Peter,

"My essay gives delta lambda, but I'm not sure if you mean derive conceptually or mathematically."

"If it's just the mathematics you're after; if say h = 6.6 x 10^34 (Js), incident lambda 5.3 x 10^11m, for scattered lambda at angle theta, the solution to lambda plus (h/mc)(1-cos theta) reduces to 5.3 x 10^-11 0.41 x 10^-11 = 5.71 x 10^-11m."

I was asking for the mathematical derivation of the equation. I was asking about your derivation of the general form of the 'Compton-effect-equation' using your model as its basis. The calculation you give makes use of the equation, but, the general form of the equation was derived using Einstein's model.

Have you derived the general form of the Compton-effect-equation as the mathematical representation of the interaction of the photon and the particle of matter as described by your model?

James Putnam

Tom,

"It is not an assigned state of motion, however, that defines an inertial frame. An inertial frame is a state of relative rest;"

Precisely what I am saying, but you do need to take 3 steps back for a new, less familiar, 'overview' to see it; i.e. If we travel to body made of n particles of matter at rest relatively, and join them at rest, we are then in an assignable rest frame, which we can then assign a kinetic state K just as I proposed, and just as Einstein actually proposed. Lets say the matter forms a planet, We'll call it 'Earth'.

Now we could have chosen any of dozens of nearby bodies, it really didn't matter! (pun intended) all with separate assignable DIFFERENT rest frames K' upwards, so all with different relative v. But if we lived on one of those we'd be having the exact SAME conversation, and use the same laws! (unless it was the big one as we'd be toast!) Even if we were in a ship on the way there we'd be in an assignable frame.

Yes I know that is all entirely alien! (yes, pun..etc) that is he whole point of anything new, it MUST be alien!! So don't just reject it on beliefs and prior theory, analyse it just with cold logic. It is entirely consistent. Do the logic homework I set. The VERY STRUCTURE of truth propositional logic emerges. Each frame is physically discrete. Pauli's exclusion principle now has meaning, (and Boscovitch) no two BODIES can occupy the same spatial point, or MORE THAN ONE 'STATE OF MOTION!' K. Now we extend to Dynamic Logic; Inertial frames are REAL and 'interleaved' i.e. they cannot occupy the space of the adjacent leaf, but ONLY IMMEDIATE neighbours are relevant for the purposes of propagation speed (up to c). Motion in 'twice removed' frames may then APPEAR to be c+v, but nothing is.

But Tom, you revert AGAIN to "..appears to invoke a privileged reference frame. One can't do this on one hand and preserve relativity on the other." as if it is a 'default mode' each new time round!

I'll try it differently so it 'sticks' but it's up to you to do the 'sticking'! 'Background dependence' is precisely the same as 'privileged' frame, except that OUR privileged frames are NOT ABSOLUTE!!!!!!! It is only the 'Absolute' quality of the 3rd or 'privileged' frame that made it violate logic and SR. Take this to bed tonight; If we remove the 'absolute' nature of background frames, we can have as many as we wish with impunity. LOCAL REALITY LIVES! wavelength, and thus time 'periods' emitted in one frame Doppler shift on reaching another (any lens does it!) so CHANGE! I give you the great man's own words;

"...all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious."

He had the solution but just not completed, so stopping the causal laws he knew must exist, and unification with QM. This is what real 'discrete, bounded rest frames' provide. He was right, Bell was wrong.

If and when you DO get a grip on the logical resolution of preferred frames and hold on to it, do please remember how you did it so you can tell me! Over half of those who have grasped it well have lost it again a few days later as they didn't also 'wash away' the ingrained contradicting beliefs. Pictures work best with memory. I may need to get and learn an animation programme.

Peter

James,

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you'd seen my past comment that the DFM is not a 'replacement' for SR. Insofar as the meaning of the Compton equation is similar within the DFM ontology the equation is indeed derived a la Einstein. What it does is derive causal Relativity directly from an underlying Quantum Mechanism. So just a raft of more consistent interpretations, or the jigsaw puzzle done.

However, there is now a clarified and logical explanation of the postulates consistent with QM. But there are of course changes to interpretation, also more consistent with both observation and theory. For instance; Muons are NOT conserved between the upper and lower atmosphere. As in QM, muons only last 2.2ms, are absorbed on detection anyway, and even if possible to 'weak measure' them they decay (or rather 'transmorph') to the well know other particles as QED, (or rather 'multiple quantum states'). So the whole concept of conserved Muons was as much confused as conserved photons, removing much of the paradox.

We even find a crystal clear and logical derivation of Neutrino's emerging. They cannot be directly physically detected by interaction, but do go at apparent c+v without breaching SR! They are simply represented by the car coming the other way at 60mph. It is NOT 'propagating' at 60mph, but is doing 120 wrt you, or if you speed up to 70, it's doing 130!! But as soon as you interact with it, it's speed will change. He of most momentum then changes speed the least (representing elastic or inelastic scattering, or if v+v is too fast, decay to lower energy (smaller) particles.

As I explained in my abstract, the mists lift and a simple crystal clear ontology of all nature can then be found beneath the crud, with no paradoxes and anomalies. But it does NOT look like you first expect! (as predicted by the wise).

When I said you need to 'think differently' I was not being fatuous as you assumed. I do need help with falsification as it has proved impervious so far, condensing all muddy water into wine. So if you could suspend old beliefs and help test it by throwing rocks and problems at it I'd genuinely be grateful.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

"Insofar as the meaning of the Compton equation is similar within the DFM ontology the equation is indeed derived a la Einstein. What it does is derive causal Relativity directly from an underlying Quantum Mechanism."

The Einstein based derivation of the Compton-effect-equation requires that photons are received for absorption by a particle of matter at the same speed as that at which they are emitted. That speed is c for both circumstances, both coming and going, when measured from the reference frame of the particle. Your model is inconsistent with this circumstance. In order for you use the Compton-effect-equation, you must derive it based upon your own model. Can you derive it based upon your own model? The use of the equation in lieu of your own derivation confirms Einstein's model and contradicts your model.

James Putnam

James,

Ah yes, now I see what you're saying. No, the very instant the first 'tachyon' (relative c+v) wave peak 'touches' the electron (quantum states meet) it is converted to the local c (INelastic scattering). So when the second wave peak arrives it finds itself 'closer' to the first (all this when moving towards the source). This IS the Doppler shift mechanism of wavelength lambda in action.

The electron then only 'knows' the detected speed, which IS c!! Exactly like all our eye and detector lenses. No matter (sorry for that one!) or inertial system made of matter, can ever find anything other than c. Ergo the SR postulates!

What we've been doing wrong is not using the Doppler shift formula for wavelength on transit between to mediums, in the identical case of transit between the propagation medium and the 'detector medium'. We've just been simplistically assuming the frequency change 'does it all'. But it doesn't!

So Einstein was near enough, but Maxwell's work as modified by Heaviside with partial time derivatives just confused (couldn't transform), as lambda was considered invariant. It's the wave equation that's invariant (all as my formulae show). The genius bit there was however the near field 'transition zone', where (in current terms); 'surface plasmons' can interact with light', and "visible light can have X-ray wavelength"!!! - see if you or current theory can resolve that!

But thanks, it's excellent you flagged that up as I'd thought I'd got it across in the essay, but have checked and I'd pared it down to much to meet the word limit so I agree it wasn't entirely clear that Eddie & Penny themselves also only actually found c (it's in my main draft tome but I may now give it greater stress).

I forgot to mention, Tachyons are then imaginary 'geometrical' entities precisely equivalent to the cases described by Minkowski in 1908 as; "...cases with a velocity greater than that of light will henceforth play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry."

I really wasn't kidding about all the jigsaw puzzle pieces falling into place (though some seem to be from some other picture). I think they were right about science being all about "finding hidden likenesses."

Please do find the biggest toughy you can find to throw at it.

Thanks

Peter

PS, today I didn't look but still found another unexplained discovery explained by the DFM, the complex stellar production curve. I'll note it in a new thread below.

Birth rate crisis.

Cosmic star birth going ever lower. A pattern was predicted by a cosmic recycling model a few years ago, (and referred herein) evolved from the Discrete Field Model. DFM Cosmic Recycling Evidence This implied a high production rate in the first 2bn years reducing steadily to a trickle but with a small bulge at around z=1.7 corresponding with the maximum individual galaxy recycling rate some 6bn years ago correlating with a peak in AGN/qausar activity.

This precise and quite novel pattern has now been found, with production now at some 3% of the early peak, and no explanation offered from the apparent bulge, which has been considered as simply within wide error bars. The Gaussian tail off suggests less than 5% of star formation is still to come from now to eternity! Stellar birth rate drop shock. Unfortunately the full submitted PR paper with the detailed predictions and derivations was rejected by the reviewer seemingly as being too far from current theory, i.e accelerating inflation and the big bang. Hey ho. No change there it seems. Perhaps it's approaching time for a recycling!?

Is it me whose crazy or them? Do someone tell me if it's me.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

"Ah yes, now I see what you're saying. No, the very instant the first 'tachyon' (relative c+v) wave peak 'touches' the electron (quantum states meet) it is converted to the local c (INelastic scattering). So when the second wave peak arrives it finds itself 'closer' to the first (all this when moving towards the source). This IS the Doppler shift mechanism of wavelength lambda in action.

The electron then only 'knows' the detected speed, which IS c!! Exactly like all our eye and detector lenses. No matter (sorry for that one!) or inertial system made of matter, can ever find anything other than c. Ergo the SR postulates!"

The particle is not moving toward the source. Your new speed, as determined by the emitting particle of your model, could be higher or lower than the arriving speed. The derivation of the Compton-effect-equation uses a constant wavelength and constant speed of light for the arriving photon. The emitted photon will have a different wavelength. That difference is not due to Doppler effects. The difference is due to the change in energy of the particle. In your explanation above, the photon's energy will have increased immediately upon absorption. The energy of the emitted photon and the change in energy of the particle must then total the total energy, including your Doppler increase, of the arriving photon. The Compton-effect-equation uses the non-Dopplerized energy of the arriving photon. The equation will not balance for your model.

James Putnam

James,

I agree, viewed from that approach the equation wouldn't balance. It needs to be thought of differently, and the equations are shown to balance. We should probably start with the electron e, a high energy quanta with spin energy double any simple orbital angular momentum, so a 2-sphere envelope comprising a twin vortex torus would, for instance, work well. (Earth's magnetosphere and galaxy AGN's have similar forms). In non elastic scattering the e dominates the incoming photon amplitude (In fact we need to stop thinking of the photon as a 'particle', and just imagine the QM version, as a wave train or amplitude fluctuation distribution).

Now, the e experiences nothing of the outside world except what 'arrives' and then 'leaves'. The waves of a relatively weedy little photon are dominated by it, so whatever 'rate' they approach at (subject to relative propagation speeds) the speed IN the e is the same, c wrt e, so the wavelength lambda is not only dictated by the e but is the only one it 'knows!

Now to the re-emission. This is exactly the same process. The e does not know or care what happens after it re-emits each 'wave peak' at the only speed it knows (c wrt e) it doesn't care what happens to it, it just emits the next, and the next, at the same speed it 'absorbed' them at, which is still c wrt e.

Now the fact that that particular c 'after leaving' may NOT be the same as the c before arrival is no business of the electron (I call it the 'datum' for speed). which has no data on it. So, as far as the electron is concerned the accounts all balance perfectly. The emitted 'wave packet' will be more 'quantized' in amplitude, but just like the wave from a pebble in a pond, will spread again in time (Shrodinger sphere surface reduces by the ^3). That also wasn't all in the essay due to 'space' (lol).

Now step back yet again for overview and and consider; Nature does not wast effort. The whole point of the systems and the electrons job is to modulate c. All very simple. But one more touch of beauty in tidying loose ends;

What is true is that 'outside' the e lambda has changed, but of course frequency has also changed (in the propagation frame). The sums are then dead simple, and represent the Galilean Transformation, with 'gamma' growing towards optical breakdown frequency (NOT 'infinity'!) or minimum lambda (L). We then have;

Observed from at rest in the approaching frame; c = fL, electron frame; c' = f'L', then in the receding frame c" = f"L". That gives conservation of energy everywhere, the point of the whole business. Also remember, electrons are doing this job with all signals from all angles all at the same time!

Now if you are the observer and don't like undergoing all those accelerations to check actual propagation speed you can use apparent speeds from trigonometry and a calculator. Pick any state of motion. You'll find frequency appears to stay the same whatever the relative motion of the electron, so wave speeds 'appear' to vary. All you need do is add or subtract your own speed relative to the medium of propagation in each case and you will find the same REAL results as above.

Now the 'EM cross section' of plasma is virtually zero (it's 'dark') so the only giveaway is the kinetic effect. See the Emsellem et al formula in my essay. That's how we work out galaxy rotation speeds. Lateral motion and harmonic resonance must also rotat the wave charge density axis, so give tiny rotations of optical axis. This would provide the same effect we find and have many names for; i.e. 'stellar aberration, 'curved space time', 'refraction', 'diffraction', etc, all subject to local particle density, so very gradual in diffuse media such as space, but pretty instant in dense dielectrics such as glass (prisms). Faraday rotation of polarity, also not previously explained, is an accompanying consequential effect. (That's all just one bit near the middle of the jigsaw puzzle).

I know that's a lot to absorb (I must stop the puns!) but it does all matter!

Peter

4 days later

Peter,

Congratulation for being a good looser. I think FQXi 4 led to only few if any new essential hints to flaws in the very basics. What matters are the insights we have won. While I do mot see how to benefit from Spekkens, Weinstein, and other winners, Israel Perez gave me a good hint to his paper on Michelson and Morley. You might recall that I asked you for help to understand Cahill. Meanwhile I found another enlightening paper by Cahill.

I know you are seeing anything with respect to your ideas, and there is little agreement with what I tried to express in my figures. Just in case you did not yet get aware of my file "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley", feel free to comment on it.

Regards,

Eckard

    Peter,

    The Compton-effect-equation was derived based upon a single photon and a single electron. I am interested in your basics. The arriving photon is absorbed. A new photon is immediately emitted at an angle theta. The new photon has a wavelength longer than that which the arriving photon had. The electron is deflected away at an angle beta and increased energy. The conservation of energy or momentum of this situation does not depend upon the details of the interaction. These conservation laws involve initial conditions and final conditions. Can your model be applied to this encounter of the single photon and electron? What is the speed of the emitted photon with respect to the electron?

    I am interested in the details of the encounter, but, I want first to apply the conservation laws to the encounter and then afterwards move forward to the details of the encounter. Your model involves changes of mediums where multitudes of particles are involved in forming each medium. Can your model be applied to the encounter of a single photon with an electron at rest? If so, then is there a change in the speed of light between the arriving photon and the scattered photon as measured from the rest frame of the electron before the scattering?

    You are the best person to describe your own model. Your last message did give a response. This situation of an encounter between a single photon and a single electron is still not clear to me. You do say that the emitted photon will emerge with a different speed of light given to it by the electron. Were you thinking in terms of the encounter taking place within a medium containing a great many electrons or does your answer apply to the situation of a single photon interacting with a single isolated electron?

    Thank you.

    James Putnam

    Eckard,

    Thank you kindly. I've read your M&M notes and agree some of the fundamentals, also Cahill's wrong assumptions, but I have identified a number of additional factors and effects in a paper due out about now in the 2012 Hadronic journal.

    The reflection aberration is reasonably simply explained in terms of 'kinetic reverse refraction', where Snell's law is violated, from surface plasmon resonance as a continuous spontaneous localisation from the approach to the medium frame and back, so implementing reflection at c wrt the vacuum NOT the mirror, as always found experimentally but never understood.

    An explanation for the small but non zero positive result is also found. In a nutshell; the atmosphere is dragged with the rotating Earth, but the non rotating ECI (ionspheric) frame waves are not quite extinguished by the time they reach the surface of the Earth (this also explains the birefringence found). This is what causes the scintillation of starlight and probe telemetry. In fact it's a little more complex than that, as the Alfven waves in the ionosphere are quite inconsistent so often we find birefringence, or three propagation axis, in the atmosphere. The effects are tiny so have been written off as 'atmospheric' effects in explaining the reasons the IAU had for giving up on the 'aberration constant' in 2000.

    Other effects also seemingly ignored in most interferometers are the reflection and refraction time delays. Count the number of 'crossing' on each path and you'll find the paths are asymmetric. Now try to find how they set up the fringes in the first place to ensure they weren't already overlapping by a fringe or three. They could not! I've detected that this was why the Michelson Gale Pearson 1925 experiment contradicted his others and found moving ether. LIGO's are now far more sensitive, don't have the same problem, and don't find the same result.

    The ontology I have seems to be the only one that resolves ALL the difficult questions at once. I hope to have a link for the paper shortly. Can we post pdf's here or just links?

    Commiserations with you too on being overlooked. it seems anyone criticising an absolute belief in current use of mathematics is, lets say; 'left to one side'. I think it'd be a shame if John Templeton's special ethos is continuously eroded and lost for good to the false god of kudos.

    Best wishes. Let me know if there's a place to load files to and I'll do so.

    Peter

    James,

    It tells me I'm logged in but I'm not now fooled. I'm pressed for time but a quick response;

    The case applies generally; to one electron, the 10^6 'cube' of J D Jackson, or the rather more of a galaxy cluster. This should help a lot; Extinction distances.

    In a multi particle medium the effect is an 'average' or wave interference probability potential (well described by Huygens construction as used in laser optics). Also look up 'coherent forward scattering', 'causal sets', and even the excellent Montevedeo interpretation of QM in the Pullin Gambini essay here. It's consistent with the quantum logic I mention in my essay, which has analogies with 'Hilbert book theory'. I refer in my post to Ben how the issues with these (Godel etc) are resolved by the DFM, giving real spatial limits and allowing 'non countability'. (Navier-Stokes then does just fine)

    Each new photon does c wrt the electron it's emitted from. So localisation = c, or CSL = CSL.

    In non elastic scattering the electron energy dominates and it does not move. The relative arrival velocity dictates the delta wavelength to conserve E as well as c, because we have constants E = f*lambda as well as c = f*lambda. That's why my central point; Lambda changes, giving the inverse frequency change, which implements the fundamental law of nature.

    In elastic scattering the photon is less blended waves and higher energy so the electron certainly notices the hit! And it may be accelerated, in which case the photon looses energy (remember oft forgot amplitude as well as f). Compton was brilliant at the time but that was some time ago and better understanding is possible.

    PS; If particles condense and are annihilated, any idea how conservation is satisfied in terms of final conditions?

    I hope that helps, googling these may too;

    Dittrich arXiv:1110.6866

    Hogan http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3703

    Zagury http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6975

    Scargle; http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3839.pdf

    Reid; arXiv:gr-qc/9909075;

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    Thank you. Just take your time on this. "The case applies generally; to one electron,..."

    I was looking for the details of how your model would account for a simple example: The photon-electron interaction concerns only a single photon arriving, a single photon leaving, and, an isolated electron initially at rest. Does your model apply to this case? If so, what is the speed of the scattered photon with respect to the initial rest frame of the electron?

    I want to know where your model begins. What is or are its fundamentals. The interaction of a photon with an electron appears to be your starting point. My first interest had to do with a conservation law perspective. The details of the interaction are not necessary to know for the conservation question.

    My second interest is in the interaction itself. I will ask questions about that, but, first I am interested in the conservation question. That question does involve knowing the energies and speeds of the impacted electron moving off in one direction and the scattered photon moving off in another direction.

    I know that you have done a great deal of work on your model and came well prepared to explain and defend it. I don't yet have a position on its correctness. The reason is because, rather than concentrating on lots of results that appear to be resolved by the model, I look for its basis. If your initial solution is correct, I know everything will fall into line.

    I believe your initial solution to be the effect upon the speed of light by matter and, in the example I am asking about, a single isolated electron interacting with a single arriving photon.

    I would like to know what the speed of the scattered photon is with respect to the inital rest frame as depicted by the initial position of the electron. Afterwards, I will ask additiona questions about the internal details of the interaction itself.

    James Putnam

    Peter,

    A point of clarification regarding:

    "I was looking for the details of how your model would account for a simple example: The photon-electron interaction concerns only a single photon arriving, a single photon leaving, and, an isolated electron initially at rest. Does your model apply to this case? If so, what is the speed of the scattered photon with respect to the initial rest frame of the electron?"

    The form of the answer I had in mind for "...the speed of the scattered photon with respect to the initial rest frame of the electron?" was of the type you used in your previous message: c, c',c''.

    Thank you.

    James Putnam

    James,

    My starting point was purely deriving a common logic to SR and QM, which is where Einstein left off. Once a consistent kinetic ontology emerged everything else just kept flowing out.

    Your photon question does have some assumptions, i.e. an 'entity' hitting another, wearas it works better with the 'entity as a 'trigger energy' built up over non zero time (as Planks loading theory, Constantinos Regazzas, Eric Reiter etc) but none the less it is still a 'photon' of energy acting on the electron. In the case we're considering the electron doesn't move, and the same energy is emitted as received (and a million times a second from all directions at once remember!).

    The 'approach' is NOT necessarily at relative c, the emission IS, and the lambda/frequency delta is the result. E and c are thus conserved. Very simple mathematically because f is the inverse of lambda. Look to my essay and the end notes for the terms.

    Ions (i.e. free electrons) behave very differently to bound particles, molecular gas etc. They self focus. It's called in optics 'coherent forward scattering', and has zero detectable EM 'section' as normally no change occurs. (Ergo 'dark' matter.). Only if the electron is in motion wrt the arrival frame does the effect become detectable. In macro terms (detecting galaxy rotation speeds via spectroscopy) the term used is; λR ≡ (R |V |)/(R√V2 σ2) but you'd need to chase down the full papers to decypher it; Emsellem, E., et al., MNRAS 379 401-417. 2007. Emsellem, E., et al., Atlas 3D. MNRAS 414 2. 888-912. June, 2011. Try here; Sauron publications. Also see my post to Jonathon on Ben's blog. It is an 'averaging' process, so no precise calculation works any better than the Navier- Stokes limit. Ergo- 'Quantum uncertainty' as simply massive complexity.

    Put another way, each electron may have a slightly different state of motion. 'Scintillation' results (and the ~5% fluctuation of the aberration 'constant').

    Energy is still of course conserved in the overall sense. J D Jackson was close conceptually in the 1970's using a cube with I think 10^16 particles in it, then multiplied up. But with 'matter' it is mainly a surface effect, (electron plasmons, Kerr, static electricity, Maxwells TZ etc.- up to optical breakdown electron density at high velocities) with annihilation lengths within 1micron for light - excess energy is then released as heat conserving the total.

    I hope that covers enough of conservation at interaction?

    Peter

    Peter,

    My question concerned the conservation laws because it does not include assumptions about the nature of the interaction. I would ask about the specifics of the interaction after the conservation requirements were met. An isolated electron would have to move for the example that fits with the derivation of the Compton-effect-equation. If it does not fit with your model, that is ok. That would be the kind of answer I was looking for. Basically yes or no or c or c' or c",etc. The conservation question simpifies the example so that these kinds of answers are appropriate. I guess I approach these kinds of problems concerning the bases of models or theories differently from what you appear to do. I see answers to the question I asked as being essential. Thank you for your replies.

    James Putnam

    11 days later

    Eckard,

    Do you consider that when an emitter emits a signal, taking a certain time to do so, and the emissions travel across space and through media, that that signal represents 'time' itself?

    It is that signal that is assumed as a 'space-time period. The DFM simply states it is non commutative. i.e. that when it is met by an detector in a different state of motion, the period of time it takes to pass by (propagate) in the detector medium frame will change. This demonstrates that because all local atomic scattering is at c, then c is co-variant.

    The signal emitted in the other frame will then be measured as contracted or dilated when using an identical clock in the new (invariant) frame.

    I'm now off on an experiment. I've just had a whirlwind romance and am off across the Atlantic to catch up with time, to end up in Cancun Mexhico via JFK. My prediction is that my watch will not slow down on the way, and that 'time' will also not slow down, but that I WILL have to wind my watch back one way, and then forward the other. Also, as I approach JFK at 700kts, the one second light flashes will appear a little quicker - so contracted (with the same wavenumber so contracted lambda). Yet those emitted from the cockpit door in the plane will NOT be contracted! The whole plane then represents an inertial system.

    If not the case, then I have at last proved my thesis certainly wrong! Would you predict a different outcome to that of the DFM?

    I even venture that on the return journey the signal from JFK will be 'dilated'.

    Do think about the above emission case, as it's not the assumption made by Einstein, and I can't logically falsify it empirically, so please do so if you can.

    I hope you have a nice Christmas.

    Peter

      Peter,

      You asked me: "Do you consider that" a "signal represents 'time' itself?" No. A process proceeds even if it is not receiving any signal. Preferring the abandoned by Einstein idea of simultaneity, I see time a ubiquitous measure within an also common to everything spatial reference. I accept that you are arguing for a variant of emission theory. However, having made the mistake by Michelson and Morley hopefully quite obvious, I do not see any need for any emission theory, SR, or Lorentzian relativity.

      Your thought experiment seems to refer to the Sagnac effect which is very plausible and quite different from relativistic length contraction and time dilution. Yes, common sense tells you: You will have to wind your watch back one way, and then forward the other.

      Did I understand you correctly? Did you suggest three local frames: Earth, sun, and milky-way galaxy? If so, were Shtyrkov and others wrong concerning measured aberration?

      Let me reiterate my engineer's point of view: the speed of sound only depends on the medium; it does not depend on the motion of an emitter or a receiver. There is no local acoustic speed re the same medium. Different local spaces for the propagation of electromagnetic waves are perhaps mere speculation without factual justification.

      Eckard

      9 days later

      Eckard,

      You said; "A process proceeds even if it is not receiving any signal." Of course I agree, but that is not the important question asked. I'll put it another way;

      You are on the space station and a short signal pulse of laser light from Earth passes by 1km in the distance. You are told the emission was z picoseconds (ps) long. You measure it's length in two ways; with a clock (as the start and end of the pulse pass a fixed star) and also by recording it's full length with a precise camera. You can then calculate it's speed. OK?

      Now another pulse approaches, but imagine a large glass cube (n=1.5) moving rapidly towards the signal source, so the signal pulse enters the cube and, propagates through it as you again record the pulse length and speed.

      If the x ps signal itself represented the TIME 'z' ps, you would always find c. I suggest however that it does NOT, and that once emitted, the evidence of the emission time can be 'tampered with'. In the case of the glass cube, the light in the cube will slow to ~ 2/3rds it's previous speed, so the pulse will be compresses by 1/3.

      However; As the cube will have moved between the start and finish point of the pulse entering it, the pulse length will be compressed even more. THIS then is the Doppler shift due to motion of the receiver. (which is of course additional to the 'static' Doppler shift purely due to medium refractive index n). The equation is of course well known.

      Now, the secondary light from the cube to your instruments of course does 'c' over the 1km, so nothing breaches c. Yet the light pulse propagating in the cube moving at v APPEARS to do c +/- v, because it is only an 'apparent' speed from secondary evidence.

      If the cube is replaced by a fast moving space shuttle, the shuttle occupants will tell you that the light pulse time WITHIN the shuttle confirms that it is propagating at c (or in fact c/n) locally in the shuttle.

      Now if you think all that through very carefully you should find that it not only consistent will ALL experimental findings but (putting 'relativity' aside) is also entirely intuitive. If not so please now re-read carefully to ensure you have understood, and start drafting your reply, telling me precisely where and how you think it is wrong scientifically. If it was all ok then do please make a mental note of that fact and continue.

      Although no flaw exists, the scenario will confuse most, because it will not fit into the 'network structure' constructed in the neural networks by previous theory. It then proves almost impossible to assimilate 'as a whole' and remember, or indeed see the consequences of. This causes the 'denial' alarm to sound throughout the neural system. However true, the scenario and 'mental note' will be rejected by any not aware of the faults in the neural system. I suggest this process is the real reason why science struggles to progress. Only once the scenario is 'installed' can it's truth and consequences be confirmed and found.

      Peter

        Peter

        "THIS then is the Doppler shift due to motion of the receiver."

        What receiver, moving or otherwise? There is a light beam, and a fixed star for reference. In the first scenario nothing impedes the light beam, in the second it is impeded so it travels slower. So what, this is obvious.

        "Now, the secondary light from the cube to your instruments"

        This is the observational light, and has nothing to do with the physical existence of the light beam. It is physically existent, of itself, and in the context of the recipient sensory system, is a representation of the physical reality (eg light beam passing by). There are two physical realities, which might be labelled the existential and the light. The latter is what we receive after a time delay.

        "If the cube is replaced by a fast moving space shuttle, the shuttle occupants"

        You have now changed both the reference and the circumstance.

        The shift due to the motion of a receiver is explained as per the first post I put up on NPA:

        There is always a delay between the time of physical existence, and time of observation of that, as light has to travel. The duration will vary as a function of the distance involved, and the speed at which any given light travels (or is presumed to do so). Assuming a constancy of light speed for the sake of simplicity, then the perceived (ie received) rate of change of any given sequence will remain the same, so long as the relative spatial position of whatever is involved remains constant. But, when relative distance is altering (ie there is changing relative movement), then the perceived (ie received) rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering. To the observer this gives the impression that the rate of change is slowing/speeding up, over time, but is an optical illusion, as the actual rate of change does not alter.

        Paul