Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Phractality on 23/12/2015 17:58:02
-
For years, I've accepted Tom Van Flandern's proof (http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp), and others like it, that gravity is billions of times faster than light. That proof is based on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. I am now having second thoughts.
Of course the Sun is where it was 8 minutes ago, in Solar coordinates. I'm referring to the direction relative to the stars, which goes thru 360° degrees in a year. In 8.3 minutes, the direction of the Sun from Earth changes by .0057°. So do we see the light coming from .0057° east of its current location? If we were moving in a straight line past the Sun, I believe that would be the case.
I have read that a term in general relativity almost exactly cancels the direction change of the light, as if the centers of successive light pulses follow the source.
The direction where we see an expanding spherical shell of light is perpendicular to the surface of the shell as it passes us. If we were in a circular orbit, I think the change in our direction, relative to the stars, would put the Sun's image back where the Sun is. I wonder if this analogy corresponds to the mysterious term in GR.
Our orbit is elliptical, and if I'm right, the angle between where we see the Sun and where it is ought to go thru an annual cycle. Concentric light spheres spreading from the Sun are always tangent to a circular orbit, but only tangent to an elliptical orbit at aphelion and perihelion.
If I now discard the idea that gravity is billions of times faster than light, there will need to be some changes in my model. I still think gravity is faster than light, but I'll have to look for a different proof and a different estimate of cg/cl.
-
For years, I've accepted Tom Van Flandern's proof (http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp), and others like it, that gravity is billions of times faster than light. That proof is based on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. I am now having second thoughts.
Of course the Sun is where it was 8 minutes ago, in Solar coordinates. I'm referring to the direction relative to the stars, which goes thru 360° degrees in a year. In 8.3 minutes, the direction of the Sun from Earth changes by .0057°. So do we see the light coming from .0057° east of its current location? If we were moving in a straight line past the Sun, I believe that would be the case.
I have read that a term in general relativity almost exactly cancels the direction change of the light, as if the centers of successive light pulses follow the source.
The direction where we see an expanding spherical shell of light is perpendicular to the surface of the shell as it passes us. If we were in a circular orbit, I think the change in our direction, relative to the stars, would put the Sun's image back where the Sun is. I wonder if this analogy corresponds to the mysterious term in GR.
Our orbit is elliptical, and if I'm right, the angle between where we see the Sun and where it is ought to go thru an annual cycle. Concentric light spheres spreading from the Sun are always tangent to a circular orbit, but only tangent to an elliptical orbit at aphelion and perihelion.
If I now discard the idea that gravity is billions of times faster than light, there will need to be some changes in my model. I still think gravity is faster than light, but I'll have to look for a different proof and a different estimate of cg/cl.
Demonstrable we observe the Sun in the present in its present relative position to the observer.
-
Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.
-
Demonstrable we observe the Sun in the present in its present relative position to the observer.
Really?
It is actually demonstrable that due to the finite speed of light you can't even see your own hand in the present, let alone the Sun. What sort of pseudoscientific comment is that?
-
This subject is covered in
Travelling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves (http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/people/faculty/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/bookwithphotos.pdf), Kennefick 2006, with reference to a 1909 paper by Einstein and Ritz. The illustrations are on pp 162, 163.
Last I checked, that link was a free PDF download of the 500-page book.
It looks to me like they are saying the spherical shells of light remain centered on the source in all inertial reference frames, even if the relative motion follows a straight line, rather an a circular orbit.
I am trying to relearn what little I used to know of Blender software. That's a bit like learning Italian so you can order pizza. I don't happen to have a pea shooter, so a stealth bomber will have to do.
I have drawn some circles to illustrate what would happen if you passed a pulsating star in a straight line at v =c/2. Now I have to relearn how to render the picture.
-
That is simultaneity of Relativity.
-
Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.
Not possible, or a sniper would always miss the target.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
They usually do, until they learn to lead on a moving target. Ask any game or clay pigeon shooter! It's a particularly difficult skill for air gunners: if your bullets are travelling at 1000 mph and your target is crossing at 600 mph, you need to be very good at mental arithmetic, which is why antiaircraft shells and guided missiles use proximity fuses, and successful ship-to-air gunnery often consists of just letting everything rip at once.
-
They usually do, until they learn to lead on a moving target. Ask any game or clay pigeon shooter! It's a particularly difficult skill for air gunners: if your bullets are travelling at 1000 mph and your target is crossing at 600 mph, you need to be very good at mental arithmetic, which is why antiaircraft shells and guided missiles use proximity fuses, and successful ship-to-air gunnery often consists of just letting everything rip at once.
I have done some air rifling in my time, to shoot a moving target we account for velocity, gravity and wind, we do not account for light, we set a trajectory that will intercept the target. We shoot and aim ahead of the target, in the targets future.
We would miss the target if it was not in the present,
Lets a rabbit is travelling from point A to point C, but according to you the target starts at A but is actually at B, so when we aim at B, the target is already at B, so when we fire we miss because when the target is at B, it is actually at C, relatively making no logical truth-ness.
-
The Box
alancalverd is correct. You do not understand simultaneity of relativity. Reflected light leaves the object. Now the object moves forward while the photon moves towards your eye. The photon is always moving toward you but the object is also moving relative to the finite speed of light. We always view objects in their past position. Depending on the distance and speed of the object it is no longer where you view the image. Consider stars in the sky. None are where you view them to be while some are not even in existence any longer. When we watch a super nova it happened years before we see the image of the event. Einstein suggested only 10% of the population could understand relativity. I remember reading this somewhere. To understand light has a finite speed similar to a bullet through space this is also finite speed is simultaneity of relativity. When a bullet hits its target you view its past when the light hits your eye. In our environment the speed of light is indistinguishable from infinite speed of light which is your current basis of understanding.
-
The Box
alancalverd is correct. You do not understand simultaneity of relativity.
But I do understand simultaneity of relativity and it is wrong,
I have shown it before but here it is again
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You look at a planet in the present not in the past.
-
I'm sure you've all had this experience: You hear a high-flying jet overhead; you look up in the direction from which the sound is coming. You don't see the jet there; instead, you see it maybe 30° to 45° ahead of where the sound is coming from.
If the jet is flying in a circle with you at its center, you still hear it coming from its "retarded position", 30° to 45° behind where you see it. I'm not sure if that's exactly the case. Can that be proven? Try simplifying the problem by assuming the speed of sound is the same everywhere, regardless of altitude, and there is no wind.
Let's say that jet passes 10 km directly above us; the sound takes 30 seconds to reach us. To simplify the problem, let's say the speed of light is infinite, so we see the jet exactly where it is now, as opposed to where it was when the sound we hear was emitted. (This is analogous to the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite, compared to the speed of light.)
A though experiment:
[In round numbers] Your ultra-quiet maglev train is eastbound in a straight line at 33 m/s; sound travels 1 km in 3 sec. Kids at ground zero, one km north of the track, are setting off M80 fireworks at one second intervals. Do you hear the bangs coming from the direction where you now see ground zero, from the direction where ground zero is, or some other direction?
Now, let's switch tracks; the new track is circular, centered on ground zero, with a radius of 1 km. I think the sound would seem to come from approximately (or exactly) the direction where we see ground zero. What say you? Anyone bold enough to present a proof?
What makes sunlight behave different rules? Or does it?
A bit of philosophizing:
The question of where the Sun IS NOW is an existential question. Can we really know where something has gone to since it emitted the signal that we are now perceiving? "IS NOW" is merely a snapshot of a model that we have conceived to make sense of what we perceive.
-
Relative time is the same. You view revolutions in relative time of course but the image takes light years to get here. A recording through time.
-
Relative time is the same. You view revolutions in relative time of course but the image takes light years to get here. A recording through time.
I don't agree . The physics would be all wrong when considering trajectories etc.
Consider the light from an object takes the same time to reach an observer as the observers light to reach the object being observed, there is no time discrepancy. The position is fixed to each other .
-
Each view the other in the others past trajectory position. You can never view the position of an object in the present. This is because light is finite and not infinite. This understanding is necessary to understand relativity.
-
Consider the light from an object takes the same time to reach an observer as the observers light to reach the object being observed, there is no time discrepancy. The position is fixed to each other .
That is true for inertial reference frames. If one observer accelerates, time will pass more slowly for him.
-
Relative time is the same. You view revolutions in relative time of course but the image takes light years to get here. A recording through time.
I don't agree . The physics would be all wrong when considering trajectories etc.
Consider the light from an object takes the same time to reach an observer as the observers light to reach the object being observed, there is no time discrepancy. The position is fixed to each other .
The very fact that light takes time to travel means we don't see objects in their local time. In the other direction they don't see us in our local time either. This is just the same as the time taken for sound to travel, we don't hear in local time either.
What you are forgetting for air rifles is that the speed of light is so fast and the distance so short that we can ignore the delay. Over space distances we can't.
-
We can use a coordinate system with an x and y axis marked off in units. Then have two objects in our coordinate system at separate locations. If object A is at the origin and object B is at coordinates x=4, y=4 we can then set some rules of motion. We can say that object A and object B are constrained to move along parallel to the x-axis. Object A moves in a positive direction and object B moves in a negative direction. Further, we can also say that both objects move 1 unit in the same interval of time so that their speeds are equal and opposite. If both objects release a 'particle' at the start of their respective trajectories to be detected at some future point by the other object then we can model what happens with light. We can state that these particles move two units in 1 unit of time and so are twice the speed of objects A and B. When object A has moved i units in the positive direction it will detect the particle from object B. When object B has moved j units in the negative direction it will detect the particle from object A. The positions that the objects will determine for each other will not reflect where the objects were originally. In fact i and j may not even be integer multiples of the unit of measurement. Most likely they won't. This is in a coordinate system that is rigged to be simplistic. It takes no account of special or general relativity. It is easy to make statements about what may be personally intuitive. To provide some sort of proof mathematically comes with all sorts of challenges that you don't even know are there until you learn some physics.
-
The very fact that light takes time to travel means we don't see objects in their local time. In the other direction they don't see us in our local time either. This is just the same as the time taken for sound to travel, we don't hear in local time either.
What you are forgetting for air rifles is that the speed of light is so fast and the distance so short that we can ignore the delay. Over space distances we can't.
The very fact my diagram says your very fact is wrong and time is parallel
if m1 (the top circle) travels 8 mins to the right, so does m2 (the bottom circle)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
We only live in the present. All of us no matter your clock speed. The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past. No one lives in the future since life is always in the present. Time is motion and motion is always the present.
-
The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past.
The present is where we live and we view all things in the present through the clear of light. You are not accounting for clear.
-
You do not see through anything. An image reaches your brain when it hits your eye. When you look at a tree the image comes to you, you do not see through space. A close image comes to you before a image at a further distance. The longer distance is further in the past. You do not see clear, your image is unobstructed.
-
Another point which is pertinent is the nature of observation when looking out into space. We are never viewing the exterior (to our planet) laws of physics as they pertain to our present but to a past that may be 1 year or 1 billion years ago. This may tell us something about how forces operated at that point in the history of the universe but may not be pertinent to its present state. We should expect to find anomalies at different epochs that indicate some sort of evolution in the expected states of the various force fields.
-
You do not see through anything. An image reaches your brain when it hits your eye. When you look at a tree the image comes to you, you do not see through space. A close image comes to you before a image at a further distance. The longer distance is further in the past. You do not see clear, your image is unobstructed.
You don't see light either, you see matter interacting with light, you see this interaction through the coupling of the clear(white light) , a variable wave, the only light that reflects into your eyes is when a glare catches your eyes, otherwise you are submerged in the clear light, a constant coupling of the brain to space.
-
Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.
Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?
-
Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.
Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?
Photo-receptors in the eye detect wave-lengths of a constant spectral nature ''through'' the coupling of a variable wave-length of the clear (white light). White light is not a mixture of frequencies, white light is a variable wave length. Spectral constants a temporal interference pattern of the variable y-axis.
Space is transparent , this allows also ''transparent'' to sight. (allows sight to pass through). Anything that is transparent allows light to pass through and also allows sight to pass through.
We can see in the dark, there is just generally nothing to see.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
If you was to add smoke to the diagram, you would see the incident ray but you would not see any reflective beams to your eyes. Between your eyes and the dot, the space itself couples your brain to the observation point.
You all think this -
[ Invalid Attachment ]
and forget in the below diagram that this is what couples everything.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Photo-receptors in the eye detect wave-lengths of a constant spectral nature ''through'' the coupling of a variable wave-length of the clear (white light). White light is not a mixture of frequencies, white light is a variable wave length. Spectral constants a temporal interference pattern of the variable y-axis.
Space is transparent , this allows also ''transparent'' to sight. (allows sight to pass through). Anything that is transparent allows light to pass through and also allows sight to pass through.
You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...
-
You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...
I only understand it because it is my own idea, I understand it is hard to imagine or vision, if you can imagine being submerged in an ocean, then water is touching your eye ball, if the water was clear, you could see objects ''through'' the water, the water is transparent to sight and light. The water would be touching your eye ball and touching the object, a coupling between your eye and the object.
So then advance on that thought and rise above the water into relative space, space touches your eye ball and touches the object , relative to you it is space that is coupling your sight to an object by noticing something of solidity in a vast of ''convertual'' stuff
-
You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...
I only understand it because it is my own idea, I understand it is hard to imagine or vision, if you can imagine being submerged in an ocean, then water is touching your eye ball, if the water was clear, you could see objects ''through'' the water, the water is transparent to sight and light. The water would be touching your eye ball and touching the object, a coupling between your eye and the object.
So then advance on that thought and rise above the water into relative space, space touches your eye ball and touches the object , relative to you it is space that is coupling your sight to an object by noticing something of solidity in a vast of ''convertual'' stuff
An image only couples to your eye when the image reaches your eye and your brain creates the image. The image moves to you. In space where there is no light your photo receptors are not engaged and remain blank. Nothing reaches out from your eye to couple. Its Relativity of simultaneity.
-
An image only couples to your eye when the image reaches your eye and your brain creates the image. The image moves to you. In space where there is no light your photo receptors are not engaged and remain blank. Nothing reaches out from your eye to couple. Its Relativity of simultaneity.
That is the misconception IMO, it has to be light to see an object interacting with light, the light does not reflect in you eyes, only a glare reflects light directly into your eyes.
Have you got a light on a dimmer switch? turn it down to as low as it will go, observe most colour vanishes, observe space becomes ''opaque/translucent to sight''.
Like I have said it before, you actually see in the dark you just don't realise that it is always dark.
A logical sentence to say when you turn the dimmer switch back up, light allows me to see through the dark/in the dark.
When you change the output of the light by the dimmer, to make the room ''brighter'', you have not changed the dark, you have added energy to give you 100% night vision.
-
Ok
-
Ok
LOL!!!
-
Ok
I understand the Ok, it does sound like a vivid imagination, however can you answer this?
Can science prove that light exists externally, beyond the human experience of the brain ?
I believe the answer is no.
-
I understand the Ok, it does sound like a vivid imagination, however can you answer this?Can science prove that light exists externally, beyond the human experience of the brain ? I believe the answer is no.
Can you prove you are alive? We can only have a statistical understanding of results and never prove anything.
light appears to exist in space as a traveling wave at constant speed. We infer that by measuring and detecting a light event. The image of those wavelengths is an orthogonal detection mechanism used by the brain. Proof is a condition of understanding the question. I am never sure we understand the questions in physics we are asking.
Statistically we can create and measure what we consider a light event through space. The measured distance would not be accurate to all frames but the light speed in all frames would be measured to be the same speed of light, confounding the distance with the frames tick rate of clocks duration for its second.
The brain has its own clock speed of synapsis firing.
-
Can you prove you are alive?
yes we can prove we are conscious and aware (alive), we as animals can change velocity, no other things in the Universe has this choice. Other things go where ever the physics commands them to go, we go were we can travel opposing forces etc. We are detached from everything else, we are different to everything else, we do not belong here in this universe, we are the only oddities.
-
Can you prove you are alive?
yes we can prove we are conscious and aware (alive), we as animals can change velocity, no other things in the Universe has this choice. Other things go where ever the physics commands them to go, we go were we can travel opposing forces etc. We are detached from everything else, we are different to everything else, we do not belong here in this universe, we are the only oddities.
We do not do anything to break the laws of physics. We create a force to counter resistance using physics. We are no different than a computer controlled machine. Like all computers we have to wait for the light of the sun to reach our pupils to receive the information about the suns position in the past. Each still frame is a wavelength thick. We view a motion picture by receiving still frames at the speed of light.
-
We do not do anything to break the laws of physics. We create a force to counter resistance using physics. We are no different than a computer controlled machine. Like all computers we have to wait for the light of the sun to reach our pupils to receive the information about the suns position in the past. Each still frame is a wavelength thick. We view a motion picture by receiving still frames at the speed of light.
We create inferior machines based on our own minds, we are nothing like a machine, we break every law of physics, we have choice, a rock does not. Yes information is received by the brain by the use of the Electromagnetic radiation clear constant we are ''submerged'' in while we perceive it to be light. nobody can prove ''light'' exists externally outside the brain as light, it could be darkness outside of our brains.
Einstein considered light from a distance planet taking ''time'' to travel , so reconciled that we were not actually seeing the planet in its exact geometrical location, but what Einstein did not consider that the light from the observer takes the exact same time to travel to the planet, cancelling out any ''time'' discrepancies of position future. If you travelled to the planet you would arrive at the planet in the near future, however if you transported there at an instant, you would still be in the now moment and not a future,
the only conceivable future is that of another reasoning, if there was a sister planet to the earth that was lets say 1000,000,000 years older than Earth, the people there would be more evolved and a future us.
-
We create inferior machines based on our own minds, we are nothing like a machine, we break every law of physics, we have choice, a rock does not.
We are getting off subject. Obviously self aware does not violate physics and a computer is much faster at math then I am. My calculation of numbers is inferior to a computer.
Yes information is received by the brain by the use of the Electromagnetic radiation clear constant we are ''submerged'' in while we perceive it to be light. nobody can prove ''light'' exists externally outside the brain as light, it could be darkness outside of our brains.
While that may be true or not our reality is light propagates from one wave creation event through space to a detection event (our brain ). Our brain transfers the waves into images as pictures avoiding the true emptiness of space between atoms.
Einstein considered light from a distance planet taking ''time'' to travel , so reconciled that we were not actually seeing the planet in its exact geometrical location, but what Einstein did not consider that the light from the observer takes the exact same time to travel to the planet
Yes and we are both in different positions than when the light left. We view the past position in a different angle than the present when the image left us. We move into the position of view. In the case of the sun if we consider we are perpendicular the light we receive is at different angle than we were in the perpendicular position. This will cause the visual length to contract by viewing the angle different from perpendicular. Simple SoR.
If you travelled to the planet you would arrive at the planet in the near future, however if you transported there at an instant, you would still be in the now moment and not a future,
You are confusing the image of the past with some type of time travel. Watch a movie in the present but it was made in the past. The plot already happened before you view it in your present. We never view anyone's future only their past.
the only conceivable future is that of another reasoning, if there was a sister planet to the earth that was lets say 1000,000,000 years older than Earth, the people there would be more evolved and a future us
Our image viewed by others. We do not exist yet.
-
Obviously self aware does not violate physics and a computer is much faster at math then I am. My calculation of numbers is inferior to a computer.
''is much faster at math then I am'' just no, the computer does not calculate anything, it is programmed to give an answer the computer is programmed to give, programmed by us, a computer does not know that 2+2=4, we tell it to give the answer 4 if anyone ask's.
''Yes and we are both in different positions than when the light left''. again you are not considering the observation linearity,
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.
-
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.
What? sorry after your first sentence it gets rather gibberish and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Windows , mirrors in the universe is starting to sound harry potter.
-
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.
What? sorry after your first sentence it gets rather gibberish and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Windows , mirrors in the universe is starting to sound harry potter.
I understand your dilemma. You are in a catch 22. You cannot follow what I am saying until you understand SoR and you cannot understand SoR until you can follow what I said. This is a major hurdle to understanding relativity. You have to work this out by thought. The speed of light is finite not infinite. Your current thought about images is infinite from how I read what you are saying. if the two trains were going the speed of light there would be no image of the other.
Light is independent of the source. The perpendicular image moves across but your moving so fast the perpendicular image hits behind your position while you move into a forward image of the other train from a past position of that train. You can go so fast that the image you connect with is the front of the other train in the very past distance position.
These are the consequences of Simultaneity of Relativity's finite speed of light. Most have trouble understanding like your Harry Potter reference its beyond normal experience.
-
GoC,
Again I suggest that you watch some videos which explain special relativity. There are plenty of good ones on YouTube. Watch out, though; some people are good at making videos about stuff they don't understand.
Lecture 3 Simultaneity and Causality (https://vimeo.com/146533174) explains it pretty clearly. If you still don't get it, watch another video and another....
-
GoC,
Again I suggest that you watch some videos which explain special relativity. There are plenty of good ones on YouTube. Watch out, though; some people are good at making videos about stuff they don't understand.
Lecture 3 Simultaneity and Causality explains it pretty clearly. If you still don't get it, watch another video and another....
I looked at that site and find everything he said to be what I understand. The equations were simple and accurate. I suspect my communication was not in a form you were used to following. Let me try to make it a little clearer with the two trains.
The trains are going so fast the image between the trains are of the scenery behind the trains and not the trains themselves. This is true unless you do not believe in the postulates of relativity. Are you one of the ones that believe perpendicular view at relativistic speeds is possible. If you are than you do not believe in the second postulate: Light being independent of the source.
The light event on a moving object creates a light sphere from the point of the event. Where you intercept determines the angle of view. You can never observe the actual physical position in space of an object at relativistic speeds.
-
I COPYD THIS OVER FROM THE THREAD RE BEST THEORYS FOR 2018
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75755.msg563477#msg563477
This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for
THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE.
It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes.
Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.
Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0
I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.
I found it difficult to visualize the moving (orbiting) plus spinning stuff. Plus i took it to the next level. I will post on that thread to explain.
-
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.
I am an aetherist not an Einsteinist, but my understanding of SR is that if both trains are co-moving along parallel tracks then their speed relative to the tracks is irrelevant. If the windows are semi-mirrors then anyone looking out will see their mirror image directly across no matter what the speed. And the other train will appear to be at rest, & its shape will appear natural.
Aetherists will say that if the trains are travelling east at c/2 relative to the rails, & if the rails are at rest in the aether, then the trains have an aetheric headwind of c/2. Photons travel at c in aether. Therefore the train opposite will appear to be trailing by an angle of artan(1/2). But Igor will see his mirror image directly across from him (if there is a mirror there). However that image will not be front-on, Igor will appear to have his head turned, as if facing at artan(1/2) behind.
-
Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.
Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?
The creation of photons might be off topic. We dont know whether the reflection of a photon involves absorption (& emission of a new photon). We dont know what happens to a photon if absorbed. We dont know whether a photon lives for ever.
Ranzan says that aether is constantly created from "nothing" near the center of every cosmic cell. And that the excitation of this new aether creates photons. And a free photon forms a loop to become a confined photon (an elementary particle). And that aether is annihilated in mass (& if so then photons might be annihilated)(photons are an excitation of the aether). And mass is annihilated in blackholes (& if mass is annihilated then photons are definitely annihilated).
-
We only live in the present. All of us no matter your clock speed. The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past. No one lives in the future since life is always in the present. Time is motion and motion is always the present.
Yes that is the Aetheristic idea. There is no such thing as time, or, there is, it is the present instant, which is universal. Time & time dilation are a silly Einsteinian idea, what we actually have is ticking & ticking dilation.
-
I'm sure you've all had this experience: You hear a high-flying jet overhead; you look up in the direction from which the sound is coming. You don't see the jet there; instead, you see it maybe 30° to 45° ahead of where the sound is coming from.
If the jet is flying in a circle with you at its center, you still hear it coming from its "retarded position", 30° to 45° behind where you see it. I'm not sure if that's exactly the case. Can that be proven? Try simplifying the problem by assuming the speed of sound is the same everywhere, regardless of altitude, and there is no wind.
Let's say that jet passes 10 km directly above us; the sound takes 30 seconds to reach us. To simplify the problem, let's say the speed of light is infinite, so we see the jet exactly where it is now, as opposed to where it was when the sound we hear was emitted. (This is analogous to the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite, compared to the speed of light.)
A though experiment:
[In round numbers] Your ultra-quiet maglev train is eastbound in a straight line at 33 m/s; sound travels 1 km in 3 sec. Kids at ground zero, one km north of the track, are setting off M80 fireworks at one second intervals. Do you hear the bangs coming from the direction where you now see ground zero, from the direction where ground zero is, or some other direction?
If Igor is sitting on top of the train & facing the kids at all times then all of the bangs will be heard as coming from the direction of the kids. If Igor is facing north at all times then when approaching the kids the bangs will be heard as coming from a little west of the kids, & when Igor is past the kids the bangs will be heard as coming from a little west of the kids. If Igor happens to be directly south of the kids then the bang (if any) will be heard to come from the kids exactly.
Igor ignores the speed of light here, to keep things simpler.Now, let's switch tracks; the new track is circular, centered on ground zero, with a radius of 1 km. I think the sound would seem to come from approximately (or exactly) the direction where we see ground zero. What say you? Anyone bold enough to present a proof?
If Igor is facing the kids at all times then all of the bangs will be heard to come from the kids. And if Igor is facing in some other direction then all of the bangs will be heard to come from the kids. Except if facing away from the kids then Igor probly wont know whether the bangs are coming from in front or behind (i aint sure here).What makes sunlight behave different rules? Or does it?
A bit of philosophizing: The question of where the Sun IS NOW is an existential question. Can we really know where something has gone to since it emitted the signal that we are now perceiving? "IS NOW" is merely a snapshot of a model that we have conceived to make sense of what we perceive.
The short answer is that nothing is ever exactly where it appears. For it to be exactly where it appears then the aetherwind would have to be zero kmps, ie both the Sun & Igor would have to be at rest in the aether. The background aetherwind blows throo Earth at say 500 kmps south to north at say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis at say RA 5hrs. Plus u have the effect of Earth's 30 kmps orbit, plus the 0.4 kmps spin.
Here we ignore that light is bent near mass, & light is slowed near mass, & Igor's eyes suffer Lorentzian length contraction in the aetherwind (& so does the Sun), & we have atmospheric refraction (near the Sun & near Earth), & we have Fresnel-Fizeau dragging of light in the atmospheres (changing the speed & direction).
With the kids with their crackers we ignored the possibility of any wind blowing the sound. Thats ok. But near Earth & everywhere not near Earth we cant ignore the aetherwind blowing the light.
-
Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.
Not possible, or a sniper would always miss the target.
I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target. The aim needs to be well right of the target probly just as far right as if the plane were going straight. But this will depend on the length of the barrel. For example if the barrel were 2 km long & the plane were circling then the needed aim to the right would be zero deg.
-
This subject is covered in
Travelling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves (http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/people/faculty/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/bookwithphotos.pdf), Kennefick 2006, with reference to a 1909 paper by Einstein and Ritz. The illustrations are on pp 162, 163. Last I checked, that link was a free PDF download of the 500-page book. It looks to me like they are saying the spherical shells of light remain centered on the source in all inertial reference frames, even if the relative motion follows a straight line, rather an a circular orbit.
I had a look at Fig7a. It shows Body1 & Body2 moving left to right on parallel paths 47.6 mm apart (my measure off my print). After five seconds Body2 sees light rays emanating from Body1's retarded position five seconds earlier, the rays having a path angled at 32.06 deg (my measure) to Body2's motion. The wording says............
Arrows indicate path of light rays observed by a body moving parallel to Body 1 at intervals of 1 second............ If light does not partake of its source's motion then the expanding wavefront of light remains always centered on the position at which it was emitted and observing bodies perceive the light as originating from that retarded (past) position.
This doesnt make sense. I reckon that SR says that Body2 will see Body1 exactly where it is, & not moving. The light rays will simply go straight across (ignoring minor GR bendings & accelerations of light etc). That Body1 & Body2 might be moving across some other frame of reference is irrelevant in SR (it is only relevant to an observer in that other frame). Or have i wasted 3 years reading SR & GR?
And according to Fig7a the angled light ray path from retarded Body1 to advanced Body2 is 89.7 mm long (my measure) while the horizontal distance from retarded Body2 to advanced Body2 is 76.0 mm (my measure), which means that Body2 has a motion of 0.85c (if the light ray moves at c along that diagonal). I am ok with that.
But i aint ok with that there 32.06 deg path. According to SR the visible observed seen apparent perceived angle is 90.00 deg. But lets forget that silly SR universe, & lets enter Ritz's semi-silly universe. Ritz reckons that photons move along that 32.06 deg path. But Body2 is moving at 0.85c, & the photons are moving at 0.85c measured in the horizontal, in which case Body2 & Body1 & the photons have the same horizontal speed, therefore Body2 will see photons approaching at 90.00 deg, ie Body2 will perceive the photons as originating from the advanced Body1.
But i aint ok with that kind of semi-silly Ritz analysis. Here is a sensible Aetherist analysis. Aetherists follow the photon. Einsteinists love waves & wavefronts because skoolkids cant see what is really going on & Einsteinists can feed them krapp (another bead of deceit on their Rosary). If photons are moving at c along that 32.06 deg diagonal & Body2 is moving at 0.85c horizontally then Body2 will perceive the photon as having a path of 17.39 deg. Its a simple vector addition. If Body2 squints along a pipe then to see thems photons that pipe will have to angle at 17.39 deg. In other words the perceived position of Body1 will be ten seconds back, not five seconds.
Correcting for Lorentzian length contraction. If that there 0.85c is the speed throo the aether, ie if the aetherwind blowing throo Body2 is 0.85c, then the LLC gamma is 0.5308, & Body2's vertical circle for measuring the angle of the pipe is contracted by 0.5308 in the horizontal, thusly the circle is truly an ellipse, & the ellipse will give a reading of 9.44 deg when the true angle is 17.39 deg. Body2 & Body 1 will also suffer LLC, & hencely Body2 will perceive the vertical circle as being a circle (an optical illusion), but nonetheless the reading will be 9.44 deg not the true angle of 17.39 deg.
If Body1 is Earth with the southpole facing Body2, then Aetherists say that Body2 will be looking directly at latitude 17.39 deg (not latitude 90 deg). According to Fig7b on page 163 Ritz's silly theory is that action at a distance means that "If light partakes of system's motion, as in an emission theory, then the center of the expanding wavefront moves along with the motion of body 1" -- which means that Body2 will see latitude 90 deg as being the closest part of Earth, & Body2 sees Body1 (Earth) at its current (advanced) angle (ie at 90 deg opposite). Einstein i think would predict the same result as for Ritz but for silly SR reasons, not silly Ritz reasons.
I said that Ritz reckons that Body2 sees Body1 (Earth) at its current (advanced) angle (ie at 90 deg opposite). I was careful not to say at its current (advanced) position, because that might be ambiguous. If all of the ice & snow at the south pole melted in the 5 sec tween the retarded position & the current (advanced) position then Ritz would i think say that Body2 would see ice & snow on Earth at the advanced position even tho it had all already melted (Ritz is an idiot but he aint stupid).
This stuff makes your brain hurt. But it might be easier to understand if u realize that LLC acts on bodies, it doesnt affect the size or shape of empty space, & LLC doesnt affect the true size or true shape or true speed of photons (which of course propagate at c in the aether). But it will affect the perceived size shape speed, because LLC deforms the observer's eyes & instruments.
Interestingly Einsteinists reckon that Einsteinian LC affects both solids & space. Einsteinists like to call their ELC by the name of LLC, but ELC has zero to do with LLC, the equations look alike but they aint, the V means different things. Einsteinists call it LLC to help give their silly SR some credibility, but then they quietly stick their own (cuckoo) V in it & hope that nobody notices & that everyone feeds it lots of dollars (hey everybody, look over there, its a blackhole). Another (cuckoo) bead of deceit on their Rosary.
-
For years, I've accepted Tom Van Flandern's proof (http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp), and others like it, that gravity is billions of times faster than light. That proof is based on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. I am now having second thoughts.
I reckon that there are lots of ways of seeing the Sun where it is. We need to be wary of perceived (& true) angle distance velocity tilt spin shape density mass & center of mass. If we see these nine variables accurately where the Sun is, then the speed of gravity need not be very fast, bearing in mind that what we see is based on c (ie slow). And if we don’t see some of the nine accurately where is then that might not matter much to the argument (eg tilt & spin). And we cant see density or mass, density probly changes due to LCC (ie change of shape) but density is unlikely to affect the center of mass (likewise shape is unlikely to affect center of mass), & the total mass is probly constant (except for radical scenarios). So our main worries are angle distance velocity.
Our main problem is that we have at least two sets of answers, ie Einsteinian & Aetherian. Aetherian answers are simple, we never see the true angle nor distance, nor tilt nor spin nor shape. Einsteinian answers are i suspect all over the place, probly leaning towards IAAAD because there is no absolute reference frame in SR & GR.
The main logic is That proof is based on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. This boils down to saying that if we have IAAAD for light then we might have IAAAD for gravity. This means that gravity might be IAAAD or that it has a speed of over 20 billion c (so why look for a slow speed for gravity (eg c)).
Gravity Waves. I think that none of the Einsteinian theories re IAAAD can cater for IAAAD for changes in mass etc, hencely Einsteinists are forced to insist on a non-IAAAD speed for such changes (which they call gravity waves).
The elephant in the room is that Einsteinists don’t have a micro-theory for gravity. All they have is the bending of (the fabric of) spacetime. Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated.
Hulse-Taylor & LIGO do not disprove that gravity propagates at over 20 billion c, they merely show that GWs propagate at c. However if GWs propagate at c then that indirectly disproves the Aetheristic speed of over 20 billion c because the Aetheristic theory doesnt allow any sort of slow speed for any aspect of gravity. However my own centrifuging of aether theory gives quasi-gravity which does include a light-house kind of effect (a gravity beam) for binary stars, & as these beams sweep across space they can give pseudo speeds of as low as c or even lower.
-
they merely show that GWs propagate at c.
I thought you didn't believe in gravitational waves?
-
they merely show that GWs propagate at c.
I thought you didn't believe in gravitational waves?
In my earlier posting above i was giving Hulse-Taylor & LIGO the status of being good experiments (however i think they are mistaken). But the real point was that even if their GW theory & numbers are true & correct then all they have proven is that there are GW's that travel at c, & the real point being that GWs that travel at c do not directly falsify IAAAD or a speed of light of over 20 billion c.
Re the existence of QGWs, in a posting on another thread a few days ago i explained that yes i do believe that a binary must produce weak periodic quadrupolar changes (ie a QGW) in the nett simple Newtonian gravity field (moreso at short range), (i) much too weak at Earth, & (ii) this QGW must get weaker as frequency increases, & (iii) this QGW must get weaker if mass is lost, & (iv) this QGW doesnt have a transverse component at long range (only in the near field)(ie when very close). Nothing like the (silly) Einsteinian-LIGO QGW.
And Einstein didnt believe in QGWs at binaries, & even if such QGWs existed he reckoned that they would not dampen the energy of a binary.
-
Of course the Sun is where it was 8 minutes ago, in Solar coordinates. I'm referring to the direction relative to the stars, which goes thru 360° degrees in a year. In 8.3 minutes, the direction of the Sun from Earth changes by .0057°. So do we see the light coming from .0057° east of its current location? If we were moving in a straight line past the Sun, I believe that would be the case.
This is what Igor the Aetherist thinks. If the aetherwind blows at say 500 kmps (c/600) south to north throo the Sun, then from Earth the Sun will appear at its true elevation but the appearance of the Sun will be as if seen from an angle of arsine (c/600/c) or arsine(1/600) or 0.0955 deg from below (ie a sunspot on a point on the Sun level with Earth, ie central, will appear to be a little above center). So Igor sees some tilt (an optical illusion). Also, photons from that sunspot will take longer to reach Earth, because to go horizontally to get to Earth they have to propagate down into the aetherwind a little, ie they have to propagate along the diagonal (even tho going horizontally), so they have to travel further (& instead of taking 500 sec they take say 500.000,695 sec), hencely the Sun must appear smaller than true (the angular size is smaller) -- hencely the Sun is not where it appears, the angle is correct (horizontal here) but the true distance is closer than the perceived distance. These two illusions (tilt & distance) must affect every measurement ever made. If the aetherwind is blowing south to north then the Sun & Earth will be contracted along that axis & both will be ellipsoids (due to Lorentzian LC), therefore the distance tween Igor & sunspot is reduced (the distance center to center of Sun & Earth is not changed because space does not suffer LLC). Therefore the aforementioned reduction in perceived angular size & the increase in perceived distance are both partly offset by the changes due to LLC ( haven’t worked out the exact nett changes).
We can now look at Phractality's question. If Earth is going past the Sun linearly at 30 kmps (c/10,000) then Igor (standing on Earth with Sun directly overhead) has a 30 kmps west to east aetherwind due to orbit plus a 500 kmps south to north background aetherwind. Igor of course feels the combined effect, but we can probly just consider the 30 kmps (ie the horizontal plane of the orbit) in isolation.
The naïve answer is that (when directly opposite the true Sun)(90 deg) Igor sees photons coming from artan(1/10000) ahead (ie 0.005,729,577,932 deg). This is because the photons hitting Igor's eyes are propagating at 90 deg at c whilst Igor is going at 00 deg at c/10,000, & the simple vector addition gives the vector of the photons in Igor's eyes (u might also realise that the photon will be going at more than c relative to Igor). Lorentzian LC of Igor's horizontal circular protractor makes the protractor an ellipse, & Igor's measure of the angle would read a little more than 0.005,729,577,932 deg. LLC of Earth makes the Earth an ellipsoid, & hencely Igor will be closer to the Sun. LLC doesn’t affect the shape of the Sun in the horizontal, but because LLC makes Igor's eyes ellipsoids say then the spherical Sun will appear to be an ellipsoid (it will appear to have a larger horiz dia than vert dia).
If Earth were static in the aether & Sun going past, Igor would see the Sun as trailing by arsine(1/10000)(ie 0.005,729,577,961 deg behind). This is because the Sun emits the photons when at that earlier position & the light propagates to Igor's eyes from that position. And the Sun would be an ellipsoid, & would look like an ellipsoid (vert dia bigger than horiz dia).
An Einsteinist considers the Earth to be static & the Sun going past & when directly opposite he sees the Sun as trailing at arsine(1/10000)(ie 0.005,729,577,961 deg behind). This is because the Sun emits the light when at that earlier position & the light propagates to his eyes from that position. Not sure re this.
I don’t understand emission theory, but i think that it says that the spherical waves move with the Sun, hencely the Sun is always where seen. I don’t know whether or how LLC might play a role.
I have read that a term in general relativity almost exactly cancels the direction change of the light, as if the centers of successive light pulses follow the source. The direction where we see an expanding spherical shell of light is perpendicular to the surface of the shell as it passes us. If we were in a circular orbit, I think the change in our direction, relative to the stars, would put the Sun's image back where the Sun is. I wonder if this analogy corresponds to the mysterious term in GR.
The GR field equations are ad hoc salad. The idea of orbiting along a spherical shell wavefront is interesting. A photonic viewpoint says that the perceived photon angle is artan(v/c) 'ahead' of the Sun (& the photon is faster than c). Einsteinists like to use waves & wavefronts because it keeps skoolkids from asking obvious questions. Skoolkids get confused when they picture a pipe angled at artan(v/c) so that the entering bit of wave doesn’t hit a wall, but when the wavelette gets to the end of the pipe the wave will still have its original angle, so, what angle do we see? Imagining a photon is much simpler. But at the end of the pipe when it hits your eye the photon will be crabbing (sidling) & the question arises whether when it enters a surface whether the crabbing affects Snell's law of refraction. No such problem when the crabbing photon hits the receptor on your retina, here its fairly obvious that the photon's aim-direction-heading makes no difference to what your brain thinks. Our orbit is elliptical, and if I'm right, the angle between where we see the Sun and where it is ought to go thru an annual cycle. Concentric light spheres spreading from the Sun are always tangent to a circular orbit, but only tangent to an elliptical orbit at aphelion and perihelion.
Treating light as photons eliminates most of this complication.If I now discard the idea that gravity is billions of times faster than light, there will need to be some changes in my model. I still think gravity is faster than light, but I'll have to look for a different proof and a different estimate of cg/cl.
If IAAAD exists for light then the same considerations must apply to gravity. But IAAAD doesn’t exist, & therefore it cant exist for gravity. But re the speed of gravity & a possible estimate & proof, i don’t think that we can tell. If light from the Sun takes 500 sec to reach Earth then Gravity changes arising at the Sun take say less than 1/20 billionth of that 500 sec (ie 500/20,000,000,000)(ie 2.5 by 10^-8 sec). But i reckon that gravity is a reverberation effect travelling to & fro tween masses, & the speed of a single pulse is much faster than 20 billion c.
If the drift speed of an electron is 1mmps & c is 300,000,000,000,000 mmps then the ratio is 1 in 3.0 by 10^14.
If the drift speed of an aetheon is c/600 (this is a typical aetherwind near Earth)(500 kmps) then the speed of gravity when using the above ratio is 500 billion c, which is 25 times faster than Van Flandern's min of 20 billion c. U heard it here first.
-
After the discovery of a finite light speed in the 1600's, all observations became historical. [Romer]
GoC ;
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines.
Then there is no relative speed of one to the other. The 1st postulate states the physics for the two frames will be equivalent to that which occurs when they are static.
What you are describing is the appearance/perception of two observers with a significant relative speed. The effect results from a changing difference in light transit time for different locations on an object.
49;
I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.
If the plane has a velocity tangent to the circle, so does the cannonball!
-
After the discovery of a finite light speed in the 1600's, all observations became historical. [Romer]
I dont understand Romer, surely all observations are a part of history.
So, we found that light doesnt have an infinite speed. Therefore there is no such thing as IAAAD, but that doesnt rule out pseudo-IAAAD (eg Catt's pseudo-IAAAD found when an electrical switch is turned on, & the switch is a long way from the battery). So, what we have is Einsteinians claiming that their pseudo-IAAAD for a lightwavefront means that we must have pseudo-IAAAD for gravity, but at the same time they say that there is no pseudo-IAAAD for a gravitywavefront, no, they claim that a gravitywavefront has a speed of c. Not much good logic here folks.
And its worse than that. Let me add a saying by mad aetherist referring to the work of Einstein .......
After Einstein's discovery of a constant light speed in the 1900's, all observations became hysterical.
Einsteinists have made a mess of three speeds, the speed of light (constant they say), the speed of gravity (infinite they say), & the speed of GWs (c they say).
The speed of light is indeed constant, it is c in the aether. But Einstein "discovered" a null result in the non-null MMX, & Einstein said that the SOL is not constant it is constant in the sense that it appears constant (for all observers).
In other words Einstein said that there is no such thing as an intrinsic SOL, but u dont see Einsteinians putting it that way, it would look too silly even by their standards.
In a way Einstein was correct, we do nearnuff see the SOL as being isotropic. This is because everything we see is an illusion. This is because everything contracts in one direction (dimension) due to the aetherwind as per the Lorentzian equation for gamma (ie due to LLC). And because all ticking is affected by LLC. Our eyes & metre-rods & clocks are also affected hencely the perceived SOL etc is nearnuff constant (but not exactly),& the contracted shape of objects is nearnuff not visible, due to an optical illusion.
This is the essence of the Einsteinian mistake. Einstein waves away the real optical illusion by introducing an ad hoc (what he calls) postulate re the constancy of the SOL.
But the constancy of the SOL cannot be a postulate, a postulate is a simple little fundamental thing that is easy to swallow. That there postulate of his is in fact a big fat principal or law even. Calling it a postulate is just a tricky way of giving it a status that it doesnt deserve, & its another Einsteinian trick (another false bead on the Einsteinian Rosary). If Einstein called it a Law (which is what it is) it would look ridiculous, ie introducing a brand new Law to derive a Principle, so he called it a Postulate & then derived his silly looking Principle, much better.
So in 2016 u have fellows like Phractality making threads re IAAAD & the speed of gravity & attempting to use logic based on SR & GR. Phractality doesnt realise that everything is an illusion all the time. Phractality starts off by assuming that what u see is true (if relative speed is zero) because Einstein said so, hencely Phractality has no hope of arriving at the correct answer (he will arrive at an Einsteinian answer). These are the Einsteinian Dark Ages, but times they are a'changin.
#49.
I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.
If the plane has a velocity tangent to the circle, so does the cannonball!
This is an interesting question. If the cannon is swinging to keep aim then when the trigger is pressed the aim will be true & when the ball gets to the end of the barrel the aim will be true, & as u say the ball will miss. But nonetheless i was correct when i said that the length of the barrel made a difference because if the end of the barrel was say halfway to the target then the size of the miss would be say a half (talking bout the plane circling here).
-
Einsteinists have made a mess of three speeds, the speed of light (constant they say), the speed of gravity (infinite they say), & the speed of GWs (c they say).
The speed of light is indeed constant, it is c in the aether. But Einstein "discovered" a null result in the non-null MMX, & Einstein said that the SOL is not constant it is constant in the sense that it appears constant (for all observers).
In other words Einstein said that there is no such thing as an intrinsic SOL, but u dont see Einsteinians putting it that way, it would look too silly even by their standards.
In a way Einstein was correct, we do nearnuff see the SOL as being isotropic. This is because everything we see is an illusion. This is because everything contracts in one direction (dimension) due to the aetherwind as per the Lorentzian equation for gamma (ie due to LLC). And because all ticking is affected by LLC. Our eyes & metre-rods & clocks are also affected hencely the perceived SOL etc is nearnuff constant (but not exactly),& the contracted shape of objects is nearnuff not visible, due to an optical illusion.
That the SOL is a constant c in the aether is the standard Aetheristic theory. But i forgot to mention that my own theory is that Einstein was correct when he said that light is slowed near mass, alltho he was correct for the wrong reasons (he said due to gravity potential). Having the correct answer for the wrong reasons is called equivalence. My idea is that slowing is due to photaeno-drag (which i explained in its own thread).
Anyhow i reckon that Einstein deserves credit for introducing this completely novel concept.
If light is slowed near mass then this means that the Lorentz equation for gamma for length contraction & ticking dilation is wrong. For some reason or other Einstein steered clear of the obvious. If light is slowed due to nearness of mass then this must affect electrostatic & electrodynamic forces tween atomic & subatomic particles, & indeed within elementary particles & photons themselves, & this slowing & its effect must be additional to the slowing & effect due to the Lorentzian considerations. The Lorentzian gamma is based on the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo an object, this gives rise to c+v & c-v for the SOL. The Einsteinian slowing of light near mass is the slowing of light in the aether, ie c becomes c'. So what we have is c'+v & c'-v. And the equation should use the term vv/c'c' not vv/cc. And c' should be equated with the nearness of mass.
Einstein must have known this, so why did he not mention it. He was happy to imitate a cuckoo & lay his SR egg in Lorentz's gamma (which i mentioned in an earlier posting), but it would have been a sensation if he had taken this here extra step of introducing a new term c'. I think i know why he didnt mention it, it is because it would have detracted from his beautiful pure postulate re the constancy of the SOL. He would have had to add this little extra effect, & this little extra effect is purely an LLC effect which arises from absolute speed, whereas the ELC effect arises from relative speed, & whereas Einstein could bully his way throo the process of heaving LLC out of the nest (leaving just ELC) he knew that people would not so easily swallow this murder if he left a combination of LLC & ELC in the nest (ie LELC). It would be a sensation to introduce LELC, but it would taint his beautiful pure postulate, it would get people thinking more deeply, & thinking is ever dangerous to SR & GR. No, best ignore c'. And scientists ever since did not have the wit to see it, or they ignored this mammoth in the room. Pity. And dont forget, LELC affects ticking too.
Einstein would not have thort of the slowing as being a Lorentzian absolute speed thing (or at least he would not have admitted it), he would have thort of slowing of the SOL as being a GR thing, but even so his say train thort-X would be harder to swallow if he added that the carriages & observers & embankment & station had to have zero mass.
So, LELC adds one more facet to the Law that nothing is ever what or where it appears. And if there is a term in Einstein's field equations that cancels aberration & somehow gives a pseudo-IAAAD, then that whole reasoning must now be seen as flawed, in which case we have one more reason why GR (& SR) are krapp (& this stuff helps to answer one of Phractality's questions in his original posting).
-
I think it might be the sun rune is extra picky. Many times the sun is thought to be arrogant above all things and the center of the galaxy. So, maybe the Sun rune thinks it is too good for most people and only perhaps royality or someone very strong and important can bear it?