Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

OK so your first point is a technical one.

But your second point is a fundamental one, which you do not explain, other than an allusion to constancy. The issue is not approximating the calibrated speed of observational light to a constant calibrated wrt earth. Quite obviously, that cannot be a fundamental problem, because in practical terms, it is. The issue is about assuming it is constant because it represents time for physical existence, ie incorrectly assuming the representational reality afforded by light is existential reality. Look at his examples, and indeed the Cox & Forshaw book. Relentlessly he conflates observational light with light being used for the purposes of timing, he has to do to make the theory work.

Putting the above another way, in order to substantiate your assertion that there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept being expressed, can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways? The fact that one of these entities is light is irrelevant, it is still a moving entity (and how it does so is also irrelevant to this question-there is some definitive physical effect, and it moves-that's all we need to know for this).

I am not quite sure what you are saying in the third paragraph. Einstein's references for constancy were a practical simplification of the actual speed in any given circumstance of observational light, ie c. And a really constant c as time. He did not tacitly relate existence to what was received by observer. It is very clear what he is doing. I think after about 5 minutes I could see this, with his AB example in section 1. But that is because I had no 'baggage' to blind me from seeing what was actually written. In SR it is not a case of the speed of light being "believed" to be, it is stated as being so, because there is no gravitational force in SR to influence it. This being a perfectly sound approximation of the real world. What you need to notice is that in SR there are also fixed bodies because there is no gravitational force. Whereas in 1905 there are bodies which change dimension. But in 1905 he said: "only apparently irreconcilable", ie he knew there was a problem which he 'fixed' with the theoretical context of SR, ie no gravitation. Then he went on to GR, where there is gravitation, and light, as well as everything else, is affected.

"Only naive people believe the slogan "anything is relative".

Really? Well you give me an example of an absolute, and explain how you know it to be so, ie how you have transcended your very existence in order to make this assertion. Since you cannot do that, I would suggest you are confusing constancy with absolute. We only know something to be so within the closed system of our existence. So it is absolute, or objective is a better word, within a context. Attributes of what is so, are calibrated by us by comparison to identify difference, ie they are a relative estimation. We cannot know what is not moving, hence there is no absolute reference. In respect of the notion of using 'space' as the reference, as I responded to Jonathan in one of his intial responses to me, how does that work? First I am not sure anybody has proved that space, as in spatial position with absolutely nothing there, exists. And second, if it does how does one reference to it? In other words, really the reference is to something which is existent, it just does not 'look like it' and appears to be constantly 'still'.

I have said enough about what future and past constitute existentially.

Paul

Eckard

"Can you please either refute or support my claims?"

I have done, whenever there is something secific to comment on, and where I cannot comment I have said so. Indeed, I made 2 specific points on what you had previously written in the last post, neither of which were answered.

""Look at his examples" without specifying to whom you are referring"

Does the word Einstein spring to mind? But again this is a point I have made several times already.

"I fear, your often reiterated views concerning..."

Like anybody else, you could of course point out why these statements I make are incorrect. And in the more general sense, if you read what I have written you might be able to take a more informed position, indeed, you might learn something.

Paul

Eckard

"You asked: "can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways?" While I understand this question as addressing SR, I do not see it directly related to my essay."

Why has this go it anything to do with SR? And even if it has, that was clearly not my point, because I did not mention SR when I made it. Indeed, in its original format it was very clear. That is: the start to all this was to find something that did not move and could therefore be a reference to calibrate movement (which was incorrect because no absolute can be known and it has to be assumed that everything is moving, finding something that moves consistently and independently is a different point). However, the other component of their start point was that light must travel at different speeds one way as opposed to the other, because the earth moves, hence the desire for a stationary reference to calibrate this. Now, leaving aside their views as to the relationship between ether, etc, etc, which is detail, this view is correct. By definition, two entities with different momentum will result in different calibrations thereof, when compared in different ways.

There seems to be a fundamental problem on this forum, and possibly with physics in general in understanding light. It is a physical effect, which is moving. To my left there is a waste basket and a chair with the dog sitting on it. Light is currently travelling between the chair and the basket, and vice versa. Light is travelling from the dog, or me, to the chair and basket. The physics of that is exactly the same as the light travelling from the basket/chair to the dog/me. The only difference is that the dog/me, being sentient organisms can process that light upon receipt, the basket/chair cannot. That processing is irrelevant to the physics of what occurred.

My other question related to what was the fundamental mistake Michelson made?

In general, as I have said before, I cannot comment on the specifics of the M&M experiments, but suspect you are 'on to something'. Indeed I remember some months ago a response to me when you said something along the lines' well I'm not sure about that, but you have prompted a thought'. My point is that this has no connection with the structure of relativity and its fault. The reaction, warranted or otherwise, that there is dimension alteration, certainly influenced how they thought, and was therefore to some extent self-fulfilling, ie they looked for an answer to fit this. And again, can I ask you to read my post of 187 Nov, or send a link and I will send you a copy, paulwhatsit@msn.com

Paul

Eckard

""everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to?"

No, I am saying we must presume everything is moving, which effectively is the same end result, but the correct expression. Because we have no absolute reference against which to make a judgement. And if you, or someone else you know thinks otherwise, explain to me what that something is, and why you know it is absolutely stationary. In other words, when we choose a reference, which could be anything (but it has to be something) then that is conceptually deemed to be stationary whilst all other speeds/directions are calibrated against it, ie it either appears to be stationary, or if we can see that it is relatively moving we can discount the effect over time whilst measuring (aka translation).

And presuming that the 'universe' is another label for 'all of existence that we can know', then the answer is that we do not know anything extrinsic to that. So it is irrelevant. We can only have knowledge. When we think we are comparing knowledge with reality, we are not. We are comparing knowledge with other knowledge. We can only know, and we can only know what it is possible for us to know. Which, by definition, does not include what we cannot know. We can think up a countless number of ideas, but that is not knowledge/ science.

Now, if your 'universe' relates to a sub-set of all we can know, then we just need a reference extrinsic to 'universe' to calibrate its speed. Which might well be difficult, but that is the point.

Another point to make here is that in either case, but especially the former, this effect is omnipresent, so it is irrelevant for calibration purposes, which is about comparison to identify difference. Discounting an effect that is everywhere makes has no effect on difference.

"I consider the propagation of a wave related neither to its emitter nor to any receiver but to the medium of propagation."

Fine, that is as good a choice as any for the reference against which to calibrate. Now tell me what specifically it is, and how you identify, and then maintain identification, of a specific entity of this 'medium' in order to effect all the calibrated measurements. Remember, to ensure comparability of measurements, the same reference must be used (or adjustments factored in to effectively make it the same), otherwise they are useless. Because I can say that A measured X speed and B measured Y speed. To which you would think there was a difference, but then get annoyed when I reveal that A was moving X when measured against D, whilst B was moving Y when measured against F. You would immediately point out to me that I have to use the same reference, or what was the difference between D & F, which of course requires another common reference to establish. This is the mistake Peter, and others, keep making in their emission theories, the reference is changed to maintain the calibrated speed.

So you have still not addressed my point that light vis a vis earth calibrated speeds must vary depending on how the two are compared.

"And Michelson's - as I maintain wrong - expectation eventually led to SR"

As explained, again, above, presuming what expectation you are talking about (ie light/earth speed), that was not wrong. Whether they came to it for the wrong reasons is another matter. Neither did it lead, in any sense of that word, to SR. Because SR is a theoretical circumstance where there is no gravitation and everything is fixed shape and moving relatively constantly. Neither did it 'lead' to relativity. What 'lead', in the sense of created the mental environment which resulted in the construction of this particular perspective was a certain presumption which was fulfilled by invoking errors. The flaw in relativity is in those errors. As I keep on saying, and have explained elsewhere, the problem in relativity is not the constancy of observational light. It obviously cannot be, because it is more or less constant, so such a simplification cannot invoke a fundamental flaw.

Paul

Eckard,

If your assumption of "where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter" is the only difference between your interpretation and Michelson's one, then you should draw the following conclusions from your analysis:

1. The principle of relativity is false.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer does not depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate is correct).

3. The speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer (special relativity is wrong).

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho/Eckard

In 1905 Einstein presumed:

-light starts at a constant speed, ie independently of the speed of the entity involved

-light continues to travel at that speed unless impeded in some way

In SR this is also what he assumed because there is no gravitation, ie it is again in vacuo. In GR he also assumed this, because the effect on light, ie an example of an impediment to its travel, was attributed to gravitational forces.

Now, irrespective of why he thought so, the fact is that this is correct, because the creation of light is an atomic reaction (ie it is not collision/reflection), hence the same result every time, and like everything else, it will continue to travel at that speed unless impeded.

It is, just a moving entity. The speed of the observer is irrelevant. As I said in a post above, light is currently travelling between the chair and the waste basket in this room, and vice versa. There is NO physical difference between this circumstance and the one which involves light travelling to me. The ONLY difference is that I can process that light when received, chairs and waste baskets can not. But that is not physics, it is physiology, biology, sociology, etc.

The problem with relativity is that there is always a time delay between the physical occurrence, and the receipt of light from that occurrence. But Einstein conflated reality, as represented by light, and reality. So he attributed this delay to reality, with his idea that 'everything has its own time', which lead to a model of reality which has time as, effectively, another spatial dimension. The error in relativity has nothing to do with the speed of light, nor observation, in the sense of processing that light. Conflating light and reality has another important consequence, in that the speed of light becomes the determining factor, which it obviously in the physical representation of reality, aka light, but not reality, which is different. So the speed c, also becomes a surrogate for t, as well as being observational light. Being concerned with rate of change, t is a constant, irrespective of what is actually used in practice to measure it.

All arguments about the M&M experiments are relevant to those experiments and understanding what went wrong there, if anything, but they are irrelevant to relativity. Which is about the relative timing of the receipt of light, but they failed to differentiate light from reality, so thought the variable was at the other end of the process. Put simply, they thought existence occurs (which is when the light occurs) at a different time and then finishes up at the same time when received. Whereas, actually, existence (and hence light) occurs at the same time, but takes time to travel, so is received at different times depending (in pure conditions) on distance. Furthermore, that distance can alter whilst the light (which is really a series of lights) travels, thereby causing a differential between the rate of change in reality and the rate of change in the timing of receipt thereof.

Paul

Eckard

Sorry this is rushed.

The flaw in your thinking is the presumption of 'nothing' as a reference. This cannot be achieved. Neither did people mean this.

"Maxwell imagined light an electromagnetic wave propagating in empty space with constant speed c relative to (abbreviated below as re) this hypothetical medium".

What he meant was that under 'perfect' conditions, any example of whatever constitutes 'light' always moves at the same, and a constant, speed. This is because its formation is the function of an atomic interaction, ie not a collision - the same interaction always resulting in the same speed. And, as with any other entity, light will keep moving at that original speed, and in the original direction, unless impeded in some way. The point is that when measured, that will involve something else which will be moving at a different speed and in a different direction. Measuring being a process involving the identification of difference by comparison.

In respect of Michelson, surely he was referring to light, and/or the ether through which it travels, both of which are something, not nothing.

Michelson (1881): The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether

Para 1:

"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space...Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels."

As I have said before, this is correct. Light wrt earth will render different results depending on how the measurement is effected. The point is not about the ether, but light. And all light cannot be deemed as the same physical entity, which it obviously is not. Light received from the same physical occurrence over 'there' is different to the light received over 'here'. It is just that the physical qualities which are utilsed in the subsequent processing if received by a sentient organism, are the same (or very nearly so). Similarly light received from a physical occurrence at a different time, is different (so too is the physical occurrence).

So, the question is, why was this effect not found. Which your essay may have identified. Certainly something went 'wrong', because the start assumption is correct.

Paul

Paul,

Well, Maxwell imagined electromagnetic waves belonging to a hypothetical medium called ether, and Michelson was possibly skeptical about this idea when he wrote: "ASSUMING then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, WOULD depend on the direction in which it travels" [my emphases].

I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space. Likewise I deliberately use the letter c for the constant velocity of light as for the constant velocity of sound although c originally stood for celeritas not for constant re medium.

The question how do the single elements of the world depend on each other via empty space challenged e.g. Guericke to perform utterly important experiments. In contrast to Michelson, v. Guericke was not an agnostic. Your naive style of reasoning would not allow you to trust in the theory of electromagnetic fields.

My file "Michelson's Still Illusory Expectation" tries to show that the reasoning behind Michelson's experiment was still incomplete after Michelson and Morley took the objection by Potier in account.

Eckard

Eckard

"I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space."

So what is the reference against which the comparison to establish difference (in this case speed) is being made, it has to be something. And whatever these entities are, a distinction is always made between 'ether' and 'light'. Also, what is "empty space"? My "naive reasoning" is just analysing phenomena at the generic level. For example, light is a specific physical entity and it moves.

Paul

Eckard

"Be cautious with the notion nothing. Empty space "exists"

Really? So, if it 'exists', what is it? Noting, somewhat obviously, that if it exists, it is therefore something, not nothing.

My original point being, apart from the fact that nothing cannot exist, it is impossible to reference to nothing, and any measurement involves a comparison (reference) to identify difference and must be made wrt something. And indeed, that something must remain the reference (or a factoring effected, which is the same thing) for various measurements to be comparable.

Your point about zero is irrelevant. That is a representational device, it is not being stated that zero exists. What is being stated is that there are none of something specific in a specified circumstance.

"Consider empty space like a white sheet of paper. Once you have chosen two points on this empty space, you have made it a frame of reference where any other point is located."

This is not correct either. As I have said before, when considering spatial relationship, the reference is a conceptual spatial matrix that is 'imposed' on physical reality. Then at any given point in time, any given physical entity can be 'mapped' onto it. Indeed, its spatial footprint is the spatial points 'occupied' at that given time. But to effect this, something, at that given time, has to be chosen as the spatial reference, in order to 'fix' the spatial grid. It cannot just 'float' about.

Think about it, when you say something is here, and something else is over there, what are you actually saying.

Paul