• [deleted]

  • Post #372

Peter Jackson,

Working backward one at a time:

Pound-Rebka concerns an effect that does not involve atmosphere. Remove the atmosphere: Does your theory predict the results of Pound-Rebka? Also, there was compensating action taken during the experiment: Does your theory explain the reason for and the success of that compensating action? The theory of relativity accurately predicted the results. Have you achieved the numerical predictions for Pound-Rebka experiments either on the Earth or on the Moon?

"Pound-Rebka. First consider the speed of light at the surface of the Earth, using dense air, which is c/n at ~n=1.00033 (in the ECRF). Now consider the speed of light in the upper atmosphere, which is faster due to there being less particles to slow it down. In the lower ionosphere it's back to ~n=1. In this case there must be a 'grading' due to n subject to altitude, giving red shift on the way up and blue shift the other way, which Pound-Rebka nicely confirmed (if poorly interpreted by the overly myopic). I'm sure you can visualise the redshift effect; the higher 'photon' or wave peak goes faster first, so the spacing between them opens up. This fully predicts the Pound-Rebka result."

James,

The DFM doesn't 'replace' SR or GR but identifies an underlying mechanism which derives them from the quanta. You ask; "Does your theory predict the results of Pound-Rebka?" Yes is the simple answer.

But you didn't want simple, and I was guilty of over simplification. But first It's important to remember it wasn't the 'effect' that "didn't involve atmosphere", only the theory. It also then doesn't 'need' atmosphere.

We need to start with a recipe. Take one solar systems worth of matter, liquidise it (re-ionize the matter in any good AGN) and spread it liberally in a large space (there are many photo's of those done earlier e.g. see my essay).

Now we postulate that say 3bn^5 tons of matter has the same mass and gravitational potential as any other 3bn^5 tons of matter, whether crushed together into balls or spread out in the same space as ions. (This basis work very well in astrophysics, CDM modelling etc.) The same for a lens. We can focus 1kg of matter into a ball and see the past distorted, or dissipate the same matter into a larger space and find the same effect.

Space is full of ions, (see my post yesterday) and even as 'perfect' a vacuum as we can get on Earth has over 100 'particles'/cm3 and rather more free electrons and protons. Ergo there is no such thing as the theoretical 'perfect vacuum' (as my essay). H He and O ions etc. occur at very high densities around Earth and the sun (~10^14.cm^-3) It is the natural state of the 'quantum vacuum', and they provide the underlying quantum mechanism for curved space-time via Raman scattering; absorption and re-emission of em fluctuations. (Look up Interstellar Faraday Rotation, which is the accompanying polarity effect).The density, thus diffractive effects is, as we well know, greater nearer greater bodies on mass (reducing to a few/cm^-3 in deep space).

Now you have the basic fabric of space time, all the effects naturally emerge. The Perihelion of Mercury is precisely as GR predicts, because the space time curvature effect really exists, and greater the nearer to the sun. Even if Pound & Rebka had tried the experiment in a 'good' vacuum (and without the mylar bag of gas) they'd have found the same. You'll note the 'vibrating speaker' proved nothing abut the theoretical basis assumed of 'offsetting SR against GR', only set some quantitative parameters, so that 'may have been true', but equally may not. The DFM is consistent with that interpretation, and indeed identifies a number of other 2nd and 3rd order effects. The NASA/USNO guru on atmospheric effects is A.T. Young, whose findings are fully consistent with the DFM, even though he hasn't yet solved the aberration discrepancy problem theoretically, which the DFM has (see the essay).

Young, A.T., Understanding astronomical refraction. NASA Observatory 126,82-115(2006)

Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637(2004)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2006Obs...126...82Y&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&typ

I hope that all helps explain. Quantitatively the effects are of the right order, but as I could pick any particular density/potential at any point (because we don't have the detailed data) 'proving' anything conclusive by maths is impossible.

Peter

James,

Did you like the cool smoke ring energy video? Tokamaks are the same thing (nuclear fusion research).

I've just checked your questions and the only one I can see not fully explained is the mantle clocks. No, they don't change. Consider why; I'm at rest in space with one clock. A planet comes past on it's orbital path and only just misses us. An identical clock on it's surface passes by. Which one is 'moving'?

The DFM agrees with SR; All inertial frames are equivalent.

But now gravity; If the clock is a rigid body it will not contract (but as nothing is perfectly rigid at 3rd order it may!). If it's one of those fancy new jello and gas clocks, then it will contract (when at rest nearer Earth). Take it back up to the space station airlock, and it will expand! But, just like a gas being heated, it's just the density, or space between the particles that changes (Classical mechanics). In the quantum interpretation of SR (and GR, and QM, as there's no distinction once unified) length contraction and dilation only occur on frame transformation, which we call 'acceleration'.

About 3/5ths of the fancy 'frills' of all three theories are removed to unite both with QM. The biggest change is allowing Einstein his 'preferred' background frame back to give Local Reality, but with an 's' to make; 'frames'. He would have been very pleased.

You're not giving much away. To make this worth the time I need feedback to help my presentational strategy. Your views are therefore of value, right or wrong.

Thanks

Peter

Hi Peter,

"It is simply Raman atomic scattering, by the particles of local 'inertial systems' at c in the system frame. Relative 'approach' speed may be whatever we wish (resolving any issue with two masses approaching, both at 0.6c) but the instant any interaction takes place the speed is modulated to local c wrt that system. This gives an effect identical the 'Local Reality' Einstein spent his later years searching for."

What Einstein means by, "All physics is local," is that no communication (regardless of the form of interaction, gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) between bodies happens faster than light can travel in a vacuum. That's an absolute limit -- meaning that any interaction below that threshold obeys Galilean relativity. The Galilean limit of slow speeds and short distances obeys Newtonian mechanics whether one speaks of gravity, optics, electromagnetism ... In your case of masses uniformly traveling at 0.6c, the relativity high speed causes a contraction of the mass according to an observer at rest relative to the object (at about .86c an object is contracted to about 1/2, so you can that it is contracted by only a very small amount at 0.6c) -- an equivalent way of saying it, is that the fast moving particle lives longer before decay, relative to the observer at rest. With that preamble, what are you saying, exactly?

Are you saying that when two masses each traveling at a uniform speed of 0.6c collide, that the particles which scatter from the collision will not be measured at a combined velocity of 1.2c, but at 1.0c or less? Yes, we know that. Moreover, though, you seem to be saying that it is the detector itself which is responsible for the measured velocity.

If that's what you're saying, how can we falsify it, so that we are sure we aren't introducing new physics?

In fact, we know that highly energetic cosmic ray particles (muons) live longer before decay than expected, were they not energetic. How can that long life be accounted for as an observer effect, i.e., be caused by the detector? -- IOW, at point A, a particle at speed x is observed to be contracted (or longer lived) than a particle of the same mass at speed y -- because at point B, the particle traveling at speed y decays, while the particle at speed x decays at B'.

It's clear to me that this effect is not caused by the detector, because the detector is at rest relative to both particles.

Tom

Tom

What is "at rest relative to the object??" and if the observer is in the same frame (state of motion) why do not all objects we're 'at rest with' contract?!

I agree with your characterisation of AE's view and all your preamble up to that point, when you found you needed a background rest frame.

What if the 2nd rocket doing 0.6c did not exist? Without a background frame the 1st rocket is at rest in an inertial frame equivalent to the nearby planet! Yes.?

What I am showing is that such local background frames are indeed logically allowable without breaching the SR postulates, i.e. CSL. Yes, it is unfamiliar, therefore will appear to be new physics. it really isn't it's just better, and more consistent, understanding of old nature.

If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed? Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?

The plasmasphere and atmosphere themselves interact so are 'detectors' which modulate c to the local frame of the inertial system of the planet. The more energy a particle has the longer it takes to be absorbed. All matter represents a medium, thus an inertial system. Can you really falsify any of that?

Peter

    " ...when you found you needed a background rest frame."

    I don't need a background rest frame. Relative rest means that if you and I, say, are both traveling uniformly beside each other at 60 kph, we are at rest relative to each other. If you accelerate to 70 kph, and my speed does not change, I am at rest relative to your accelerated frame.

    "If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed?"

    Sure, that falls into the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there ..." category, philosophically. However, there are never "no detector present" conditions in a universe containing more than one particle, however.

    "Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?"

    No. The constant c is set to unity for nonrelativistic events. Sounds to me like you're trying to quantize the speed of light -- from the POV of the photon's constant state of motion, however, no time exists at all.

    Tom

    Tom

    Though Dodgson showed we can't escape the circular tea party, just for good measure I'll point out the remaining paradox. You said in the case of; "...masses uniformly travelling at 0.6c, the relativity high speed causes a contraction of the mass according to an observer at rest relative to the object."

    Now unless you meant at rest with respect to (so in the same frame as) the object, which of course you could not, then you have assumed some rest frame. Let's say it was a semantic error, and you meant an observer travelling at 0.6c wrt the object. You have just now caused a Lorentz violation as the other object, travelling in the other direction at 0.6c wrt you, is still then 'closing' with the first at relative 1.2c! Whatever is 'seen' by either, the real closing speed in terms of c = d/t is 1.2c.

    What I am saying is that the problem IS resolvable using truth function logic, and with the quantum vacuum (Higgs field if you prefer) having an assignable 'state of motion' (background frame). CSL as continuous spontaneous localisation then derives the other CSL directly. The hidden assumption of a background frame was only hidden by smoke and mirrors and keeps moving round, but it's quite well recognised logically by many very credible analysts; http://www.science4all.org/le-nguyen-hoang/spacetime-of-special-relativity/

    The sad part is that rigid adhereance is not only not required but was not sought by Einstein, who always insisted 'space without ether is unthinkable'. But in fact it doesn't need ether at all, just the quantum vacuum frame, and also helps prove Joy's thesis ref Bell.

    Falsification is by pure logic, simple maths, and a massive weight of evidence, much of which I've cited. Still all run away from logic and data back to rigid bodies shrinking. That is what I mean by crimestop. I'm disappointed you are affected. Can you logically falsify the relative 1.2c case above in d/t tems?

    Peter

      "Now unless you meant at rest with respect to (so in the same frame as) the object, which of course you could not, then you have assumed some rest frame."

      Peter, are you saying that if we two are traveling beside one another at 60 kph, that we are not at relative rest?

      Tom

      Peter,

      Okay, I think I have managed to unpack your meaning now. You write: "Let's say it was a semantic error (it wasn't ~ me), and you meant an observer travelling at 0.6c wrt the object. You have just now caused a Lorentz violation as the other object, travelling in the other direction at 0.6c wrt you, is still then 'closing' with the first at relative 1.2c! Whatever is 'seen' by either, the real closing speed in terms of c = d/t is 1.2c."

      No, it isn't. You have made the error of assuming a privileged observer frame. From the point of view of either object (i.e., there is no objective third observer, as you imply), each one sees the other as contracted. Both of these findings are physically valid -- Lorentz transformation will find that each is contracted by the correct amount so as not to violate the relativistic speed limit.

      "I'm disappointed you are affected. Can you logically falsify the relative 1.2c case above in d/t tems?"

      I already did, previously. Normalization of the constant is explained by Lorentz contraction. Remember the case of the long-lived cosmic ray particle -- its extended life is equivalent to a spatial extension at the point where we, at rest relative to the particle, observe decay and calculate backward; the foreshortened life of an identical particle as compared to its longer lived twin is equivalent to a contraction, from the point of view of the longer lived twin. Comparing this case to your particles approaching each other at 0.6c, each sees the other as living a fraction of a bit longer than itself, and both these judgments are physically valid in their own frames. There is no privileged third frame.

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      • Post #381

      Peter Jackson,

      "You're not giving much away. To make this worth the time I need feedback to help my presentational strategy. Your views are therefore of value, right or wrong."

      If it is worth my time then I pose questions. You may or may not answer as you choose. I ask the questions because refuting the universal constant speed of light in a vacuum has to be done correctly. I can share with you that which is on my mind: Relativity theory derived its accurate predictions without your model. Its derivations involved time dilation and length contraction, both of which I understand you to contradict.

      I am someone who has developed responses, with the math, to the same questions I have asked you and many beyond them. My position is that the speed of light slows as it approaches matter. I don't think that it is important to your work whether or not my ideas are correct. It is relativity theory and its predictions that you must account for.

      I didn't involve your model in my own work. I like what I have done. I am very interested in determining whether or not you have accomplished that which I worked to accomplish. Perhaps you are in error or I am in error or relativity theory is in error. I am looking at your model to make certain that I understand its foundation, including its beginning mathematical and empirical support, along with its further derivation.

      If my question seem tedious and repetitive it is because I don't always recall what you have said in the past, or I felt that you were not clear in your responses to me, and I feel that getting to the basics of anyone's ideas is as important as their list of predictions. I understand your desire to perform the Trojan Horse maneuver. I think that effort is futile. There will be some further delay in my participation. I thank you for your responses.

      James

      Tom,

      I agree. That's precisely what we assume SR means, which I'm suggesting is not the only possible interpretation. The alternative recognises Einstein's 1952 analysis, and he and Minkowski's 'Proper Time' and the converse; co-ordinate time and undetectable ('imaginary') c+v (1908).

      Consider carefully what you just wrote; "there is no objective third observer." I agree. There'can't be in current understanding. And it's not just that such an observer would 'see' different speeds, he cannot actually exist, as no possible frame exists for him to occupy! This is what Lorentz said he could not accept 'without reservation' in 1913. It means that if we, on Earth, observe light or objects approaching from each side of us at d/t = 0.6c then we must cease to exist!! I've now thrown a ring round that slippery soap bar so we can't keep chasing it away by slipping back to 'appearances' when faced with it.

      But now consider the option. We don't remove the entire 3rd frame, we just remove it's privileged status, which means it's 'absolute' character. We treat everything as a 'medium', as diffuse as we like (which my essay showed space is anyway) bt allow media to move wrt each other, which again we already know they do anyway!! Now we recover Einstein's postulates WITHOUT any paradoxes, but WITH an underlying quantum mechanism (Raman atomic scattering) to explain them.

      It's the tiniest adjustment to a hidden assumptions of SR, and one which Einstein knew and explained conceptually and was desperately trying to track down at the quantum level.

      Even better. The structure of inertial systems and space-time gains Local Reality, and the precise hierarchical structure of Truth Functional Logic TFL;

      Consider multiple 3D n body inertial systems; A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. (each equivalent to a 'proposition'). They are each of S spatial extent but bounded, and may be within or without each other. (Einstein's 1952; "space s in motion within space S"). Any two in the same state of motion become one.

      Considered carefully, we find that each can only have ONE immediate larger neighbour. Each may have many different or compound spaces within it, but each of those still only has ONE adjoining 'background' frame. So if we 'nest' the spaces spatially up from A to G, The 'state of motion' of A is only relevant wrt to B, (A-B) which is only relevant to (A-B)-C, and on ad infinitum. B may leave the limits of C and move through D, but still only has that single relative motion B-D, and the compound proposition B/D only has a 'speed' wrt E so (B-D)-E.

      This is the precise structure of propositions in TFL. Each proposition can only be logically resolved wrt it's immediate neighbour as a compound proposition, and then that can only be resolved wrt it's own immediate neighbour. Relative velocities are ALL limited to c. But that only applies to REAL velocities, in the local background, which are then 'Proper Speeds' or 'propagation' velocities.

      Apparent velocities 'two frames removed' cannot be detected, only worked out trogonometrically as they are only apparent, and directly equivalent to 'co-ordinate time'. The light from any scattering evidence propagates at c, and has to cross the frame boundaries (so Doppler shifting) and arrive at the detector at c in it's local frame. So absolutely NOTHING breaches propagation speed c anywhere. The ontological construct treats each system is a discrete field (thus 'DFM')

      Yet, we can now fire a bullet on Earth and have no problem reconciling that it's apparent velocity wrt some other planet at z=2, or a blob of plasma from a quasar at z-3, may be around 6c, which is exactly what we find in astronomy. (not logically resolved using current interpretation).

      You rightly asked what proof. I pointed out it only had 3 proofs (though each seemingly irrefutable); Maths, Logical consistency and all available empirical evidence. As it agrees with most of SR and GR, then all the evidence for SR and GR is also consistent with this interpretation. All the stuff under the carpet is also now consistent, and I've pointed out a long string of unique predictions.

      But unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet one other apparent requirement for an advancement of understanding; It isn't precisely the same as the previous understanding. I'm now not sure that can be overcome. If you can see how, or see any other remaining falsification with it do please identify it.

      Many thanks

      Peter

      James,

      I'd certainly agree; "refuting the universal constant speed of light in a vacuum has to be done correctly". It's clear Pentcho has fallen well short, but are you trying to doing so too? Do you believe that light between particles in atmospheres moves at c+v under gravity wrt the gravitating body?

      I'm certainly don't propose either myself, though I have, I think, shown that a 'perfect vacuum' does not exist in macro terms. If you thought I was disputing em fluctuation propagation speed at max c then I understand the confusion, but thanks for your viewpoint.

      Propagation is the key word here, 'Proper' not not 'apparent' speed. Some forget there is both, and neglect that apparent c+ is not real c+, for any photon or wave anywhere!

      In models of discrete inertial systems (relativity and DFM) it is recognised that the systems can move wrt each other. I simply apply the logic of saying this means Maxwell and Einstein were correct, in postulating CSL in each frame. The only error is then assuming that the frames were somehow not real. The quantum mechanism of scattering at c makes them real and provides the boundaries.

      I've not heard anybody suggest any particles of any systems scatter at anything other than c wrt their own state of motion, so am a little at a loss to understand the lack of understanding of the simple logic. Can you explain?

      Perhaps see the long reply to Tom at the bottom here which I've just posted.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #384

      Peter Jackson,

      "I've not heard anybody suggest any particles of any systems scatter at anything other than c wrt their own state of motion, so am a little at a loss to understand the lack of understanding of the simple logic. Can you explain?"

      I do not contradict Maxwell. The speed of light locally is determined by the local electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. I don't believe I have seen you address the derivation of either of these from your model.

      I don't have a lack of understanding of simple logic. Part of the problem of communication has been that you have deflected some inquiries into unhelpful answers.

      While waiting for my response to your answers to my questions that laid in wait: I understand your position to be that the light arrives to be absorbed at a different speed from which it is emitted. I think I asked about this and received conformation from you quite some time ago.

      If this is correct then here is another question to be added to previous ones: Please discuss the Compton effect both close encounters and increasingly remote encounters. If you have done your mathematics concerning this effect please share that also.

      My interest is in uncovering natural truth. I don't believe that 'theoretical' physics represents natural truth. However, its adoption of a mathematical framework is not dispensible. I am interested in your mathematical derivations involving the properties that you speak about. What are your fundamentals?

      Thank you.

      James Putnam

      James,

      I assume c, as modified by n, as SR and Maxwell. The revolutionary part is that c is defined as wrt the state of motion of the particles which give n. Other theories simply don't give it a datum due to the CSL paradox. No maths are then needed except to show that CSL is not a paradox because background 'states of motion' are 'local' just like the particles which define them. I give the maths in the essay and end notes. Let me know if you think some is missing. I also don't intentionally 'defelect' things, but perhaps you expect answers to reflect what's in your brain not mine, which is impossible. Do identify anything.

      Ref the simple logic of the above local c/n, I referred to 'anybody' not you James, and hoped you may help explain as I'm at a loss. Tom Miles post above (3.Oct) agreed the fundamentals, and noted my findings ref the Compton effect, which relate to extinction rates and birefringence. The effect is at the heart of the model, but is referred more precisely as Raman scattering. It seems you simply didn't make the link, or perhaps just skimmed over that bit. It is also analogous to 'Stokes/Anti Stokes' up & down shifted scattering. Which, when the (n-body particle) inertial system is in motion, is the Doppler shift effect.

      Multi-refringence is evident when the old signal has not yet been extinguished, both due to harmonics and low particle density.

      i.e. In space, where density relative to glass may be ~10^-15 it would take around 10^-15 as long to interact with every bit of the wavefront. As it happens, space is much larger than needed. The visual effects are precisely the 'anomalous' ones termed 'gravitational lensing', 'surfaces last scattered' and 'curved space time'. Precise maths will depend on particle densities, which we don't know, so we can only use the data from the bits we do know about, i.e. the Earths Bow shock, with the result as precisely shown on the graph in Rich Kingsley Nixey's essay (Fig 2). I also identify that at high Transition Zone ion densities 'Optical Breakdown' is reached at some 10^21/cm^-3, implying 100% transition at somewhat lower densities.

      In terms of 'acceleration.' Take the sun's approx velocity through our galactic arm (not the 240kps arm speed) and add allowances for birefringence (only guesstimatable) the frame transition effect on 'refractive index' somewhere around the heliopause (say 80 AU's) should be in the order of some 1.0006, or say twice that of air. This is well within the range implied by the Pioneer/ Voyager anomaly of 8.74 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 at

      Tom,

      Thanks. I agree emission at local c for all particles, so inertial systems. In that case there is no appropriate single word for the speed increase, and the word 'acceleration' may be misunderstood. Language lags behind and is a drag on understanding of nature. In last years notes I suggested a few new words. Guess how many caught on!

      The term 'emission theory' is also inadequate, as the DFM is not such it terms of classical d/t, but is indeed at the quantum scale. This very fact and underlying mechanism can unify QM and Relativity by deriving the SR postulates and curved space-time. But I often feel as if mankind has been hypnotised not to recognise the importance of that, and indeed to look away whenever the answer appears!

      Your 'belief' about coupling events is certainly cutting edge mainstream Raman scattering theory so should not be challengeable evidentially. However, you are forgetting the primary source of n and Doppler shift which is coupling harmonics. ( i.e. n is valid even with no co-motion) That is what 'hides' the kinetic effect.

      Sorry I didn't notice your post earlier.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #387

      Peter Jackson,

      "I also don't intentionally 'defelect' things, but perhaps you expect answers to reflect what's in your brain not mine, which is impossible. Do identify anything."

      I think you do. Look back at the beginning of this thread.

      James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT Dear Peter,

      You said to Daniel:

      "Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

      This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

      I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.

      James

      "Anonymous replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT James

      "You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate. It is purely an unfamiliar way of re-appraising the very familiar. The experimental evidence fills many a scrap yard and...

      view entire post

      !). ..."

      James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT Peter,

      "You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate."

      No I am not asking about conditions resulting from rapid accleration or even any acceleration. I am asking only about conditions involving constant velocity of a clock in one cse and a stationary object in the other case.

      James

      In your response you talk about not care and not drivers. You talk about photons. Look if it is a problem for you to be challenged just say so. By the way, the Compton effect is not about Raman Scattering. Now, if I am incorrect, I would appreciate a correct correction. Thank you.

      James Putnam

      James,

      "This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities."

      That asked me to; 'distinguish between...' which is why I did so, not to 'exclude' either one. You also said; 'local changes of the speed of light... and 'that which happens to cars and drivers.' Which I reasonably assumed also meant the 'local changes of the speed.' Change of speed = "acceleration"!! What you wrote is not what, it seems, you meant to ask. But I'll certainly assume what you meant and answer that too.

      First you must realise you must be prepared to re-look at 'familiar' things in a different way (Bragg). On finding and explaining new links between A and B I'm always being told; "A has nothing to do with B." It's bemusing, as the 'search for hidden connections' is the heart of physics! i.e. I agree scant links have been identified between the Compton effect and up/down shifting from Raman surface scattering. It's quite complex, but in a nutshell; Consider the 'object' as at the surface of a new co-moving medium, or a 'refractive plane'. The 'Compton effect' then makes a darn good imitation of refraction, including 'kinetic reverse refraction' because the effect (delta E) can be directly derived from the re-emission angle of the photon. If you read Raman's 1923 (1930 Nobel Prize) paper carefully they are different views of the same thing, and modulated by relative Kinetics as well as harmonic resonance, which then helps explain a few other 'anomalous' effects such as KRR, as explained in the essay.

      So. We have a driver and car. Whatever speed they think they are doing they are in fact 'at rest' if not accelerating. This is as SR. i.e. If we spin the Earth at the precise speed of the car, and the car accelerates to the same speed as the Earth's surface, you can better see is at rest. But ALL vehicles are at rest in ALL cases if not accelerating. They are also all the same size as when they started if 'rigid bodies'. We now have two cases to consider, 1. A frame transition by the car, 2. The same transition by the light FROM the car.

      Have in mind that a 'frame' is purely a 'state of motion' of any matter. In case 1, The car undergoes forces of contraction or dilation on frame transition, (acceleration), which may be violent if sudden, i.e. to the frame of a truck, emitting noise and not recovering in length. The driver will also contract, but may recover. But with NO acceleration there is NO real effect at all.

      2. Light waves (in photons if you wish) from the man are emitted at c, propagate at c wrt the car when IN the car (c/n at the window), then leave the car towards a truck coming the other way, whereon they Doppler shift (compress) on entering the frame of the outside air. On interacting with the trucks screen (think of it as a detector lens) they are compressed again (blue shifted on absorption and scattering) and the truck driver sees a rather bluer car when the waves interact with his lenses. It is the waves ('photons') that have length contracted, as it is only they which have changed propagation frames.

      Now I hope that answers your question. You should find it entirely intuitive, and surprisingly also derive the postulates of SR (local c) via a quantum mechanism (=unification). But if you still don't understand any part do just keep on asking. I won't 'deflect' anything, but do ask carefully, and if your understanding remains different it may certainly 'look like' deflection.

      best wishes

      Peter

      Peter Jackson,

      "That asked me to; 'distinguish between...' which is why I did so, not to 'exclude' either one. You also said; 'local changes of the speed of light... and 'that which happens to cars and drivers.' Which I reasonably assumed also meant the 'local changes of the speed.' Change of speed = "acceleration"!! What you wrote is not what, it seems, you meant to ask. But I'll certainly assume what you meant and answer that too."

      I asked exactly what I wanted to know:

      You said to Daniel:

      "["Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

      Me: This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

      I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.]"

      Your acceleration interpretation had no relevance to my question. It led to unimportant points about whether rigid or unrigid bodies suffered deformation due to rapid acceleration.Nothing to do with what I asked.

      Scrap the rest of your message. I was looking for direct answers. A direct answer for the Compton effect would have needed only your mathematical calculation of the encounter for a few different distances. Your calculation would have told me more than your words about the level of importance of your explanation.

      James Putnam

      James,

      "I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves." And I answered that; NONE! - because each one of them is equivalently 'at rest' when not accelerating. I'm not sure what more you want?

      I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;

      Gravity aside there are only two fundamental states of motion of bodies; 'REST' and 'ACCELERATION'. You want to consider 'rest'. OK; There is no length contraction, no nothing! BUT; a non rigid body or system having accelerated FROM one inertial rest frame INTO another will NOT be in the same state as it was in the previous rest frame. Even a time signal will have compressed or dilated. And it then STAYS that way all the time it's at rest in it's frame of propagation.

      For the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!

      Perhaps look at it this way; If the 'target' is in the same state of motion as the approaching particle, then the particle is NOT APPROACHING IT. So if you're not interested in acceleration, you're not interested in interactions involving different relative velocities, so there is no 'effect'.

      Now that is as direct and complete as it's possible to get, but I don't doubt it may be unfamiliar to you. I'm sorry, there's really nothing I can do about that. Ask any question you wish and you'll get a straight answer. It's all falsifiable and the simple maths is in the essay. Lambda (length) and frequency (time/rate) change on transformation, not the 'wave function' itself, or local c.

      I hope that's helped, but do direct me to anything you think that formalism doesn't cover and I'll try to describe how it does so.

      best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #391

      Pter Jackson,

      ""I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves." And I answered that; NONE! - because each one of them is equivalently 'at rest' when not accelerating. I'm not sure what more you want?"

      I wanted direct answers to simple questions. Either yes or no. You say NONE and you are wrong. The examples I gave and the followup message that attempted even more strongly to get those straight answers:

      "Dear Peter,

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth at a constant velocity, will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation. Will its time keeping function slow? Will the clock keep slower time than an identical clock sitting stationary on the surface of the Earth. Will its size or shape change compared to an identical stationary clock sitting on the surface of the Earth?

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth, stationary with respect to a point of the surface of the Earth, to a stable position on the Earth, will it have changed size or shape and/or rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects? Will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation?

      I am not asking about photons or doppler effects. I am not asking about any effects due to accleration. There is no acceleration of either clock with respect to the Earth. There is no velocity for the stationary clock. There is constant velocity for the clock moving parallel to the Earth. Please disregard any atmospheric resistance to the clock's motion. The moon could be substituted for the Earth.

      James"

      have nothing to do with acceleration. Any and all velocities involved are constants and relative.

      I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;

      "Gravity aside there are only two fundamental states of motion of bodies; 'REST' and 'ACCELERATION'. You want to consider 'rest'. OK; There is no length contraction, no nothing! BUT; a non rigid body or system having accelerated FROM one inertial rest frame INTO another will NOT be in the same state as it was in the previous rest frame. Even a time signal will have compressed or dilated. And it then STAYS that way all the time it's at rest in it's frame of propagation."

      There is no rest state. There is no evidence for a rest state. There is relative velocity and there is change of velocity.

      "or the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!"

      Yes there is an encounter. And, that encounter can be modeled mathematically.

      "Perhaps look at it this way; If the 'target' is in the same state of motion as the approaching particle, then the particle is NOT APPROACHING IT. So if you're not interested in acceleration, you're not interested in interactions involving different relative velocities, so there is no 'effect'."

      There are background properties and relative velocities within them. Different velocities do give different observed and real results.

      James Putnam