelength (spacing), but pass you at precisely the same frequency!"

But Peter this is no more analogous to the Doppler scenario. In the Doppler scenario, I stop being stationary ans start moving towards the light source with speed v. Analogously, at the aiport, I start walking along the line of people with speed v, in the opposite direction. The spacing between people remains the same (1 m) but their frequency and speed relative to me increase.

Pentcho Valev

  • [deleted]

  • Post #261

Peter,

Roger Barlow explains the frequency shift in terms of varying speed of light, c'=c+v, and constant wavelength:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Is Roger Barlow right, Peter?

Pentcho Valev

Eckard

Many thanks re; 'forerunner'. First, Steve is one of the few who understands almost completely. 2nd; I would say your 'knowledge' is not 'wrong', but understanding too incomplete to date to fully rationalise. I explain below, but 3rd; The 'forerunner' is simply the 2nd part of the 'birefringence' found by Raman. There was scant space for this, so to clarify; In some media (i.e. birefringent and diffuse matter) The emissions only interact progressively, so the part which has not yet coupled indeed carries on undelayed on the old axis (we call 'vector'). Subject to particle characteristics, i.e multiple spin types, we will find 3 (tri-refringence) or more axis at once. In space this process may take many kiloparsecs. The observed effects in that case are gradual 'curvature' of the light and weak 'gravitational' lensing, which is density dependent.

But now back to your; "speed of propagation refers to the medium but neither to the emitter nor to the receiver." Which is both entirely true and fully consistent with the above, but this will initially test your intellect!;

The immediate instantaneous emission is wrt the EMITTER. This is indeed however only as far as the transition zone (TZ) between the near and far field, (which I thank you for flagging up) because the 'medium' WITHIN the TZ (the near field) is in the same kinetic state as the emitter. The TZ is therefore the frame boundary. Thereafter the emitted 'signal' changes speed to c wrt the FAR FIELD, which is the medium OUTSIDE the TZ, which we call the 'Local Background' of the emittter, or the 'next frame up'.

The distance to the TZ may be less than a micron, or 100+km (Earth's bow shock), or 100+ au's ('AU' is now 'au' by the way) to the sun's heliosheath, or, for the galaxy, the Halo. Remember there may be infinitely many smaller spaces ('s') within each and every larger space ('S'), precisely as specified by Einstein (1952).

So Pentcho's emission theory is correct in a very local domain, but then also correct in lots more local domains (frames) at all scales, which may be DIFFERENT to the first. Re-emission is always at c. (I was delighted to find Dowdye's earlier consistent thesis, but rather after developing the DFM - so he's guilty of common anticipatory plageurism!)

The process is symmetrical, so a reflector is also an emitter. Light arrives at the fine structure TZ of the mirror, is changed to c wrt the mirror, is absorbed again and re-emitted at c wrt the mirror, but on re-negotiating the TZ does exactly what all other emissions do, changes to c wrt the medium. That explains one of the biggest inconsistencies in current theory (along with many others).

If that doesn't seem entirely logical after a couple of re-reads please do say why and I'll try to explain it better.

I've suggested a few verification experiments in the imminent Hadronic Jouranl Paper discussing Kantor and mirrors.

Best wishes

Peter

Pentcho

If you're not in their frame you see apparent c+v. Not 'real' c+v because their real (walking) speed in THEIR frame is still c. An observer at rest in that frame (standing on the travellator) would find their speed as c.

You cannot interact with them to find their real speed, wrt THEIR background frame, without yourself being at rest in that frame. If you stand beside the travellator you can therefore find NO Doppler shift, as you can only interact with people who remain in your frame. Remember, frames are now REAL physical spaces, with boundaries. The travellator and each person on it are at rest in their own frame, as you and the floor are. Measuring is a SAMPLING process, via a detector. Any light (or photons or people) MISSING the lens carry on at c, which is apparent c+v to the lens.

In your own scenario; the people are 'missing' you when you walk past them, so you find them at apparent c+v, though their real speed remains c.

If you revert to light waves, which we are considering, when you start moving and your lens medium interacts, the wavelength immediately compresses.

This is the poorly understood quantum interaction and effect which has kept us 'blinded' from logically explaining the effects we observe. We've just assumed our brains are on the surface of our eyes (I suppose many may be so!).

If you envisage a foot long optic nerve, with a giant lens a foot in front of your nose, you may then see that the light waves compress when you start walking forward. Lambda and frequency both then change inversely which changes the speed to conserve c in the new frame.

The simple way to assimilate it may be to remember the different cases for each observer frame. Observers in all frames (speeds) other than the local background propagation speed may see arbitrary APPARENT speeds c+v and c-v, all subject to the individual speed v of each observer. (if they can see anything at all in that other frame). Only if one then looks straight at the original source do they then interact so always find c.

It does take some rehearsal via applications to overcome our well embedded contrary assumptions.

Barlow's sums work just fine. But as pointed out in some good essays here, the simplified mathematical abstraction does't necessarily bear any relation to the real underlying physical mechanism. Cartesian systems can't model motion any more than geometry can, because vector space is geometrical, and motion is an invalid concept in geometry. Complete 'space-time geometries' move (associated with all matter), and are physically bounded.

See my response to Eckard below which may also help clarify the process and ontological construction. A careful re-read of the essay is also essential as no human brain can assimilate such a 'different', so apparently complex, set of mechanisms in one easy go.

Peter

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #264

Peter, Eckard,

Let us forget the emission theory for a while. X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct?

If it is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special trelativity.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

You vehemently argued that the speed of light can globally exceed c. If I recall correctly, you claimed this idea of you being confirmed because velocities of 6c were observed in cosmology. Do you still maintain this idea?

Pentcho,

In case of optical waves you are provable correct. There are people including me who do consider you correct in that respect with light, too. Me and you are however wrong if the notions of time and space are redefined in a grotesque manner called Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Eckard

Pentcho

Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R.

The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L"

Te speed of the R waves, which is the only ones we can directly 'time' to find frequency, is then c' = X/L'.

There is a simple proof, which also resolves anomalies; If the light (R) passes through the moving medium (i.e. lens) and escapes back into the incident medium, it is found to have been delayed, not just due to n, but also by medium vt, giving the interferometer fringe shift.

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #268

I wrote: "X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct? If it is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity."

Peter replied: "Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R. The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L"

That is satisfactory to me, Peter. These are the waves whose speed is assumed constant in special relativity (but is variable in the real world). As for the 2nd set of waves, R, that you refer to:

Peter: "... the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R."

...you can study them if you need to but I think that is totally irrelevant insofar as relativity is concerned.

Pentcho Valev

    Viraj

    I'm sorry but I'd thought the ball was 'back in your court' to respond to my Oct 1 post on my blog or to my earlier post on yours. I was also flat out fighting the slow system, reading essays and responding to (250!) posts. But my most sincere apologies must come for your rating, as I've checked, and did not indeed get to score your essay despite my genuine notification of intent. To explain; On first reads (part 'speed reading') I do a list and pencil notes, which on yours was '8-9'. I comment on good ones, but like to read again before scoring. The problem was I had a big 'log jam' at the end as the system slowed right down. I kept having to close and re-load the page as it froze. I had to prioritise those around the cusp, but was then online till 2.30 am UK time, until I fell asleep waiting for a page to change. I'm desperately sorry but yours was one of just a handful that didn't get scored. It seems even with a 9 it would still have been well out of contention. I may score all earlier next year (yours first, with the interest!)

    Now to nitty gritty; I'll just zero in on areas of disagreement; You suggest AE was wrong borrowing Poincare's 'equivalence of all inertial reference frames.' I disagree, and find that consistent with Galileo's ship (all ships equivalent) and Maxwell's geometries, but each has a boundary zone where em waves change speed to the local c of each ship. All labs in all ships thus find c. If the window is open and the wind blows in at v, light does c/n with respect to (wrt) the air. If shut, the window glass re-emits it at c/n wrt each window.

    You say; 'Nature's processes are inherently mathematical' which is fine, but can fool us if we forget there are underlying REAL processes. I hope you've read Wharton, Sycamore, McEachern and Schafly's excellent essays explaining why. Maths is abstraction, and we have no right to assume any algorithms we find approximate it's evolution accurately model natures far more complex mechanisms.

    You agree with the 'simple idea' I identify, but fail to apply it's consequences. Wavelength lambda changing on frame transition is due to a REAL MECHANISM not some formula! This then resolves the biggest problem and paradox in physics of the 19th century, which was the reason SR was invented; CSL for all moving observers. The 'sister' problem of 'CSL irrespective of EMITTER motion' also then emerges by the same boundary mechanism. You should well understand this mechanism, as the boundary condition is equivalent to a 'fluid dynamic coupling.' One frame one side, the other on the other side, and turbulence between. Both sides particles re-emit absorbed em waves at c.

    It may well then be true that; 'a fraction of energy in action is usurped to form an organic link with the background energy field.' That; 'DQ = (Mv/c).u is usurped to form the organic link with the background leaving Mvc(1 -u/c) for relative motion. But you then suggest 'This is the 'physical basis' of the Lorentz transformation.' You say; the photon loses energy to the field, and quantify it. Great, and important, but more important to understanding is How? What is the real mechanism? None of that is a real 'physical basis', but it is an equivalent mathematical model, as Lawrence points out, and if it fits with logical consistency and all observation (i.e. resolving paradoxes and anomalies) perhaps a closer match to the real mechanistic process.

    So I disagree with your precise identification of the faults with the STR, and the solutions. I can say this because I provide a consistent logic for the (as observed) STR axioms. I do however entirely agree an energy draw in the boundary mechanism, which is also responsible for part of the cosmological redshift.

    Don't ask me to judge any maths. There are many far better qualified. What does emerge however is that any 'general equation of motion of a particle' can only be wrt a local background! And lambda is not invariant on LT ('acceleration in non zero time').

    Lastly, for now, I can't yet agree your derivation of atomic clock 'time dilation', because again 'speed' is only a relative concept. If it is an affect of relative acceleration then that might fit into the big picture. You should be aware that Hafele Keating was a crock. They were forced into an SR propaganda exercise to get published. I touch on that in this short article;

    Apart from those matters, which I'd think are all resolvable, most concepts seem very consistent. I also need to better understand parts of your work, including the geometrical derivations, but think you do now also need to read my own essay again slowly to find the reasons for my comments above, which all form essential components of a consistent ontology. As with a boat, one part taken away, like the log hull fitting, means the whole lot sinks (as I found out courtesy of MDL a while ago).

    Best wishes, and apologies again.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #270

    Eckard,

    If we use the standard definition of speed:

    (distance)/(time)

    ...then indeed, since, as you put it, "the notions of time and space are redefined in a grotesque manner called Einstein's special theory of relativity", the speed of light relative to the observer proves invariable and that's that. However the wave model of light offers another definition of speed:

    (number of wavecrests hitting the observer)(wavelength)/(time)

    ...which, on close inspection, shows that the speed of light is variable after all. My unfortunate essay was entirely devoted to this issue:

    Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

    Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #271

      Pentcho,

      You say "the speed of light is variable after all."

      According to the transformation equations, it is not the speed of light that varies. It is the amount of motion that goes into the electromagnetic phenomenon that varies.

      In the linear translation of the phenomenon considered along the x-axis, the velocity c remains the same. But there is the right-hand-thumb rotation around the x-axis that has increased because of the applied velocity v, which changes the wavelength and frequency. Remember that in the phenomenon we have the inseparable transverse waves--electric and magnetic. The transverse waves rotate around the axis of their linear translation. Apparently, if you apply the velocity v, you hit the rotating transverse waves and get to increase the rotation.

      castel

      Hi, Pete.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #272

      Peter,

      Your reply was short and did not end with a full stop. Perhaps you are still considering "observed jet pulse speed" confirming your idea that the speed of light can globally be as large as 6 c. I wonder if you found any serious expert who agreed on that.

      In your reply to Pentcho, you wrote: "the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f". This does not change the frequency. Actually it is not the brain but caudal sensory cells in the retina that "find" the incoming frequency of light. And the transfer function of e.g. the lens does not change the incoming frequency. Merely a motion of the observer relative to the incoming wave would cause a Doppler effect.

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #273

      Dear Pentcho,

      You know, I do not share your preference for an emission theory. However when I compare your known to me for long arguments with others, I would like if those instead of you withdrew their essays. Admittedly, I did not yet read your essay.

      Best wishes for your life,

      Eckard

      Pentcho

      The refracted waves R are indeed not recognised by SR.

      They are however the only ones ANY detector made of matter can EVER measure.

      All detectors are made of matter.

      SR's most blindly avid supporter simply mix the refracted waves R up with the approaching incident medium waves I.

      So the refracted waves are the only ones 'totally relevant' as far as nature is concerned.

      That IS the Discrete Field Model (DFM); REAL LOCAL c' = f'/L' In the new frame.

      APPARENT c+v = f/L' observed in the new medium FROM the old incident frame.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #275

      Dear Peter,

      Thanks for your reply. I will address the theoretical aspects in a later post.

      You wrote: "But my most sincere apologies must come for your rating, as I've checked, and did not indeed get to score your essay despite my genuine notification of intent".

      I appreciate your position.

      You also wrote: "It seems even with a 9 it would still have been well out of contention".

      Yes I agree it will be out of contention if you are the only one to score, and my average will not go up to the level of the first 35. But the average will go up from 3.1 to 3.4 that will make it jump about 30 spots. And do you know the essay in the 35th spot only has an average of 4.2. (The difference of averages between my essay and the 35th essay is only 1.1)

      This means if there are 10 others like you who would score on the merit of the content of my essay (giving 6 -7), it will reach a position within the first 25.

      All I request you is that you do is to fulfill your promise - do the needful and give it a start

      Best regards,

      Viraj

        Hi Raf.

        Far far simpler than that I suggest. The Doppler effect simply compresses the waves due to the motion of the medium during the interaction.

        What nobody has ever bothered to do in the past is stop and think through the mechanism and effects of that.

        Mechanism: Absorption at relative c+v closing speed, re-emission at new locl c.

        Effects; CSL, and the Postulates of SR proved.

        It is only the problematic assumption of 'no background frame' that is proved wrong. No 'absolute' frame is relevant locally, but there is always a local background frame.

        So Pentcho's words are is correct, just not the previous understanding. To render everything consistent; Light DOES change speed, to the new local c.

        I'll hope you may read my essay again, as it should now all make complete sense.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #277

        Peter,

        Since you admit that "the refracted waves R are indeed not recognised by SR", then you should further admit that they are irrelevant INSOFAR AS special relativity is concerned. True or false, special relativity is a deductive theory and derives its conclusions from the assumption that the speed of what you call "incident waves", relative to the observer, is invariable. So you can attack special relativity by attacking THIS assumption. However considering processes of which special relativity says nothing is irrevevant, even if these processes are extremely important in other contexts.

        Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho

        I agree, but all you'd be attacking is one 'interpretation' of SR, allowing it to transmorph as it does so well. Many already agree flight velocity dt anyway. To really nail it for good, the specific fundamental wrong assumption it uses must be identified and falsified.

        The assumption is: 'There is no background frame'.

        It is true that there is not one SINGLE or 'ABSOLUTE' background frame, but there IS a LOCAL background frame for all motion. This can then be shown consistent with ALL the effects SR was conceived to explain, but WITHOUT the paradoxes.

        That is the only way SR can be nailed without it's exponents simply slipping away and re-interpreting the same old rubbish. The BETTER SOLUTION needs to be ready and standing complete and square in the path of the slithy toves. It needs help to be completed, not squabbling.

        As I say, bashing our heads against the stone walls of the troglodyte citadel is one way, but there is a better way. Fancy doing some science?

        Peter