The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

Pentcho

Reading your posts (here and elsewhere) it seems as if you are trying to apply the popular frames of Special Relativity to gravitational fields. Well you cannot because there is no gravitational potential in SR.

Assume you are floating in free space and Israel is near a black hole. You will measure the speed of light in your location to be 299792.458 km/s (c) however Israel will measure it in your location to be a zillion km/s. This does not mean that the speed of light changed in your location. This is just that Israel's clock slowed and his ruler shrunk. Now with his slower clock and a shrunken ruler he measures the speed of light in his location to be 299792.458 km/s (c); however according to your clock and ruler this is just a few meters/s (c').

So in the presence of gravity you will measure c' (not c). Only in "local inertial frames" is the measured speed of light c. This does not mean that c changed; however it does mean that the MEASURED speed of light is not necessarily 299792.458 km/s.

Israel, you wrote: "I am sorry, you keep asking the same questions. My arguments were aim at explaining why experimentally the same value is obtained for the speed of light whether you are on the top or the bottom of the tower despite the fact that the speed of light is faster at the top and lower at the bottom."

Yes I keep asking the same questions but you keep giving contradictory answers. Below in this thread I asked you about the speed of light that the observer on the ground MEASURES:

Pentcho: "The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

The questions: c' = ? ; L' = ?

My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L "

You answered:

Israel: "To a certain degree, I agree with your result, namely

c'=c(1+gh/c^2)

but recall that it comes from an approximation."

Israel, please confirm or reject the following statement:

The observer on the ground MEASURES the speed of light to be greater than c (c'>c).

Yes or no?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Hi Israel,

I just wanted to have the list of acronyms to refer to as I read your paper. I like your paper. It is well written, clearly articulated and interesting to read. I am sympathetic to your view that there is a medium of some kind. But I have to take issue with you that a preferred system of reference exists. I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect.

I thought that your closed circuit argument was a clever way to undermine experimental evidence for RT. Unfortunately, the GPS satellite system, which works very well, uses and confirms GR and QM to a high degree of accuracy.

Nevertheless, it was a good paper.

Israel, I do indeed disregard your "measurement procedures" but this is because in the following text you say everything I need to hear:

You wrote above in this thread (Jul. 30, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT): "On the other hand, when we are under the influence of a gravitational field. The speed of light waves will vary according to the expression: c'=c(1+2Q/c^2), where Q is the gravitational potential, i.e. the instantaneous velocity of light will vary from point to point within the gravitational field. This can be reinterpreted in terms of frequency and this is the cause of the redshift or the blueshift."

I think the equation c'=c(1+Q/c^2) is the correct one but this is a minor objection. The essential points are that the speed of light does vary, that "this can be reinterpreted in terms of frequency" and that "this is the cause of the redshift or the blueshift".

Regards, Pentcho

Hi Jason,

"I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect."

An absolute time and an absolute reference frame does not necessarily mean Galilean relativity, which the argument I've given in my essay may help you to see. Furthermore, as Israel has correctly pointed out, relativity theory is not inconsistent with a preferred reference frame, which is therefore not an "incorrect" assumption to make---only Einstein argued that it should be superfluous from the point of view of relativity, since SRT *can* be derived without it. The problem is therefore to reconcile Newtonian intuition with relativity theory, and furthermore, to justify that upon the basis of scientific evidence.

Cheers,

Daryl

Hi Israel, Hi Daryl,

There could be some funky way to get a preferred reference frame. But you have to make some very progressive assumptions. You have to really use and abuse the laws of physics (which can be a very good thought experiment). But what is so intriguing about a PSR? What are you each looking for? Are you trying to satisfy a need for a philosophically pleasing set of laws of physics? I suspect that is the case for most physicists/physics enthusiasts. But what is the motivation for finding the holy grail of reference frames, the preferred frame?

Dear Israel Perez,

Your all-inclusive PR is not the only attempt to maintain Einsteinian PR while nonetheless questioning the fundamentals it was built on: Cahill, Christov, Jackson, ... You wrote to Jason: "Relativity makes the correct quantitative predictions, although not the most cogent physical interpretations." Neo-Lorentzians like Selleri and van Flandern claimed their theories furnishing the same quantitative results more easily. I do not share such views. I am just curious.

The reason why I failed to be convinced and called your essay cryptic is on my side: Because you did not show illustrating Figures, my shaky command of English might have hampered me the more. Sometimes I did not even find words in my dictionary. What does schollium mean?

You wrote: "Once the PRS is restored the paradoxes fade away." How about restoring simultaneity as does Phipps?

So far I cannot see in what Einstein was wrong when he considered his PR based on his denial of a PSR.

Last contest was won by a fictitious Newton who easily understood Einstein. Sorry, I am not a Newton. I rather trust in the possibility of human fallacies.

Eckard

Hi Jason,

Those are the right questions to ask, I think. One could argue, for instance, that from the realist point-of-view a block universe logically follows from Einstein's interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity, and that this is a metaphysical dead end---but that argument isn't scientific, so it's only a starting point for questioning the validity of the interpretation; i.e., we can take arguments like Minkowski's and Putnam's as the first part of a reductio ad absurdum, really ensuring we understand why the implication *is* what logically follows, given the standard point-of-view on the meaning of relativity, so that we can move on from them to complete the reductio.

In my opinion, Einstein's interpretation of the meaning of relativity is actually incompatible with cosmology and causal coherence, and therein lies the scientific evidence for a preferred reference frame. Furthermore, in my view the preferred frame can be reconciled with relativity in a way that does in fact make logical sense (i.e., isn't "funky") and doesn't really use and abuse the laws of physics, particularly with reference to the principle of relativity, beyond a clear distinction (as opposed to a fuzzy understanding) that the principle applies to the physical description of what is *perceived*, and not necessarily of *what is*.

Of course, that's basically an ontological distinction---but I stress that I think there is very good reason, from the point-of-view of cosmology, that the demands of relativity can only go as far as a description of phenomena, and definitely can't be applied as such to the true simultaneity-relation between noumena. My argument for this is 24,996 characters long, not including spaces, and I do encourage you to read it.

Regards,

Daryl

Israel,

Your own physical body is your preferred reference frame. Your own mind and point of view are a PSR. That is, unless a true PSR has detectable characteristics. Does it?

Dear Jason,

Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.

1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations.

2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe.

3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.

In the essay 5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space.

Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.

If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light.

Now since drift can be any of the three directions, we have uniformity in space at least at micro level. (PicoPhysics believe it is limited to micro level, at macro level it is not uniform due to disturbance caused by presence of matter).

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Dear Israel:

I enjoyed reading your well-written paper making a case for reviving the PSR based on its "usefulness".

First of all I agree with the conclusive statement in your essay:

"The PSR assumption constitutes a paradigm shift that would demand a drastic change in the way of conceiving the present universe. Well established facts such as the expansion of the universe would need to be reinterpreted in the light of this new paradigm. A theory based on this assumption can provide new insights with respect to the dark matter, dark energy problems as well as the acceleration of the universe."

This has actually been accomplished as described in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.

The point to note here is that the universal reality is a continuum between the lower limit PSR (V/C=0) and upper limit no space-time (V=C). In between these two limits, various V/C values represent varying level of realities that appear to us as the so-called multi-verses. So neither the assumption of PSR only nor GPR only are correct. The reality consists of transition from PSR in the near-field (earth to solar system) to GPR in the far-field (galaxies and universe). Hence, the current cosmological paradoxes - dark energy, dark matter, and quantum weirdness are shown to be artifacts of the incorrect assumption in standard cosmology of a fixed PSR with absolute space-time in the far-field (V~C). This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.

I think your statement extremely limits the role of science - "....it is legitimate to judge that the final aim of a scientist may not be the finding of the "truth" but merely the finding of a theory that reproduces and explains the body of experimental evidence. The knowledge gained during this process is then used for the convenience of mankind."

I would like to promote the role of science and scientists to reveal the ultimate universal reality that not only enhances its material life and conveniences but also provides purpose and meaningfulness to life in the universe. My attached paper - "In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose" shows how science can achieve this.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and provide your comments in light of your paper.

Regards

AvtarAttachment #1: 1_Manus_MetanexusIn_Search_of_the_Universal_Reality__Purpose.pdf

John/Israel:

I fully agree with the statement - ""motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place."

This has actually been vindicated in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.

This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.

Please read my detailed post below and my posted paper for further details.

Regards

Avtar

Hi Jason/Daryl/Israel;

Please read my detailed post below as to how PSR, GPR, and SR can be reconciled or bridged addressing many of the points you are making.

Regards

Avtar