Eckard

The near-far field transition zone is far more important I think than we realise. Yes you did direct me to a link to an aspect, which I thank you for as it did indeed caused me to explore it's more general application as a phenomena than I'd understood, and it's central importance to the process of implementing local c at ALL scales and both at emitter and receiver.

It was discussed in an accepted paper currently awaiting publication, resolving the anomalies remaining from the disproof of Kantor's emission theory experiment. but I expanded that part after more research, particularly of the Kerr and non linear optics effects. The antenna aspect is just a glimpse.

As another astronomer I'm familiar with Dutchman Willebrord Snellius and commonly use the original 'Snel' (as also referred in the Wiki article). I accept the double 'l' has now become more common, but not 'lack of care'. Should we 'dumb down' all spelling to common modern use and U.S. English? Perhaps I suppose.

I agree Marmet's 'n' based red shift via coupling; "It is found that in ordinary conditions, the energy loss per collision is about 10^-13 of the energy of the incoming photon." (1988) for the Doppler effect, but he was simply incomplete.

One other effect is from the lateral motion of the particles during interaction. The other is more complex involving scale expansion of space combined with amplitude reduction (sphere expansion) giving an apparent red-shift. I won't try to explain it in detail here but it also refutes acceleration of expansion.

These taken as a set (with other aspects) the 3D jigsaw puzzle of nature comes together quite perfectly! I appreciate you are one of the few helping the model with attempted falsification.

Note I also posted a reply in the string above (below Aug 19).

I look forward to your 'more tomorrow'

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #85

    It's a great essay, but I'm left with a question: Is this projection of an overbearing God archetype in the comments section just a satirical performance art meant to prove how ridiculous prejudice can be, or does the author simply not practice what he preaches?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #86

      Eckhard,

      Perhaps I'm coming off as a little too harsh, and not making myself clear in the process.

      I sincerely implore you to ignore anyone who makes comments that don't pertain to the applicability of your essay's point. For instance, some people made some inconsequential comments about the way in which you used the English language to express yourself. As a reader, I'm smart enough to gloss over those kinds of syntax "errors". Surely you're smart enough to do the same when you're reading other peoples' essays and comments right?

      Perhaps you're still not catching my drift at this point, and so perhaps I'll give you an example of what I could have done (but ultimately did not do) in my previous, hurtful comment. In order to calculate the drag force vector, you need to calculate the wind's velocity relative to the cyclist's velocity. This involves subtraction, not addition (as you imply in your essay). That is, F = (Wind - Cyclist)^2 * blahblahblach. I didn't mention this in my original comment because ***it doesn't detract from your essay's main point***, plus I'm not a math/physics wizard and I know well enough that I make errors all of the time. Wouldn't it have been extremely annoying and uncalled for if I had come out attacking you by shoving this wind/cyclist trivium in your face, especially given that you had stated in your essay that its calculation was "obvious", and even more especially so given the fact that it doesn't actually matter?

      Everyone makes mistakes, so just relax, please! You don't need to point peoples' errors out by beating them over the head. I am begging you, humbly.

      I sincerely enjoyed your essay, and I learned about a lot of new things from you and Glenn. Thank you.

        Hi S. Halayka,

        "projection of an overbearing God archetype"?? Could you please explain what you are referring to? What comments section do you mean?

        Eckard

        S. Halayka,

        Let's assume 10 m/s each for the velocities of the cyclist and the wind blowing exactly from the side. The felt by the cyclist velocity can be calculated by geometric addition as sqrt(2) times 10 m/s. This should be obvious to yo.

        What about mistakes, I have to apologize for misspelling Glenn Gomes' name. In the discussions, such errors happen perhaps to all those who intend to reveal factually relevant mistakes in so many essays.

        I hope you did not learn from Glenn Gomes what I consider questionable set-theoretic stuff. I have to risk more "one" scores if I do not hide my admittedly hurting arguments.

        Eckard

        Misspelling of my name does not matter unless I can be confused with Ekhard Preikshat.

        Peter,

        I consider our present discussion innovative, rigorous, and related to a still not yet for good settled key question. Tomorrow is over. I apologize for being too short of time for providing a convincing reply. Wave phenomena are utterly manifold in acoustics, optics, and electro-magnetics.

        You pointed me to the almost forgotten Wallace Kantor. This led me to what Ekhard Preikschat wrote on ether theory during the recent 17th annual NPA meeting. I hope, Valev, Perez, and others will join our discussion.

        Best,

        Eckard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #90

        Hi Eckard,

        I figured that you wouldn't take what I said about him seriously. My main concern is that prejudicial classification of someone based on ethnicity is frowned upon here in Canada (and downright bordering on unlawful) -- and for good reason. Perhaps he was born in Montana, and your classification was totally prejudicial and wrong. So, do you know for sure that what you said about him was true, or are you simply being prejudicial? I won't hold my breath while waiting for a logical, reasonable answer.

        Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = and the cyclist velocity is V = , then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = . Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

        Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

        Consider the case where there is no wind: W = ; V = ; R = . The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

        Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = . The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

        It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #91

        Apparently the comment system does not care for HTML-like vector notation.

        Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = (10, 0, 0) and the cyclist velocity is V = (0, 10, 0), then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = (10, -10, 0). Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

        Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

        Consider the case where there is no wind: W = (0, 0, 0); V = (0, 10, 0); R = (0, -10, 0). The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

        Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = (0, 0, 0). The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

        It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

        Blush S Halayka,

        I asked you to explain what you were referring to when you wrote "projection of an overbearing God archetype" and what comments section you meant.

        Instead you seems to quarrel about whether the cyclist feels the air blowing into his face or sucking him back.

        Each figure in my essay stands for something I consider important and I would like to defend against distrust. Didn't you get aware that I am claiming to have revealed several mainstream mistakes that are based on nothing but questionable intuition?

        I mentioned the cyclist only as an example of obviously wrong intuition, and as it seems, you understood it.

        Be sure when I wrote glenn or Glen instead of Glenn, this was not deliberately. Sometimes you will find such typos of mine even mutilating my own first name. Moreover, my English is shaky because English is not my mother tongue. I hope you may nonetheless understand my arguments and you will not judge them before you frankly uttered your objections and gave me the opportunity for a reply.

        Eckard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #93

        OK Eckard let us discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment (and related problems) here. I wrote (on Sascha Vongehr's thread):

        "If the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct, the only alternative to special relativity is Newton's emission theory."

        You replied: "Non sequitur. Maybe, the expectation of a non-null result was wrong."

        Now we need some common ground for the discussion. Do you agree that, in 1887, the emission theory was the only EXISTING theory able to explain the null result of the experiment?

        I think we need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period before moving to your favorite and relatively recent exotic interpretations of the experiment (Marmet, Shtyrkov etc.).

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

          Pentcho, According to sources like Jammer, Stachel, and Phipps, Maxwell, who died already in 1879, was skeptical about Michelson's attempt to measure the velocity of earth re aether. Nonetheless, Maxwell's equations clearly described waves, and Hertz managed to exploit this approach.

          Well, Newton in contrast to Huygens had already imagined light as particles. Einstein in 1905 only reinvented that wheel.

          However, as far as I know, the word emission theory was first used as to describe unsuccessful attempts by the early Einstein and later Ritz to cope with the problem that Maxwell's equation are not exactly Galilei invariant unless - as argued by Jammer - one drops Faraday's induction term. In this sense, a developed emission theory never existed. Hertz "Electric Waves" 1892 already tried to obey the interpretation of the MMX null result of 1887. You certainly know that Michelson in 1887 did not mention a trifle: When he in 1881 reported an earlier experiment, he assumed an outcome twice as large that they expected in 1887. The corrected expectation was suggested by Potier and then elaborated by Lorentz. Since then it was perhaps very rarely questioned for many decades.

          I agree with Marmet on that much effort was spend in order to disprove the null result while almost no attention was devoted to the possibility that the expectation of something else was unrealistic. Until now, the defender of SR tend to confirm SR by only demonstrating that emission theory is untenable.

          I see at least four views:

          - SR with Lorentz covariance, block time, length contraction, relativity of time

          - emission theories including extinction theory (Dowdye)

          - neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity (e.g. Selleri, van Flandern)

          - Hertzians: preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, c refers to space

          Presumably they are mutually excluding each other. Then at best one out of them can be correct.

          Eckard

          • [deleted]

          • Post #95

          Eckard,

          In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c). By advancing, ad hoc, his length contraction hypothesis, Lorentz made the experiment confirm c'=c and refute c'=c+v.

          Please just confirm or reject the above statement (yes or no). We do need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period.

          Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

          No Pentcho,

          UNEQUIVOCAL was merely a discrepancy between an already corrected expectation and the outcome of measurement. This seemed to contradict to the existence of an aether.

          You are correct in that those physicist who accepted this interpretation could either abandon the aether and consider light as particles or try and somehow rescue the aether as did Lorentz.

          The speed with which a sound wave propagates in the medium air is independent of the speed of the emitter re medium.

          Eckard

          • [deleted]

          • Post #97

          Eckard,

          I don't like the "shut up and calculate" principle but in this case it is relevant. The wrong expectations of Michelson and Morley were based on calculations which can be found in today's textbooks. In these calculations one should simply replace c with c+v or c-v and the null result follows, in accordance with the experiment.

          The procedure is tedious but if you wish we could perform it.

          Pentcho

            Pentcho,

            Why didn't you demonstrate in your essay that the expectation of Michelson was wrong?

            Could you please use the option to provide a link to a file or even a publication of you or someone else that explains your suggestion in detail?

            At first, we should specify at least one textbook you are referring to. Perhaps it would even better to refer to something easily available online, for instance in Wikipedia. Prior to calculation the explanation you are promising should unequivocally tell us what is meant with c and what with v.

            Eckard

            • [deleted]

            • Post #99

            Eckard,

            Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

            http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

            "Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

            Then the authors makes the wrong conclusion ("The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame") but I hope you will not be misled. One can use the same calculation but assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

            The correct conclusion is: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

            Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

            Dear Frank,

            Admittedly, I did not yet reply to your post because I simply failed to understand how it relates to my essay. I had already tried in vain to understand your IEEE paper before you pointed me to it. Maybe, the referees had also problems to grasp immediately what you intended to say.

            Aren't you also an EE? I learned always to reveal and criticize the state of the art before claiming the solution of a problem. Your Figs. confused me perhaps due to lacking knowledge of mine. Anticipate that your reader may need helpful explanations.

            If I recall correctly, you once experienced rejection because you didn't obey SR. This is not uncommon. If you are still convinced to be correct, I encourage you to tell us the problem.

            With sympathy,

            Eckard

            Pentcho,

            "In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2)."

            Wouldn't this calculation also apply for Feist's measurement? The values he presented in his Figure 7 do not confirm this calculation. That's why my essay called his experiment stunning. I looked for a plausible possibility to explain the undeniable and easily reproducible result of Feist's experiment. My reasoning is quite simple and hopefully understandable from my Fig. 5: The signal was emitted into the air with high directivity. It propagates within it with c. If the air was at rest, it would reach the position R_0 at the reflector after a timespan d/c. While the motion of air does not change this duration, the signal has meanwhile been shifted sidewards to the position R_2 by dv/c. The reflected from there highly directive component of the signal cannot return to the emitter E because it gets further shifted to the right and will arrive after once again d/c outside E. The emitter E can only see a diffusely reflected from R_2 part of the signal that compensates for the rightward shift during return. Seen from E it seems to come from a fictitious position R_2. Hence the length of return path R_2 to E amounts d sqrt(1+4v^2/c^2), and the total time T_2 of travel from E to R_2 and back to E (T_2= 2 + 4v^2/c^2) agrees well with the apparently dilated time alias contracted length in the direction of motion [T_1=d/(c-v)+d/(c+v)].

            In my essay I wrote v/c=r with roughly r=0.1 in Feist's measurement. Motion of earth with about 30km/s re ether corresponds to about 30/300 000 = 0.0001.

            With the expectation by Potier/Lorentz/Michelson, Feist should have measured cT_2/d = 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 plus-minus 0.0005.

            Eckard

            Dear Frank,

            "Everyone has the impression that time ... has to be defined locally"??? Perhaps an estimated very few millions of people are not obliged to believe in the relativity of time. Not just Phipps Jr. reinstalled simultaneity. I am sorry, I still did not understand your contribution to that issue.

            Peter Jackson quoted in his essay: "A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away; (2005. p.6) 14

            [14] Kaplan, H.G., 2005. The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models. USNO. Circ. No. 179.

            http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/Circular_179.pdf"

            Eckard

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

            See me pretty helpless looking for something that could explain to an old EE like me which of the models of particles and waves may be already the correct ones. I am simply not in position to trust in presumably rather premature intuitions. I naively guess that particles are not at all directly observable. Aren't only their effects evident?

            While I still like the idea that photons like phonons are merely fictions, neither Duda nor someone else seems to already offer mature models of elementary waves. To my layman-knowledge, solitons are not necessarily elementary waves but just stable during propagation solutions of differential equations. Thank you nonetheless for your highly appreciated effort to explain me a lot.

            Best,

            Eckard