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

      Paul,

      If you read my reply to Eckard a little more carefully you may find an important point you have missed. You shouldn't be concerned to have done so as you are in the majority. You may yet still not escape that majority, but here is the opportunity;

      In our detached observer scenario, Where we have always only recognised ONE factor slowing down the 'apparent' propagation speed (the 'impedence' as you put it), I am identifying that there is a SECOND independent factor.

      Consider our observer watching TWO space shuttles A and B, both 1km away, A at rest, and B moving past A at velocity v towards the light pulse source. (Let's use twin side by side pulses so A and B don't collide!) We can see through the windows as the short pulses move through the cabins.

      Now we first consider shuttle B, moving at v. You have correctly agreed that as the light enters the shuttle it is compressed in proportion to the motion of B (whether wave peaks or photons is irrelevant). Now we switch (intentionally!) to the crew of shuttle B, who, we will agree, find that light compressed because it has slowed to now propagate at c/n through the air in THEIR FRAME 'B'.

      Now let's return to our original observer frame and look back at the shuttle. We of course see the progress of the light pulse apparently slowed, to c/n - v where the occupants of B find it doing c/n! Picture these logical dynamic observations in your mind and play them through as you re-read it to ensure they are embedded.

      Now as B disappears we look at Shuttle A, remaining at rest (in our frame). As we watch the light hits its thick glass windscreen it is, as you say, slowed down. But hang on, stop and think more deeply. The shuttle IS NOT 'MOVING'! so the speed change is purely due to the refractive index n of the glass, then the n of the air.

      This 'slow down' is, as above, ALSO do the the shuttle impeding the pulse, but this time it is only related to n, (as relative v is zero). This is an entirely independent factor. Both factors are well known, but normally confused and thought of as one.

      The implications?; all the confusion and paradox of SR unravels. Unfortunately due to 'pre-programming' of the brain it seems that an IQ of somewhere around 200 may be needed to unravel the two elements and embed them separately into the neural network. You previously failed, and will need to 'let go' of your current 'knowledge' to grasp the new realization, but please do try it again.

      Best of luck.

      Peter

      Peter

      It is not a "detached observer scenario", that is what occurred, it has nothing to do with observers. There need not be only "one" factor, neither is it "recognised" because there is no one to do the recognising. Neither is the speed "apparent", it is the speed, again, why, and who is it "apparent" to, there is nobody.

      "I am identifying that there is a SECOND independent factor." There is no other factor, or at least you did not define one. The light beam was impeded, and therefore slowed down, by glass. The reference for calibrating relative motion was a "fixed star". That's it. Then there is observation, ie receipt of a light based representation.

      Then there is a new example with space shuttles:

      "You have correctly agreed that as the light enters the shuttle it is compressed in proportion to the motion of B". I presume by this you mean these "windows" are made of glass, so there is some impediment to the speed of the light pulse as it comes through the windows of shuttle B. Now, the extent of the effect depends on the thickness/quality of the glass. I am not sure that the relative speed at which this is moving wrt light pulkse has any physical effect (strictly speaking I do not know). And anyway, as far as I have understood it from you in the past, the light regains its 'standard' speed on exit from the glass and travelling through the "air" again. So either the speed of the light upon receipt by the "crew" is 'normal speed, but the time taken for the entire journey was slower than it would have been, because it did not travel at 'normal' speed throughout its journey. Or the journey was slower still, as the speed of this light upon receipt by the "crew" was still travelling at that slowed down speed. Irrespective of which it is, how does this crew know what speed it was travelling at upon receipt, or what different speeds it was travelling at, and for what duration, during its journey? The time taken for any given component of this pulse of light to reach the crew, leaving aside the window effect, will of course be affected by the fact that the distance between the shuttle (and hence crew) is always decreasing ("B moving past A at velocity v towards the light pulse source").

      Wrt the "original observer", observational light received which enables this observer to "see" what is happening is taking ever longer to reach, as the distance increases between the shuttle and observer. But the light pulse is travelling towards the observer. What you are really doing here is trying to make this "observer" the equivalent of 'what occurred', which it is not.

      Shuttle A is not moving wrt observer, but this is irrelevant to the point you are making. Presuming that the light pulse which reaches this shuttle has the same properties as the one which reached shuttle B, the windows/windscreen are the same, and the air inside the shuttles is the same, then the effect on the speed of the light pulse is the same. As I noted above, I am not sure that the speed of the glass wrt light pulse makes any difference to that physical effect. If it does then that needs to be factored in. Along with the other technical point as to whether the light pulse regains it 'normal' speed upon exit from the glass (which would be the same in both circumstances). So the speed change will always be due to the physical factors of the circumstance, and nothing whatsoever to do with subsequent observation.

      Put simply, what happens, happens. Then there is, via observational light, the subsequent receipt of a light based representation of that.

      This has no effect on SR, because that was a purely theoretical circumstance which is, by definition, correct.

      The issue is relativity, and you have made the same mistake as Einstein. You more that anybody else on this forum knows that I immediately came up with the comment that he has confused reality with observation of reality. What he did was equate the reality as encapsulated in light with the physical reality. So there is no observational light in relativity. The light he does refer to is time, which is a constant. Because he uses light to measure distance. And distance does not have duration. The net effect being that the real timing differential which is a function of relative spatial position upon receipt of light, has been attributed to a feature of physical reality (ie everything thing has its own time unless it is in the immediate proximity). This is why in his examples (as you do) he has to have lightening, etc, or Cox & Forshaw use a light beam clock. That is, it is actually fulfilling two roles. Really it is the timing mechanism, but it is left to imply that it is also observational light. I was sufficiently motivated by an exchange with Ben and Jonathan, to write this out properly, there is a post dated 18 Nov on my essay blog, or I can send you an e-mail.

      Paul

      PS: it is not IQ that unravels the problem, more lack of 'baggage'. I just alighted on it as an intellectual exercise and saw things for what they were, not as per the standard interpretation, or with detailed knowledge preventing seeing the 'wood for the trees'.

      Paul,

      OK I'll elucidate, just once more. But if you remain unwilling to release your grip on your 'starting assumptions' its unlikely you'll be able to properly assess any others.

      There's inadequate room to identify 'what is wrong' and explain why. It may be more helpful to identify the lines that are correct, which are as follows;

      "I am not sure that the relative speed at which this is moving wrt light pulkse has any physical effect (strictly speaking I do not know)." ..and;

      "I am not sure that the speed of the glass wrt light pulse makes any difference to that physical effect. If it does then that needs to be factored in."

      Indeed it does Paul. The speed of light through glass of n=1.55 is 120,000 miles/sec. That number is a constant. It does not matter what 'state of motion' the glass is in with respect to ANYTHING else. To make the consequences easier to visualise lets double glaze the windscreen and fill the gap with Bose-Einstein condensate (very high 'n') so it takes 2 seconds for light to traverse the windscreen, (wheron it returns to speed c/n wrt the air in the cabin - i.e. the local 'frame').

      During that 2 seconds shuttle B is of course moving at velocity v wrt shuttle A and wrt our distant (~perpendicular) observer (let's say v = 0.5 miles/sec).

      Now both shuttles are identical, so any 'obstruction' effect due solely to the refractive index n of the shuttle windscreen and air will be identical.

      But the shocking and so far completely unrecognised truth is that there is another, independent factor, affecting wavelength in moving shuttle B and 'delaying' the light pulse passing through it compared to the pulse passing through A.

      I won't try to explain what it is, see if you can tell me.

      Peter

      Eckard,

      I answered your question above, but re 'local frames' you also asked;

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

      But firstly; The DFM's 'propagation' axiom agrees with your 'engineer's point of view", up to the point of impact of the first wave peak with the detector. But tell me, can a detector derive a frequency from one wave?

      I propose not. I also axiomise that detectors must be made of matter, and include a processor to derive frequency from the time (in the DETECTOR frame) between two waves interacting. We then assume that the job is complete and we understand all that we need to. I suggest not. We certainly have a frequency, and then make an assumption about speed ignoring the distance between waves; lambda (in the constant c = f*lambda). But the TIME used is in the new frame, NOT the approach frame, and as all waves will be absorbed into all media, there is also a lambda in the NEW frame we can draw on. The result of this would be local CSL for all observers. The fact that this mechanism is entirely unfamiliar makes no negative contribution to it's logical truth value. But as we are Human not Vulcan we have not yet assimilated that.

      Back to frames. The full(ish) hierarchy of local frame steps is; ECRF (Rotating & orbiting) ECI frame (orbiting only i.e. magneto/iono/plamasphere), Solar wind (radial in below;), Barycentric Frame (Solar System) [slightly different to Heliocentric, plus various virial radii shock frames out to the heliosheath shock], Local Galactic arm frame (orbiting galactic nucleus GN), Galaxy frame (at rest with GN - rotating in 'lockstep'). Various virial radii frames out into the halo (rotational speed steps), Local Group frame, Local Cluster frame. etc..

      We discussed Shtyrkov some time ago and I went into some detail of the implications, which ironed out the remaining inconsistencies in his thesis (though to minimise confusion I simplified the above sequence). The inconsistencies of Gezari's lunar ranging analysis are also removed by including both the ECI and ECRF along with the small local moon centred frame. We must remember that extinction is not completed for some distance in diffuse media, explaining atmospheric birefringence, scintillation etc, and the reason Dayton Miller 'bizzarely' found reducing aberration at higher altitudes. This 'nested' hierarchical system follows the pattern of truth propositional logic, where only the next adjacent proposition is relevant.

      To complete the full derivation of stellar aberration then just needs the 'asymmetry of charge' on wave particle interaction giving the rotation of re-emission axis due to lateral particle motion, precisely as found and quantified in the phenomena of 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction', itself not yet assimilated into current interpretation (all as discussed in my essay, but rather abridged). The rotation is at each particle, deflecting the 'observed position' away from the causal wavefront plane, as proved the case by the 'invisibility optics' experiments cited.

      Peter

      Peter

      First, I must state that it would be good if you did not imply that anybody who does not agree with your assertions is lacking in some way ("But if you remain unwilling to release your grip"). You need to address commentary put forward, as is, not keep repeating your mantra as a response.

      So, you address one of two detailed provisos I noted, which were irrelevant to the overall argument anyway. I just noted them to ensure there was no mistaking what it actually was. And you confirm that the speed of the glass is irrelevant, this has no effect on light, the effect being a function of the substance (glass), not the speed thereof. Which is what I thought. The other technical point which I logged was: does light resume its 'original' speed upon exit from the glass? I believe it does, but you do not pick this up.

      Anyway, this is detail, because you then effectively just repeat your assertion about what is happening. To which, of course, I can only repeat why this is not so, with substantiation. You need to address what I am saying, and identify and explain the fault in it.

      It does not matter what the windscreen is, etc, there is an effect on the light. Both shuttles are moving, one is just moving differently to the other. Light does not 'follow' the shuttles. So in actual fact, when you refer to 'light' you are actually referring to many different physically existent entities, all of which have, it is presumed, the same original frequency. And whilst it can probably be presumed that at any given time, the lights which disperse in all directions are the 'same' (ie there is the same affect in photons), that does raise such detailed points as, how many 'affected' photons constitute a 'light'-but do not answer that, because, again, it is detail.

      The existential circumstance is that there is 'light' (whatever that actually is) which travels through something (ie glass) and is thereby physically affected. The situation is the same in both shuttles, because there is no other variable that has an effect.

      You then refer ('shocking, unrecognised truth') to the observational light which enables a sight of this existential circumstance, if and when such light is received by an entity which is able to process it. The timing of the receipt of this light for the observer in the relatively moving shuttle will be ever changing, because the distance is ever changing wrt the light (as in sequence of lights). That is, the timing delay between existence and receipt of light representing that existence is ever changing. The same point applies to an observer not in the shuttles, the frequency of any given event sequence, as received, as opposed to as occurred, will depend on relative spatial position as the sequence progresses.

      Nothing in physical existence is altering, this is all about the time delay between existence and receipt of a representation thereof which, in this case, enables sight. Something which Einstein eliminated by conflating the two. Then thought was present in physical existence, ie relativity. The important point being, if the two are conflated, perversely (because most people think Einstein is referring to observation) there is no observational light, there is no observation (ie receipt of light). The light he is referring to is time, because he is using light as a timing device. Time is a conceptual constant, observational light is not, it is just, in practical terms, more or less a constant relative speed. Read section 1, part 1, 1905, only page and a half, the flaws are obvious.

      Paul

      Paul.

      I don't imply what you state. I offer an explanation and point out that it is difficult to assimilate, and that it must be understood to be assessed. You approach does not allow that, and I did flag this up for you, but you chose to ignore it. That is entirely your perogative, but it means complex dynamic concepts are not worth discussing, as I anticipated.

      You forget that 'speed' is a relative concept and state blithely that the state of motion of the glass is irrelevant to a co-moving observer. I axiomised that it is, and explained why. You did not accept, follow or falsify it, you simply contradicted it. In an axiomatic theory that is the end of any analysis and conversation! In the scientific method the whole point of such a theory is that to test and assess it properly the axioms must first be assumed. This is why you fail at the first step each time (all tickets are free and 'returns', so you're 'buying' nothing irrevocable). If you can't adopt that method there can be no scientific discussion.

      Yes, of course in the model light exiting the rear of the shuttles reverts to c in the background frame. It always propagates at c locally! So, to our distant observer, the light pulse leaving A changes speed only by relative media n, but the light from B appears to change speed by relative n AND relative v. This is the model under the microscope Paul, not your own oft repeated 'rationalisation' and, with respect, for you in particular to use the term mantra may be taken as rather an insult!

      Now you have dismissed the motion of the glass (emitting particles) wrt our observer as 'irrelevant'. If you insist on taking that position and wish to look no closer at the 'optical illusion' I identify (c+v), than there is clearly nothing further to analyse or discuss.

      Peter

      Peter

      "You forget that 'speed' is a relative concept"

      Where have I done this?

      "and state blithely that the state of motion of the glass is irrelevant to a co-moving observer"

      No I did not. You confirmed that the speed of the glass did not affect light, just the fact that it is glass. I thought this was the case, but logged it as something to be confirmed in my first response, just in case. Your response: "The speed of light through glass of n=1.55 is 120,000 miles/sec. That number is a constant. It does not matter what 'state of motion' the glass is in with respect to ANYTHING else."

      So, the existential circumstance is that glass affects light. There are no observers, which requires observational light, involved in this, co-moving or otherwise.

      I note confirmation that, existentially, light reverts to its 'original' speed on exiting the glass, which is again what I thought from previous exchanges with you.

      Without going into detail as to what this "distant observer" is receiving light based images of, ie the light beam approaching the shuttles, going through the glass, being received by the crew, etc, etc, let's just keep it simple:

      Shuttle A is in a fixed relative spatial position wrt to distant observer. Shuttle B is not, the distance between them is increasing. So, the actual motion of A and observer is irrelevant, the relative motion is zero. Therefore, the rate of change in the sequence of events as occurring at A, as relayed by observational light which enables this distant observer to observe the events, will be the same. Because there is a time delay, but it is constant. While the rate as received from B by the distant observer alters, because the time delay is ever increasing as the distance ever increases. What happens, happens. A light representation of this is something else. This is the explanation of your 'model' and what you refer to as the "relative v" factor. The "relative n" factor, which is the same in both cases, would involve a comparison of the speed of this beam before (or after) and whilst in the glass, as enabled by observational light of the circumstances. The timing reference for all this being receipt of observational light by observer.

      "Now you have dismissed the motion of the glass (emitting particles) wrt our observer as 'irrelevant'."

      No, as said above you confirmed that the motion of the glass has no effect on this light beam. The observation of this is different, because there needs to be observational light for that to occur, as I keep on saying.

      Paul