Video Article: The Destiny of the Universe

Perhaps your sound-signal-inside-a-vehicle example is not quite to the point. The fact that, according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer has a simple and convincing PHYSICAL explanation and is accepted even by some Einsteinians (although most of them teach the opposite):

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:

Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."

This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

_______________________________________________

[end of quotations]

Yes Einstein did cause confusion by creating a centaur having an "emission" body (the principle of relativity) and an "ether" head (the principle of constancy of the speed of light). In my view, the centaur then KILLED theoretical physics.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Dear Pentcho,

Let me replace light by sound, see by hear and ether by air in what Stephen Hawking wrote: "Different observers, moving relative to the air, would hear sound coming toward them at different speeds, but sound's speed relative to the air would remain fixed." Well this is called Doppler effect and not disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment if one accepts the possibility of a earth bound ether, cf. Gift.

Any wave propagates relative to the medium in which it propagates. It does not directly depend on the motion of emitter or receiver. The wave equation puts a theoretical limit to that velocity. Waves of the same kind e.g. sound waves in air do not add their velocities but superimpose intensities.

For instance one must not add the velocity of a sound wave to the velocity of a rocket:

v_rocket c_air does not hold for the audibility of a rocket that travels with v_rocket faster than c_air. One cannot hear the rocket before it hits.

The velocity of a solid body depends on and refers to motions of its emitter and its receiver. The velocity of a bulled must be added to the speed of the gun it was fired from.

What about "sufficiently rapidly moving observer", lets render it pointless by assuming two such frames of reference A and B moving with 2c/3 each in opposite direction.

My arguments: Observers are not at all necessarily involved in the motion of an object. Arbiters need to be in symmetrical position.

I agree with equating c with ether, and I question the seemingly appealing generalization of Galilei's principle of relativity to electromagnetism.

Maybe someone else can confirm or refute my suspicion that it was Einstein who introduced the confusing third party observer.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Any wave propagates relative to the medium in which it propagates. It does not directly depend on the motion of emitter or receiver. (...) My arguments: Observers are not at all necessarily involved in the motion of an object. (...) Maybe someone else can confirm or refute my suspicion that it was Einstein who introduced the confusing third party observer."

The question: "What is the speed of light relative to the observer or receiver?" is essential in Einstein's theory and in any other theory. Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

can be given the following EQUIVALENT formulation:

"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c (RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER) which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

So I cannot imagine a reasonable discussion if "observers are not at all necessarily involved".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote "velocity c" is EQUIVALENT to "velocity c (RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER)".

This is definitely a generalization without justification in case of waves that belong to a carrier, e.g. sound waves.

Einstein called and rejected using the carrier as "absolut ruhender Raum". This guess is unjustified not just in case of sound in air. The carrier may move relative to something else.

We do not need an observer at all. If a wave propagates from A to B then this must not depend on what observer C was chosen unless C is identical with A or B. We can safely calculate the duration of propagation if we know the velocity and the distance of performed motion, i.e. the difference between position A relative to the carrier at the beginning of propagation and B also relative to the carrier at the end of considered propagation.

By the way, Einstein did not attribute a vector of velocity to a particular position.

I agree with Penchto Valev on that SR is flawed because it is based on a wrong postulate, however I consider not the second but the first one untenable.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "I agree with Pentcho Valev on that SR is flawed because it is based on a wrong postulate, however I consider not the second but the first one untenable."

You will have difficulty in (rigorously) explaining the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment if you assume that the principle of relativity is false.

Best regards, Pentcho

Dear Pentcho,

www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf

www.physicsessays.com/securepdf.asp?pwd=free&id=270

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.2687.pdf

Thank you for pointing me to Stefan J. G. Gift in the Westindies.

Already Tom Van Flandern argued against the presently dominating belief in SR.

I humbly admit that it was the lacking correct separation between past and future in Poincaré's (de)synchronization that I did not swallow. I distrust Aharonov for the same reason.

Best regards,

Eckard

I have given one of the author papers a quick reading, which I hope to follow up with a more thorough reading. The basic concept is that quantum mechanics is blind to space and time. A quantum wave function has a representation in space or spacetime, but the wave function is a distribution over a Hilbert space. It is not something intrinsic to space or spacetime. As a result the configuration of a quantum system in the future can be nonlocally associated with some configuration in the past.

Cheers LC

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1 plus Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:

V' = Vwave plus Vo

which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light:

c' = c plus v

The moving observer scenario refutes Einstein's special relativity but does not discriminate between Newton's emission theory of light and some ether-based theories:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf

The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics, Stephan J.G. Gift

"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c plus v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c plus v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Professor Aharonov's theory that the future affects the past is an interesting adaptation of quantum physics. After many years of thought and notations, which was first generated for me by reading Wheeler-Planck theories on Black Holes in space in 1969, I reached my own cosmological interpretation of the genesis of known and unknown sub atomic structures of our known and unknown universe. It is what I call, "TIME, SPACE & RELIGIOSITY" (c)oliver. I agree that time and space are finite. Rather than a model of an expanding universe, it is am "imploded" universe within a vacuum, a Big Bang, which created everything for a few seconds and ended all existence as we now know, within a few seconds or a millisecond. Everything we know to exist, was created and ENDED within that millisecond. However, the creation of time and space places us in a slow component of time, in between the beginning and end. Our known universe is a slow moving slide show of what happened from beginning to end, after that millisecond phenomenon. What is observed as an "expanding universe," appears to be an expansion from within the matrix of time and space. However, what appears to be an expansion is the "constriction" of everything after the implosion within a vacuum. Time & space are finite. Time, space & matter were created on implosion, with the matrix of what was created being stretched in a constriction (expansion from our observation) and had ended within a few seconds after the Big Bang. Time and space are the slowest components of what was created and quickly ended. We are the slow moving components now in between the beginning and the end. We are like a time lapse video of inside a light bulb which blows out when you turned on the light switch. The phenomenon took a second. What happened inside the bulb, within that moment of blast of light is taking millenia to play out for us, because of "time and space" lapses within it. I'd appreciate comments on my theory. google: rayoliveresq

Balanced attraction and repulsion that involves balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity is the requirement of fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Both gravity and inertia must [necessarily] be at half strength/force for such a union to occur. This is required of quantum gravity as well. This can only be done by making space equally (and both) visible and invisible. Opposites must be combined, included, and balanced. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Space must be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in an equivalent and balanced fashion.

Mathematics cannot fundamentally and ultimately combine, include, and balance opposites. That is obvious. The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Do you agree or disagree? Dreams fundamentally combine and include opposites. Dreams generally and fundamentally unify physics.

Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space. The visible AND YET INVISIBLE (equivalency and balancing) of inertial/gravitational space in dreams even allows for vision, as this is evident in the invisible and visible space of/inside the body/eye while waking. (Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.) HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA ARE EQUALLY (AND BOTH) VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE IN DREAMS in keeping with the middle distance in/of space and middle force/energy. Indeed, the space [as a whole/generally] IS semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams. The space in dreams is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible.

This is the fundamental and general unification of physics in/as dream experience.

Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength energy/force) is required of any fundamental unification in physics. It is so fascination that, in dreams, this is inseparable from combining, including, and balancing larger and smaller space as the same space -- FUNDAMENTAL INSTANTANETY! Indeed, the space is entirely inertial and gravitational -- in keeping with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion -- in an equivalent and balanced fashion. Accordingly, the space is both, and it is equally, visible and visible -- and it may or may not be touched in keeping with such fundamental middle strength force/energy (and inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing). The space is both potential and actual in keeping with instantaneity and the fact that the space is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible. (Remember that vision begins invisibly inside the BODY/EYE.) VICTORY!

Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie's solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein's theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein's namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein's equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale's theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe's expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten's M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

"Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong (...) So for now the standard model [of cosmology] remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

The standard model of cosmology may be totally wrong but this is Divine Albert's world: Dangerous alternatives (e.g. the "tired light" hypothesis) are not even mentioned, Jean-Claude Pecker and Halton Arp are unpersons forever, etc:

Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."

Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."

Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Halton Arp : Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

"No one can escape friction, not even in a vacuum. On earth, we're slowed down by the muck of the everyday world. Matter slows us down, rubbing against us and taking away our speed and power. Gravel, air, even slip-n-slides, exert some friction on us. This frictional force runs counter to our motion, and it can't be escaped anywhere on earth. Eventually, inevitably, it will slow us to a stop. Ah, but in space all the rules are different. In a vacuum, with no matter to rub up against like a strangers on the bus, we could move forever. If we started in a spin, we'd never stop unless we had a collision with some kind of asteroid. It turns out, that even in the vacuum of space, we'd get dragged back. The vacuum isn't as entirely devoid of matter as most people make it out to be. It's only devoid of permanent matter. In a vacuum, tiny, temporary, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. (...) If a particle hits a spinning object in the direction of its spin, a part of its momentum may be transfered to the object. If, however, a particle hits a spinning object counter to its direction, more of its momentum will be transferred to the spinning object. If particles moving counter to the object's motion hit with more force than particles moving with the object, the object will eventually stop moving. Not even in space is motion preservered."

If vacuum friction as described above is a fact, the following hypothesis is more than hypothesis - it can be regarded as a valid consequence of this fact:

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Slowing light produces blue shift. It does so in a medium of higher refractive index, which equates to Polarisation Mode Dispersion (PMD) which slows the bulk propagation speed due to interaction density.

A GRIN lens shows this by having an effective graded density, producing curved light paths and non-linear blue shift. When light re-emerges from the denser medium it reverts to local c and reverts (redshifts) back to it's original wavelength. All this is irrefutably proved in optical science experimentation.

I agree cosmic redshift does not prove accelerated expansion, but you have again wrongly identified the cause of the redshift. That does not aid the task of getting physics back on track so more care is needed not to give dissent a worse reputation than it already has.

Consider; If space with a wave embedded within it expands, what might you expect to happen to the wavelength? In an intelligent approach accelerated expansion can be shown to be self defeating.

Best wishes

Peter

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light II

"Vacuum has friction after all (...) But what if the vacuum itself creates a type of friction that puts the brakes on spinning objects? (...) Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction. So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

It takes a Divine Albert's world to draw the above analogy and conclude that vacuum friction slows down spinning objects, and at the same time purge any thought that vacuum friction could in the same way slow down photons that we find Hubble redshfted:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Petcho,

Space makes things spin not stop spinning. It's a gyrokinetic effect which is well verified and quantified, yet with a cause no better understood (generally) then any other fundamental of nature. Of course there is a limiting factor, which the stuff the Madrid guys identify will contribute to, but space has the exact opposite effect than the one they describe. Things always keep spinning, as observation shows. Their science is as well thought through and evidenced as most! But crimestop seems to make all look away from evidence (including you so far I'm afraid!).

Put any matter in space and it will start to rotate on a virial radius. You only need to look into space to see the evidence. Even probes we place in space would do so without stabilising provisions. There are scores of papers on it. This is probably as good as any;

Spontaneous Intrinsic Rotation, 2011.

I hope that helps.

Peter

Peter,

I went through the linked paper but appears a bit too specialized for my understanding.

Now, if as you say "Space makes things spin..." (which I suspect as well though without understanding how),does space spin classical and quantum objects differently?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Space seems to treat objects as objects with no barrier to race creed or class. I suspect we've just stupidly invented those.

Peter