Alternative Models of Reality

Hi Tom,

RE: "Whose clock then should be used to determine the *universal* value of light velocity?"

Answer: Everyone's. There is no absolute time.

By which you imply EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE will measure the same time for light to traverse one metre? That cannot be, considering that the gravitational field must have influence on the value we have obtained here, no matter how infinitesimal that effect may be. On planet X, the time taken for light to traverse one metre ruler will be different due to their different gravitational field strength. This signal delay attributed principally to GR is a reported observation whatever other phenomena may be contributory.

The "mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation that reconciles the universality of physical laws" will be relevant ONLY if the civilization on planet X are involved in our measurement process and we are also involved in theirs. That is they are looking at our clock and our metre ruler and we are looking at theirs. No, that is not the case! They are measuring their value of c, writing it down on a paper and coming later to a scientific conference on the moon to compare notes with us, the earth delegates attending. As their "free space" is different from ours, there is to be expected a variation in their value from that of ours. Free space is a theoretical ideal not met by our terrestrial value 299792458m/s. And our claimed free space certainly differs from that of planet X. Unless, you do not share the belief that gravitational or electromagnetic fields influence the values measured in vacuo for light transit time (as GR predicts), permitivity and permeability (as Maxwell's theory predicts).

For us to agree at the lunar conference on a universal free space value for c, each delegation must deduct whatever contribution the gravitational and electromagnetic fields of their respective planets must have contributed to the value they are bringing to the conference!

So, if James or John M don't like the idea of clocks, whose 'free space' or whose 'energy in a vacuum' will be used to determine the universal value of light velocity?.

Regards,

Akinbo

*It's little things like this that can cause wars between planetary civilizations! And planet X have more military capability than we have. Lets work for peace.

" ... By which you imply EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE will measure the same time for light to traverse one metre? That cannot be ..."

Sure it can. If it weren't we wouldn't have any idea what "metre" means. If you think gravity affects the speed of light, try calculating the effect and tell me what you come up with.

Tom

Akinbo,

I don't have a problem with clocks, or time in general. I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Temporal sequence, as narrative and causal logic, is the basis of human civilization. I'm just making the argument that it's an effect of our point of perspective to see it as the present moving past to future, rather than a more generalized condition of changing configuration turning future into past.

We still see the sun as moving across the sky from east to west, even though we understand it is due to the earth rotating west to east.

If the clock had evolved in the southern hemisphere, the hand would go the other direction. It is a matter of the evolution of consciousness.

Regards,

John M

I'll leave you all to talk among yourselves. You obviously aren't going to read the literature, so continue making up stuff that makes sense to you.

Tom

Tom,

If nothing affects the rate at which light traverses space, doesn't that refute the premise of an expanding universe, in which space itself is supposed to expand?

Regards, John M

Akinbo,

Nice binary system. But we must define 'absolute' as there are always Bayesian/ Godel (iPAD) distributions between 0 and 1! There's ignored 'wiggle room which I'll show, by my definitions, consistent with SR's postulates but not other assumptions.

Absolute Space; A cosmic medium with a single 'state of motion' for defining speed.

Absolute Time; All Identical clocks read alike to observers at rest in the clock frame.

Absolute speed c; Max local propagation speed with respect to all inertial systems, as SR's postulates.

Now ostensibly 0,1,1 (so no absolute space) may seem to accord with the common SR interpretation which leads to inconsistency with observations and paradoxes. I'll show how 0,1,1, with slightly different assumptions removes those inconsistencies.

0, No Absolute space, but local background inertial systems (media) which can move relatively with respect to each other, not 'thought of' as bounded but mutually exclusive (as Pauli's fermions). We then have a 'toy' model of discrete fields (thus DFM) bounded by fermions (pairs) modulating c by scattering all EM fluctuations/ 'photons' locally to c.

1, Absolute Time. However, Clocks are simply emitters emitting EM signals. Once emitted those signals may be Doppler shifted by the frame change process above, precisely as we find between media (just takes further when diffuse). We then have 'apparent (co-ordinate) time' which is observer dependent due to time and motion.

1, Absolute speed. All local propagation speed is c (or of course c/n in dense media). But here we need to apply a bit more intellect than we have been; The inescapable conclusion of the above is that all local speeds c are different, but unobservable. All observers at rest in all frames will then only find propagation speed c. Einsteins postulates ('SR') is then spot on. c is absolute everywhere, but of course 'everywhere' is moving! Think about it; How on Earth (lol) would any electron or proton know to re-emit light at any other speed than c??

From where I sit, though an intellectually challenge, it seems only the deeply indoctrinated can deny the above as both logical, consistent and corresponding with findings (all the evidence is stacked up in a mountainous pile!)

The Lorentz factor is simply the non-linear 'power curve' as Doppler blue-shifted wavelength approaches gamma. It may also be described as the DFM Optical Breakdown mode at max plasma density (defined). Note that atomic scattering is a real quantum mechanism complete with uncertainty, so SR is derived direct from a QM, if both slightly better defined to be unified. Note that plasma is a ~zero 'EM profile' (dark) quantization of gravitational potential (GR) which give a slight 'JM rotation' of optical axis (space-time 'curvature') including kinetically (from charge asymmetry) so finally recovering Snell's Law from kinetic reverse refraction and Maxwell's field transition, all as in the essays and papers.

So clocks and gravity may indeed be a bit of a 2nd order distraction as Tom suggests. The proposition is then SR's O,1,1, but with 'The Intelligent Bit' between also giving Copenhagen-like QM (moving observer lenses localise c). Could anyone help to falsify that ontology? ('Scientifically' would be good Tom. I've agreed it varies from current assumptions).

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear Akinbo,

The meaning of your reference to my 'dislike' of clocks is not at all clear to me:

"... So, if James or John M don't like the idea of clocks, whose 'free space' or whose 'energy in a vacuum' will be used to determine the universal value of light velocity?. ..."

Here is what I think:

The only universal value of the speed of light is when it is measured locally. It always measures locally as C. Other than that, light speed varies all over the place and it varies widely. Now, in brevity, I will mention that there is only one universally constant value, That value is the time required for light to traverse the radius of the hydrogen atom. That radius is a local constant and is given by the equation h=k(delta x).

Divide Planck's constant by Boltzmann's constant and you have the magnitude 4.8x10^-11. The reason that the units do not appear to match is that the units must be corrected first by eliminating the indefinable status of kilograms. No units other than the two units of empirical evidence can be indefinable.

The two units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds. Indefinable units are units that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. The units of empirical evidence are naturally indefinable. They are the first units. There are no units before them.

When the units of mass are corrected by defining them, the units of Planck's constant are meter*seconds, and, the units of Boltzmann's constant are seconds. Both have clear physical meanings.

All other units are not empirical units. All of them follow after the introduction of the units of empirical evidence. All of them must be defined in terms of the pre-existing units of meters and seconds. This corrective act removes theory from the equations of physics. Theory must be able to invent its own indefinable units in order to exist.

When those artificial theoretical indefinable units are done away with, the equations of physics are returned to their natural empirical condition. I do not assume that this is convincing to you. It does report what I have found to be the case. It all starts with fixing f=ma. The units of mass are made definable. All other corrections follow from this first correction. Even the correction of units of degrees follows from correcting the units of mass.

This is what my work is about. I reproduce the equations of fundamental physics into their natural empirical forms. Their natural interpretations follow easily. I have done the work to support what I say and have written about it extensively. Perhaps this compressed information will help you to know the kinds of things I say and why I say them. Thank you for your message.

James Putnam

Dear Tom, John, James, Peter and all,

Going through the exchanges on this thread, will you be surprised if the delegates from planet X that we will be meeting in '2020' at the Lunar conference don't label us as lunatics? If we cant agree on how to measure light velocity, write down its value and bring to the conference what are we making of the legacies handed down to us by Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein?

For example, how can we say 'the speed of light has a universal value and in the same breadth say light speed varies all over the place and it varies widely', how can we 'continue making up stuff that makes sense only to us on earth and yet be using words like universal'. If we don't have an answer, it is humble to say so. Perhaps, if there is someone in the house expert on relativity matters we should consult him or her instead of misquoting Einstein. Tom has quoted one thing from the "holy book" and Peter has rightly countered with something opposite from the same book!

Tom, you can check up what is called the Shapiro delay, if you want to know how gravity slows down light's transit time over a metre distance. So, if a metre ruler here is a metre ruler on Planet X, (as Einstein said in the paper Tom linked) and you have a light source and detector-timer at one end and a mirror at the other end, calculating light speed in earth's 'free space' is not rocket science. What is ego-centric is wanting to impose your local value on the delegates from Planet X, whose 'free space vacuum' will be under a different gravitational and electromagnetic field influence. To avoid discord, it is either we honestly present our value of 299792458m/s, with the proviso that we have not been able to correct for the presence of our earth's gravitational and E-M field and request for assistance from them if they have the technology and mathematics to remove this background influence on our value. With this we can return from the conference, with a light velocity value in free space vacuo, which we can confidently term a universal constant.

Regards all,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I must agree with Tom and James. Minor variations in mechanical processes don't change 'time'. If you put various clocks in a tub of treacle, a centrifuge or into freefall (zeroG) you'll change their actions and readings but NOT the rate of 'time' itself! You're barking up the wrong tree when the big answer's before your eyes.

If you then consider their "emissions", the artifact evidence of the equally spaced fluctuations, they too can be changed, by motion of and wrt the propagating medium, because the are "compressible" (they Doppler shift as they change speed one by one). They will then also LOOK different, as wavelength and frequency have changed, (observer dependency) but they too are NOT 'time' itself!

This is what you too have missed Tom. Think more slowly and carefully; If time dilation and contraction are reduced to Doppler shift of the artifacts alone, (not of 'time' itself or rigid objects), then all the apparent paradox removes itself from SR and ALL the anomalies resolve, including the 'apparent' c+v now confirmed at

Peter,

Tom doesnt buy the idea of absolute time and Einstein doesnt either, so the rate of time can be different from place to place. Let me put this again point blank. If the earth's gravitational and electromagnetic fields change, as it will before 2020, from what we know of Maxwell's laws and from GR, will we still be recording 299792458m/s as the value of light velocity in vacuo?

Akinbo

"If the earth's gravitational and electromagnetic fields change, as it will before 2020, from what we know of Maxwell's laws and from GR, will we still be recording 299792458m/s as the value of light velocity in vacuo?"

Excellent question, Akinbo. Your unspoken assumption, however, is that the gravity field and the EM field interact. Unification of those fields was Einstein's failed quest.

Conventional wisdom today tells us that even though EM and gravity fields both propagate to infinity, there is no local interaction between them. If there were, we could not be sure that the principle of uniformity (i.e., the principle that physical laws do not vary over the universe) is true.

If instruments in the future become sensitive enough to measure light speed to many more digits than is now possible -- one could still not rationally correlate the change in gravity and EM fields in that future, compared to now, to a change in light speed. Correlation is not causation.

It is quite possible that EM and gravity fields interact in subtle ways that we are not aware of -- but to make that conjecture scientific, one must have a workable theory of the unified field. That's where the predictions and experiments and refined measurements come into play.

Best,

Tom

If a gravity field bends an electromagnetic wave is this not an interaction?

Peter, seems to know a lot about electrical properties, so he should be able to tell us how the change in the earth's magnetic field will affect the permittivity and permeability of our "free space". And in turn if this will or will not affect our value 299792458m/s.

Without any considerations of unification, gravity alone can slow down light transit time to varying degrees depending on the gravitational field strength. Introduce yourself to this Shapiro delay effect here. Maybe my posers above on how we are to relate with planet X delegates will become clearer.

Regards,

Akinbo

" ... If time dilation and contraction are reduced to Doppler shift ..."

Peter, non-relativstic Doppler shift has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation and length contraction in special relativity. There is no "c v" at relativistic speeds and distances.

Tom

Akinbo,

The Shapiro test refers to general relativity. Your questions about speed of light refer to special relativity.

Tom

"If a gravity field bends an electromagnetic wave is this not an interaction?"

No. Remember what I said about the relation between straight line motion and curvilinear motion in special relativity? The apparent bending of a light beam (gravitational lensing) does not imply that gravity is bending the beam. The beam is merely following a path in curved spacetime, as if the line were straight. In general relativity, this curved path is identical to what we call gravity.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Measurements of the value of light velocity and the Michelson-Morley findings which form the foundation for Special relativity were carried out not in any outer space vacuum free of fields but in the laboratory under the direct supervision of General relativity as it applies to earth.

Akinbo

No, Akinbo. You still have to understand the difference between general relativity and special relativity.

The gravity field influence of general relativity is a classical proposition. The propagation of light in a vacuum is a quantum proposition. Don't confuse them -- if you do, you won't understand why c is constant.

Tom

"..how can we say 'the speed of light has a universal value and in the same breadth say light speed varies all over the place and it varies widely',

Akinbo quoted from my message. His qualification "... how can we 'continue making up stuff that makes sense only to us on earth and yet be using words like universal'. ..." is again unclear to me as to its meaning. If his point is that time varies all over the place and varies widely makes sense on the Earth or off the Earth then I suggest that is a theoretical belief. The Universal constant value that I described is the magnitude of electric charge. That magnitude is a universal constant. What I am claiming is that that universal constant is the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. The short equations I provided involve well established constants. I suggest further that there was and remains no empirical justification for the indefinable units of kilograms and degrees. They are inventions of theorists. Their inclusion in the equations of physics is the main reason for the continued existence of theory. The cost of not repairing the equations of physics by properly defining both properties and their units based upon guidance from empirical evidence is: Fundamental unity was lost right from the beginning with f=ma. All of the theoretical flights of fancy that involve untestable properties result from the ongoing futile efforts to regain unity. Unity can be regained immediately by fixing f=ma.

I expect that the ongoing conversation is not in further need of my input. Its direction will understandably rely upon theoretical physics.

James Putnam

Tom,

"non-relativstic Doppler shift has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation and length contraction".

Who suggested 'non-relativ(i)stic'? Certainly not I! The model has exposed the mechanism for the LT which applies to all Doppler shifts. The assumption you repeat is where I've identified we've gone wrong and physics has become incoherent and inconsistent.

Nature is unified. It's only our understanding that isn't. All nature has 'something to do with' all other nature. Only unsupported theory like the one you quote above obfucates clarity.

Akinbo points out time is 'not absolute in SR', but of course it is in all rest frames. Surely only a blind man could miss that it is only the emitted signals, after emission, whose arrival is 'observer (frame) dependent'. Tell me how they could possibly NOT be! (Q1).

So all OBSERVED time signal rates are of course observer frame dependant. Yet all propagation speed remains c. All precisely as Einstein's SR. Just not exactly the 'SR' tampered with by the well meaning trying to understand the mechanisms.

Now please also tell me in your mind exactly WHAT observations of nature the above rationalisation does not entirely resolve. (Q2).

The credibility of your view is still sliding as you've avoided the previous questions, so I hope you can recover some now.

Peter

P.S. Akinbo,

In a good vacuum or plasma (n=1) and with identical clocks the conference would find all is near enough the same. While toying with red herrings the massive elephant-in-the-room still towers over us hiding the light. Can you also answer the above?