Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing

Hi Jason

We must keep trying. You said;

"First, it sounds like you are challenging the Michelson-Morley experiment. .. frame dragging would explain the Michelson-Morely result which wrongfully struck down the aether theory. Stuff about normal fine structure of electrons; what does that do? Blue shift occurs and then everything is ok."

It agrees with M&M, as did Stokes 'Ether Drag' (Michelson wrote to Bell specifically saying that), but Lodge screwed Stokes by making a relativistic frame mistake in his 1893 paper allowing in the Lorentz nonsense. Here's the paper finally posted; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Electron 'Fine Structure' Constant is 1/137th of all mass at rest, our outer 'boundary' layer. No-one knows why, or what it does.

But First; To simplify, We must first define the problem we're addressing. It's the problem M&M and all had in the 17-1800's, which SR was dreampt up to solve.;; How come we always measure light at exactly 'c' no matter how fast and which way we're moving? and, how come it crosses a given distance of space in the same time no matter how fast and which way the emitter is moving??

Lorentz and SR's solution left loads of paradoxes and won't unify with QM. There's a logical answer that's so simple we can't even see it;

The fine structure of electrons around mass (including ourselves, our planet, etc) convert it to our own local 'c' (Doppler shifting it accordingly) when it meets us.

To achieve this electrons simply do what we know they do; Absorb incoming photons (at whatever relative rate they arrive at) and send them on, into the main mass, at the electrons local 'c'. They don't give a damn how rapidly they arrived, their oscillations send them on their way at 'c' whatever!

Ergo, our main mass will always receive light at 'c', whatever speed it's crossed space at wrt us!

This also works with pure wave signal energy, where extra oscillating particles are propagated locally, as Huygens Priciple, to do the FM speed conversion job.

Background fields are allowed again, which then also explains why it goes at 'c' through space without regard to the speed of the emitter.

The dense clouds of virtual photons only exist at the boundaries between these 'infinitely many' local spaces, or 'inertial fields'. The faster the relative speed the thicker the cloud, just like in the LHC.

If you still don't see it, imagine yourself back at Junior school and read it again, closing your eyes and thinking for 2 minutes between each sentence.

This would only change the whole basis of physics forever a bit.

Best of Luck.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I'm still reading the article and trying to absorb what you're saying. I am certain that we do disagree. I am not certain if it is because one of us is wrong, or more likely, we are looking at the same thing from different points of view.

First off, I believe that the velocity of light, c, is an absolute. I believe that the phase velocity, given below,

[math]c = \frac{\omega}{\vec{k}} = \omega \lambda[/math]

is built into the photon in such a way that everything obeys this equation. The wavelength and frequency can change in response to differences in velocity, potential energy, or gravity, but that this equation is even more fundamental than the distance from Boston to LA.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the fast approach towards the sun, at 0.5c will cause the photons to arrive at the detector at 1.5c. I believe that the photons will tell the electrons,

"shut up electron! just calculate the frequency and lambda. There is no 1.5c. You got that! SLAP!!!"

Then the photon will deride the electron about how his ruler and stopwatch don't count for horse hockey.

Gotta go to work. What do you think?

Hi Jason

Even simpler than that.

If the electrons complain when the photons arrive at a rate of 1.5 instead of 1 per 'c' the photons will say; "just get on with it, we're staying at 'c' and not changing our formula, so just emit us into your mass closer together,"

So the electrons do just that, preserving 'c' and the total energy, but by blue shifting the light (emitting them at a faster rate but at 'c').

But you've still missed the $64m point. The mass itself (which the fine structure boundary electrons belong to) then always absorbs the signal at 'c'.

i.e. Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one.

This more simply solves the problem SR was dreamed up to solve!!!! It means we don't need Lorentz- FitzGerald contraction etc etc. and all the paradoxes of SR.!! But the SR postulates themselves are still correct, andit unifies them with Quantum Physics. This is what has been called the Holy Grail of physics.

Please please tell me you can think this through!

Peter

Hi Peter,

Ok, so maybe the photon doesn't slap the electron into obedience. Nevertheless, the electron has to reconcile frequency and wavelength so that they come out to c. This much is absolute.

"Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one." How are we to know that the velocity is anything but c?

I hate to use the word, conspiracy. But there is a "Photon Conspiracy" that forces everything and everyone who observes it to travel at ... the speed of light, c. That is why logic and math don't give you the right answer.

In response to your comment about the Loretnz Fitgerald contractions, I pulled this sentence from Wikipedia. "It reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events."

I have to reaffirm that I do believe that clocks can run at different rates for different inertial frames. As for time ordering of events, if there is a violation, there is still no way to get time travel or to kill grandpa before your born.

Jason

"Light changes speed between all inertial frames (anything in relative motion) to retain your formulae and 'c' locally within each one." How are we to know that the velocity is anything but c?

You still haven't got it, ..Dammit, I don't believe it! The velocity is NOT "anything but 'c'" But it is only always 'c' because it changes speed between frames to be so!

If a light pulse goes through a spacecraft or a moving bus from the back to the front, it will do so at 'c' wrt the spacecraft or bus. Not only do our instruments tell us that but when we time it over the known length of the bus it's velocity is definitely 'c' with respect to the bus.

When it goes through the front windscreen and out, into the different 'background' inertial frame, we carry out the same excercise. We find it doing 'c' wrt the pavement (or the sun if the spacecraft is out of orbit and in the Heliosphere), NOT 'c' wrt the spacecraft or bus any more. Sure it's Doppler shifted, but it's doing 'c' locally.

J; "That is why logic and math don't give you the right answer".

But logic and math CAN solve it! If you represent intelligent life. The light must change speed when it moves between frames, through the windscreen of the bus, from 'c' wrt the bus to 'c' wrt the pavement.

What does light do when it goes from air to glass?

Correct, it slows down and Doppler shifts. What does it do when it goes from glass to air? Correct, it Doppler shifst again and speeds up to 'c' wrt the air. But 'c' wrt THAT PARTICULAR LOCAL bit of air it's moved into, NOT the same 'c' as the bit of air moving with the bus.

When we check it's wavelength in the air ourside the bus we find it is still Doppler shifted a little to the blue. How do you think it's done that? - because it didn't give a flying ***** what the bus was doing once it was out through the windscreen. And it was going to insist on doing 'c' wrt the planet earth (no matter what speed and direction the planet is doing wrt the sun).

There are "infinitley many 'spaces' in relative motion" and light does 'c' through and wrt each, including every bus on the planet!

That means we'll always measure light at 'c' anywhere, without needing contraction, dilation and paradoxes! It's a revolution of simple comprehension.

An 8 year old child can understand the logic, but can an adult??

Peter

Hi Peter,

I didn't expect to piss you off; but it's ok. Now we are getting to the meat of the issue.

P: "An 8 year old child can understand the logic, but can an adult??"

I'm afraid that your assumption that the universe behaves logically is the problem. The universe is being driven and implemented by something whose properties are absolute. I believe this to be the virtual photon. The photon (virtual/real) is what is implementating space time. The photon has certain properties including:

1. it sets the flow rate of time of atomic clocks;

2. it fundamentally and absolutely travels at c;

3. it sets the laws of physics via the fine structure constant;

4. it defines the ruler and the clock;

5. it defines our 3D space; time as a 4th dimension is owed to the ubiquitous nature of virtual photons continuously manifesting the universe.

P: "But logic and math CAN solve it! If you represent intelligent life. The light must change speed when it moves between frames, through the windscreen of the bus, from 'c' wrt the bus to 'c' wrt the pavement."

Intelligent life eventually has to accept dualities and contradictions that make no sense. Particle-wave duality is a fundamental. The absolute speed of light is as well.

As a side note, there is more than one universe. The speed of light will not keep us from exploring the cosmos. In fact, I figured out how Sub Space radio works; that is, real-time communication across large distances.

When two electrons are quantumly entangled, there is a photon between them. That photon will span the distance, even if that distance gets very long. As such, it will have a wavelength equal to the distance of separation. That photon will transmit vibrations instantanesouly across it, like a violin or a superstring. If quantum entanglement remaines stable for one node, then the upper frequency that is possible is f_max = c/lamda. This frequency sets the bandwidth for instantanesous transmission of informaiton.

Dear Peter,

I hope you're not too angry with me. But doesn't it make sense that physics should be founded upon something absolute? And like I said, just because our universe is build upon solid absolutes, that doesn't mean that there are no coexisting universes with more favorable physics.

Hmmm

I'm not at all angry Jason, just very disappointed, and perplexed at how difficult it seems to see a very simple but new logic staring you in the face. I need to find out how to get it across so your interest is very helpful. I was simply telling the truth about my 8yr old nephew, which indicates the problem is to do with conditioning and preconceptions. - In this case assuming an absolute can only mean one thing, when in fact the assumption needs examining.

Let me try building it up bit by bit in small building blocks.

Envisage yourself standing on a planet going round a nearby sun blasting out EM energy waves in the visible range (should be easy).

You're observing 2 dense blocks of glass. The suns light waves approach and enter them. They change speed, as they do when the enter glass, from 186,200miles/sec to say 120,000m/s. We have light speed meters embedded in the glass and we also time it through the blocks, and they both agree.

They then exit the other side of the blocks, and accelerate straight back up to 186,200 again, and back to their original wavelength. All normal physics, as always observed, Do you have any problem with that at all? If not please hold it in mind.

Right. The blocks of glass is put on a rocket sled, and off they go, very quickly, in opposite directions.

Question; Would the speed of the light going through them change? i.e. would the instruments within them read it differently, or time taken to go through them, change?

or, to put it another way, Does the speed of light through a medium change if it's relative speed with something else changes?

As you know very well, the answer is NO. All our observation confirms that, so i use it an an axiom, as in SR. (But please let me know if you disagree - and if so why!).

So our 'Absolute' is indeed 'c',

But now consider the other SR axiom; In 2 reference frames in relative motion (say in each block of glass), the laws of physics are the same. This confirms light always does 'c' locally.

This is where our brains fail us. We assume its the universe not behaving logically, it's some kind of voodoo, and don't bother to look further. Are you prepared to look for a moment? just in case?

Look closer at Huygens-Fresnel principle, Proven mainstram photonics. When waves hit a new medium, moving or not, they propagate new oscillators, which send on new waves through the new medium. This can actually be considered as the same thing as the approaching photons being absorbed by the electrons of the new medium and new photons emitted through the new medium.

Question 2; What speed do you think those waves/photons will do with respect to the new medium (frame).

Question 3; So what apparent relative speed will they now be doing if they could be viewed from and with respect to the old medium?

With respect, Please this time try to stick to the actual cases and answer the questions, not go off on an avoiding tangent!

Many thanks

Peter

Hi Peter,

Somewhere long ago, I picked up a funny little expression: "I will play your silly little game". Let's play!

P:"All normal physics, as always observed, Do you have any problem with that at all?" I'm with you so far.

Question 1:I would think that glass/air/etc., appears to slow light down merely because it just takes light longer to get through the medium. Light still travels at velocity c, but there are absorptions/emissions/path deviations that take time. Every electron in glass sees the electron move at velocity c. It just sees the light moving through many obstacles. Incidentally, the electron may have no clue that it's on a spaceship traveling at .9c into the flow of light; the electron has no idea that the pretty blue light it's seeing is actually blue-shifted light.

Question 2:

The electrons of the block moving towards the light (c+v), see the blue shifted light traveling at c.

The electrons of the block moving away from the light (c-v), see red-shifted light traveling at c.

Question 3: I want to follow your question; if I misunderstand, please rephrase the question. By old medium, I think you mean with respect to the third block of glass that didn't get to go for a ride? If somehow the two rocket sleds could both come around for a pass where I could watch the light as it passes through the blocks, I would see one block fly past me at .9c, then the other block at .9c in the other direction. Both blocks would be length contracted, (less thick then my third reference block sitting next to me). The atomic clock on each block would be slower as well (time dilated).

P:"So what apparent relative speed will they now be doing if they could be viewed from and with respect to the old medium?" .9c in each direction (towards and away) from the oncoming sunlight. But I don't think that's the answer you wanted.

If the blocks happen to give off any light, that I can see, as they pass by, it will be un-shifted light traveling at c. I'll need to bounce the light off of an angled mirror that I'm holding in each hand. That won't change the velocity or the frequency. It will just allow me to see what the glass is putting out.

I'm just an observer with electrons in my eyes; those electrons can receive information from photons. The photons tell me what I see.

What should I look for to tell me how fast the light is moving through the glass blocks?

Hi Peter,

Actually, there is a way to figure out how long it takes light to move through the blocks of glass. If we know the glass' thickness, L = 1 meter, we can set up sensors that will detect entrance and exit of an embedded signal. The sensors will emit photon bursts (maybe just LED's that light up). But then I have to dig up my QM/SR book to figure out how to calculate it.

Hi Jason. We're getting there!

"Question 2:

The electrons of the block moving towards the light (c+v), see the blue shifted light traveling at c.

The electrons of the block moving away from the light (c-v), see red-shifted light traveling at c."

Correct of course, within each local and co-moving inertial frame light does 'c'. It really doesn't give a damn what goes on anywhere else!

Q3. I'll re phrase it, as your question; "What should I look for to tell me how fast the light is moving through the glass blocks?"

Let's say the moving blocks are each doing 0.1c in opposite directions, and it's just 'pulses' of light, going through the middle of both, from your right.

SR does indeed say the blocks would contract, which is where all the paradox arises from, and why SR can't be unified with QM. What if we found a Quantum mechanism to unify them at last, and also remove the need for contraction?

It wouldn't conflict with constancy of light speed (CSL) if you, sitting on the glass block, saw the RATE OF CHANGE OF POSITION of the pulse in the block gong from right to left (WITH the light) as apparently more than 'c'. You know it's only doing 'c' locally, and the photons informing you of the apparent changes of position of the pulse, are arriving at your eye at 'c'. Waht's the problem?!!

This is exactly what Hubble sees at M87 etc, gas jets apparently doing 6 x c!

Now look up the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorum and the Huygens-Fresnel Principle. In optics we know exactly what happens when light meets a new medium. New particles (photon oscillators) are propagated when the waves hit the fine structure of new (and/or co-moving) medium. These send out new waves at a new speed, 'c' with respect to the new medium. (or if you prefer, the electrons emit the new photons at the new/changed speed 'c')

So the light waves cross space exactly as we measure with time and distance, at velocity 'c', but if they meet us rushing towards them, as soon as they meet the first 'fine structure' oscillators of our eye they are absorbed and re-emitted, changing their speed to our own personal local 'c'. Exactly the same as when they enter any new medium! (including the lense of a light speed measuring instrument). when the head on into the instrument - '0h,! well I never! they're doing 'c' no matter which way I move!'

So; Light changes speed to 'c' at the outer boundary 'cloud' of every single particle of mass, or bunch of particles (human being, planets etc).

So, though the SR postulates are correct, we don't need all the paradoxical contraction rubbish, and have the quantum connection!!

You may well think it's too simple to beleive. That's what Occam said! And it you think it through you'll find it can resolve almost every anomaly and paradox in physics.

Please don't tell me you still can't see that!!

(if you can't it's only because you let yourself get distracted)

good game?

Peter

Dear Peter,

I agree that the speed of light, c, is calibrated locally. Very large numbers of speed of light calibrations occur all along the highway from LA to Boston. In other words, you are trying to argue that c+v will somehow have to give you velocities greater than c. The best I can agree to is an effective velocity. Yes, I understand that this flies in the face of common sense. However, ultimately, I think the experimentalists know what they are doing. Relativity and QM both suggest that the physical universe is implemented by photons that continually calibrate distance and time according to the speed of light c, such that

[math]c = \frac{\omega}{\vec{k}}[/math]

P:"So; Light changes speed to 'c' at the outer boundary 'cloud' of every single particle of mass, or bunch of particles (human being, planets etc). "

Light doesn't change it's speed at any boundary; clocks change their speed to accommodate the absolute velocity of the speed of light. I understand that this flies in the face of commons sense, but I didn't design the universe this way. By Occam's razor, it makes sense that the laws of physics are embedded in photons themselves (virtual and real), and the universe is a continuous fountain of these photons; they are continually emitted and absorbed. They transmit causality and generate space-time.

You are trying to uphold the authority of the clock and the ruler against the absolute nature of the speed of light. This is understandable, but it is a losing battle.

As for M87, yes I agree that when super massive black holes belch out a physics anomaly, we should scrutinize it very carefully. But at a distance of a 100 millions light years away, "clocked at 6c" isn't a slam dunk. But if the anomaly really occurred, then it means that the laws of physics were somehow overwhelmed. Locally, c is upheld. But the event was so violent that long distance adhesion to c might have broken down, allowing a true anomaly.

As for Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem and the Huygens-Fresnel Principle, I don't understand the argument for how these strike down length contraction.

I guess the only way to persuade me to your position is to explain why the speed of light does not take precedence over the clock and the ruler.

Hmm. That's what happens, you were very close but then got completely lost! That's why no-one else has seem it before. No, I'm saying the speed of light DOES take preference, over everything, but always LOCALLY, in the reference frame it is IN at any time.

To understand this you must always consider yourself, the observer, effectively 'riding the light beam' and moving with it between inertial fields.

i.e. You the observer must accelerate WITH IT when it moves from one inertial field to another. THEN you will always see it at 'c'.

So when you're floating in space helf way to the moon observing light crossing the heliosphere towards earth, it's doing 'c' wrt the heliosphere (i.e. the sun). When you re-enter the planetary shock, massively decelerating, you find that same light still doing 'c' with respect to YOU. (and the planet).

So; light always does 'c' LOCALLY, and goes to massive effort to keep changing speed at inertial field boundaries to do so.

Now listen to Einstein again; Space is actually "infinitely many spaces in relative motion" - and light changes speed all the time to do 'c' through each.

But all the time you allow your photon preconception to blind you you'll never be able to hold it in your mind. My mind is trained to be able to conceive moving 3D spaces, I trained as an architect to allow that. Most can't.

Convention is that a 'set of co-ordinates' is a pure mathematical construct and cannot be real. Thats where the problem is. To me it can describe a fish tank flying through space, and light will chane to the 'c' of the fish tank when it goes through it.

The electrons of the surface layer of the tank's glass receive the photons crossing space at 'c' at whatever relative speed they arrive (c +/- v) depending on which way and what speed it's going at, but re-emitt them into the glass at 'c' wrt the glass.

If we're moving through space WITH the tank (in the same frame) we see them moving at 'c'. If we're in the 'background' frame of space watching the tank go by in it's own inertial frame, we'll see the light at c +/- v.

Nothing is actually DOING more than 'c' anywhere, which is why it's "apparent rate of change of position" from our frame has to be c +/- v.

The quantum bit is absolute standard physics, for both photons and waves. The failure has been the capacity of most of our brains to visualise it's implications; Relatively moving inertial frames, and understand how simple it really is!

A moving train is a different inertial field because it's moving. We know light 'signals' go through a train at 'c' wrt the train. When they reach the front windscreen they CHANGE SPEED to do 'c' wrt the embankment. How on earth else would we find the light blue shifted and doing 'c'?!!

If we stand on the embankment and observe the light IN the train as it goes past, we'll se it at c+v. Exactly as M87 and all the many other examples, but the light signal reaching us to tell us that fact is only doing 'c'!!

So NOTHING breaches 'c' anywhere, and we don't need that contraction nonsense or the paradoxes that go with it, plus we've unified physics.

Are we getting back on track yet?

Peter

Peter,

How can you trust your velocities when you can't trust your clock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

When light jumps from one inertial frame to the next, the clock is what changes; the rate of flow of time is what changes.

[math]c = \frac{\omega}{\vec{k}}[/math]

The speed of light is always c (locally). Transitions between inertial frames merely change the frequency (the clock) and the wavelength (distance).

Even your ruler is lying to you.

Hi Jason

I think we're getting there.

But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally to.

Postulate 1. The laws of physics are the same in all frames. i.e. Time and light go the same speed in all frames. We can never experience time or length differently as they are always constant within our frame. Acceleration is merely a frame transition process. But you're wrong about Frequency. the whole point is that it changes the wavelength and angle (refracts) to PRESERVE SPEED AND FREQUENCY.

i.e. If it slows down, the wavelength must be reduced to keep the same number of waves going past in unit time, and vice versa. this is part of it's beautiful symmetry!

What we see when we observe another inertial frame from outside is different to what we experience in our own.

The Keating story is interesting and fully supports this, even though he succumbed to firm 'encouragement' to modify his final paper (the documents are now public) to soften the firmly 'anti SR' proof of a background field it gave.

NASA's laser lunar ranging (Gezari) papers show the same and are more honest.

But what is important are the implications. As light speed changes locally near any mass (if it's in relative motion' we don't need the 'assumption' attached to SR; that 2 objects in motion in space are entirely equivalent, with no 'speed' wrt a background, so there can be no background field. It is only that which gives rise to all the paradox and prevented unification with quantum physics.

Every single 'thing' creates it's own inertial field if in relative motion with the background field it's in.

Most of our minds haven't yet developed to picture infitely many 'spaces' in relative motion. How are you doing with it?

Peter

p.s. I posted another message to you somewher on here and have now lost it! can you tell me where?

Hi Peter,

P:"But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally to."

I'm having trouble with this contradiction. The speed of light is always c. It never changes. Even for Snell's law, the speed of light is c; but the presence of glass appears to slow it down because light is absorbed, re-emitted, it's path is effectively longer because of all of the obstructions it has to go through.

P:"Postulate 1. The laws of physics are the same in all frames. i.e. Time and light go the same speed in all frames. " YES.

P:"But you're wrong about Frequency. the whole point is that it changes the wavelength and angle (refracts) to PRESERVE SPEED AND FREQUENCY. i.e. If it slows down, the wavelength must be reduced to keep the same number of waves going past in unit time, and vice versa. this is part of it's beautiful symmetry!" YES! That is the point I was trying to make.

P: "As light speed changes locally near any mass (if it's in relative motion' we don't need the 'assumption' attached to SR; that 2 objects in motion in space are entirely equivalent, with no 'speed' wrt a background, so there can be no background field. "

"Entirely equivalent...?" That can't be right. Planes with atomic clocks prove that two reference frames are not equivalent. The two reference frames have different clock speeds. So, "entirely equivalent" is wrong.

P:"...with no 'speed' wrt a background, so there can be no background field... "

Very subtle point here. You can have a background field, but you cannot have an absolute reference frame. Absolute reference frames tell you the location and how much energy, where particles are at and how fast their moving wrt the absolute reference frame. You can't have that. You ARE allowed to have a field, but it's more abstract with respect to specific locations and velocities; it's noncommittal and vague about those details.

P:"Every single 'thing' creates it's own inertial field if in relative motion with the background field it's in."

Perhaps with should say that every single thing has it's own rate of progression through time; or as a silly analogy says, "marches to its own drum beat".

P:"Most of our minds haven't yet developed to picture infitely many 'spaces' in relative motion. How are you doing with it?"

Next time you're at the beach, take a handful of sand and throw it in the water, watch the many rings that form. Virtual photons form spherical wavefronts just like this. They are emitted and absorbed continuously. These wavefronts carry: causality, information about nearby events, interconnect space-time, carry all physics relationships within the wavefronts. This is what implements space-time.

P:"p.s. I posted another message to you somewher on here and have now lost it! can you tell me where? "

I responded to your post, but I don't remember where it was. Maybe it was in "What is Energy?".

Hi Jason

P:"But the whole point of light changing speed is to maintain the speed 'c', which only changes the 'flow of time' to maintain that locally too."

J: I'm having trouble with this contradiction. The speed of light is always c. It never changes. Even for Snell's law, the speed of light is c; but the presence of glass appears to slow it down because light is absorbed, re-emitted, it's path is effectively longer because of all of the obstructions it has to go through.

Yes, you are still having trouble with red herrings. There is NO contradiction! The problem is with the way our brains normally work. Read and think slower, and picture it in your mind in 3D;

'C' is constant WITHIN each frame in relative motion. Within the frame of the embankment, (F1) and within the train (F2). The laws of physics are the same within each frame. NOT looking into one frame from another!!! For you to consider the real local speed of light in F2 you must CHANGE FRAMES WITH IT so you are always in the same frame, F2, as the local light. (but see*).

You will have to change speed to do this. SO DOES LIGHT!! Now do you understand the meaning of light "changing speed between frames to maintain 'c' locally in each frame."

It's so simple it's almost impossible for a normal human brain to comprehend.

When you're standing on the embankment light is doing 'c'. If you both jump onto the train (that means both you AND the light) you both accelerate by 'v', so you still find the light on the train doing 'c' as do the other passengers.

Our galaxy is like a giant train rushing through space. Light crosses the universe at 'c' wrt deep space, then changes speed to also do 'c' within the galaxy. We've never before been able to fully understand the concept of inertial frames. As Einstein said (without understanding the implications) there are infinitely many 'spaces' (frames) in relative motion, in fact EVERYTHING is in a different frame to everything else relative motion with.

We've known the boundary process since the 1600's. New waves are emitted at the new local 'c'. Or if you like photons; The boundary electrons collect them all and re-emitt them at the NEW LOCAL 'c'. But now consider*. Our own eyes also have boundary electrons that do this if we're running! so we always measure it at 'c' anyway.

If we're doing 100 in a car we'll measure light at 'c' inside it. Our headlights emitt it at 'c', and it's slowed down on entering the frame of the road to 'c' wrt the road. The Doppler shift is precise evidence of the speed change to the new 'c'.

We will therefore ALWAYS measure light at 'c' everywhere, and don't need to banish the ether do do so. And once you start thinking the model through you find it explains everything!

How's your brain doing?

Peter

Hi Peter,

It is good to have someone to talk to about this stuff. There is hardly anyone who can grasp and grapple these topics; even the super-PhD's on the FQXI forum on unable to commingle mathematics and intuitive experience.

I still disagree that light "changes speed" as it crosses from one inertial frame to another. Instead, the frequency and wavelength change. If we ride sunlight as it transitions from empty space to a spaceship moving away from the sun, we notice that the both the frequency gets smaller (redshifts) and the wavelength gets longer. It just so happens that

[math]\lambda_i f_i = \lambda_f f_f = c[/math]

The initial wavelength and frequency equal the final wavelength and frequency. A change in the frequency changes the progression of time, of the clock.

A change in the wavelength changes the length of the ruler, of the measuring stick.

This doesn't make sense to the part of our brain that implements visual 3D relationships. No wonder it's taken a hundred years to understand this. But atomic clocks can measure these effects.

How's my brain doing? Actually, I think my (virtual/real) photon model, which implement physics relationships, space-time and the absolute value of c, makes it easier to understand. Giving up the ruler and the clock in favor of the absolute speed of light must sound insane. But that is where the universe fools brilliant physicists with very simple relationships.

So why is my approach wrong? Or if it still works, why is it more confusing?

Hi Jason

J; "So why is my approach wrong? Or if it still works, why is it more confusing?"

It's more confusing because it's incorrect Jason, and you haven't yet quite seen the simplicity of the correct reality. Just try, for arguments sake, dropping your (only a blind) 'belief' that light does not change to a different local 'c' when it changes inertial frames. Then read my last post again, I'll see you in 2 mins.

The wavelength/frequency thing is at it's heart. Check a good optics book. Viewing from the correct frame is essential. If we're in a fast glass Maglev train; Light entering the back and moving to the front is red shifted, because it has been accelerated to the new 'c' of the moving train. When a pulse of such light is observed from the embankment it stays at the SAME frequency, despite the greater wavelength, because it does c v. Think of it in terms of energy conservation. The energy is in the waves. When the light returns to the 'embankment' frame the waves will be compresed back to where they started from.

That will test your conceptual dexterity. But I can actually prove it to you. Get a light speed meter and spectrometer and jump on and off a few trains and buses. That is exactly what we find. How on earth else could it happen? - even with ridiculous paradoxical ideas about time and things shrinking!!

If we consider some photons coming from Betelgeuse, what speed will they be doing when they reach us? A; Our own 'c'!. When we ask them, will they care what speed and direction Betelgeuse or Andromeda is now doing? A; Not a Jot!

But can they tell us what RELATIVE speed Betelgeuse WAS doing when they left. YES! their wavelength tells us precisely.

Once you can picture it, it's simplicity is beautiful and all paradoxes melt away. But it's shrouded at a level above our normal metal capacity, so, if you insist on clinging on to pagan beliefs, you'll never be able to see it and hold it in your mind.

Peter