Post by: mmfiore on 30/06/2016 15:56:41
Post by: IAMREALITY on 30/06/2016 16:09:51
So I understand the Michelson–Morley experiment and its result. I do not question the results of the experiment. I have no problem with Special Relativity. The result of this discovery on its surface does seem to defy common sense. It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation. I would like to see what everyone here has to say about this question. I have my own ideas but will not say them as I do not want to violate the rules of the forum. If it is permitted and desired I will give my idea otherwise I would really like to hear from experts as to what the currently excepted explanation is.
Am I correct in assuming that your intention is to then use the experts ideas or parts from them as things you can then rebut or challenge with your own idea that you are planning to post in the new theories section of the forum? My apologies if a wrong assumption. Just was the impression I was getting. Or are you rather wanting to hear their opinions to make sure your idea wasn't already something that was established, prior to posting it in the new theory forum?
As far as the 'why' is concerned, if I had that answer for you, I would be sitting in a much nicer office...
Best I can give is simply because it is. Because the theory works. Because everything we've ever deduced has shown it to be so.
Post by: mmfiore on 30/06/2016 16:46:22
Post by: Alan McDougall on 30/06/2016 17:34:32
I do not think that light c is always independent on your frame of reference, although no object containing mass can move through the fabric of space-time at greater than c.
When you switch on a torch the photons are immediately moving at 299,792, 458 miles per second .
Your frame of reference as a separate observer can make it seem that object are approaching each other at greater than c , when it is the gap between them that is closing faster than c .
Alan
Post by: mmfiore on 30/06/2016 18:05:21
As I understand it the speed of light will always be measured as 299792458 m / s no matter what speed you are moving at. To help things along I think that two avenues could be used. One avenue would be explore in detail how Maxwell discovered that light speed has to do with the permittivity and permeability of space. Another avenue maybe something to due with the geometry of space. Although I am not sure how we could get to the specific value and constancy of light using a geometric explanation.
Post by: IAMREALITY on 30/06/2016 19:06:45
Alan
As I understand it the speed of light will always be measured as 299792458 m / s no matter what speed you are moving at.
You are correct, and your thread premise was as well. It's a good question. But I wish I could be more help in answering it. We do have some VERY expert people on this site though and I'm looking forward to some of their replies.
And btw, welcome to the forums!
Post by: Colin2B on 30/06/2016 19:10:05
One avenue would be explore in detail how Maxwell discovered that light speed has to do with the permittivity and permeability of space.If you are aware of this then you are aware that this is well documented and described elsewhere on the net.
It won't really help however.
Maxwell's equations are derived from 4 observed laws, 2 of Gauss, 1 of Faraday and 1 of Ampere and the result describes how electric and magnetic fields are not only generated but are altered by each other. The speed of em radiation, including light, is a result of those interactions. There is no mechanical explanation other than that contained within those observed laws.
However, Maxwell's equations might only be valid for one reference frame and might change if we are moving. It was this problem which Einstein addressed in his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. The problem he was addressing is that there is an asymmetry in the case of a magnet moving past a stationary wire and a wire moving past a stationary magnet. This problem can only be resolved if the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and if, therefore, the speed of light is constant in all such frames.It's worth reading this if you haven't already. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
I don't think anyone here is going to go through the laborious process of discussing the detail of Gauss's, Faraday's and Ampere's laws.
If you have an explanation it would be worth you putting it in our new theories section.
Post by: mmfiore on 30/06/2016 20:33:36
Colin2B thanks for the your comments. I have tried reading as much as I can about Maxwell and I am always looking for new ways to do searches that may lead to greater insights. Your introducing the 4 observed laws gives me new ways to do searches based on those terms and Maxwell. I am sure that you are correct that there will not be a mechanical explanation as well but there may be additional ways to think about the problem. As you now realize I am after the foundational mechanics. The questions that always contain a "why" or "how" in them. In the days of Gauss, Maxwell and Faraday it was really all about the mechanics back then. They were always thinking in the classical way. They tried to deal and explain forces, actions, stresses in terms of mechanics. They did have a lot of success working in that context. Unfortunately they had the very same problem then that we have today. They and we cannot actually see a particle or a field like a magnetic field. Without this ability to observe the raw material of reality directly, and see what the stuff of the Universe looks like we are forced to use our imaginations in order to explore what cannot be seen directly.
I read the Special Relativity paper again as you suggested. It is funny that I never payed attention to the part at the beginning concerning the magnets and the conductor. I shall read it some more and think about it. Thanks.
I will read the link you sent thanks...
I may place a post for my explanation when I finish writing it down. I do have an explanation that is completely mechanical and very complete. I have been working on my Reality Model for over 40 years. I am trying to put it on paper at this moment. If you are telling me that people here are interested in such an idea I would be happy to share that particular detail. I just do not want to upset anyone with such ideas as I know some physics forums usually have strict rules about sharing such ideas. I am a natural philosopher and that does not always mesh to well with the current physics paradigm. I can probably give an explanation in a paragraph or two. The problem will be it will naturally trigger a set of other questions. I can answer those questions but in that process things are going to get very involved because there are a great deal of dependencies and interconnections involved. They all can be tied together for a complete picture. I usually have these kinds of discussions on philosophy websites.
Post by: Colin2B on 30/06/2016 21:25:55
I just do not want to upset anyone with such ideas as I know some physics forums usually have strict rules about sharing such ideas.That's why we have our New Theories section. It gives somewhere for new ideas or alternatives to existing ones. It also keeps this section free for questions about current theories.
Most of physics isn't about providing a mechanism, it is more about describing observations and the implications of those descriptions. Even Newton and Faraday were not really providing a mechanism, Newton's laws of motion and gravity are very much descriptive, rather than providing a mechanism.
You are welcome to post a new theory in any form you like, eg an overview or a detailed paper eg PDF.
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/07/2016 00:19:34
Post by: evan_au on 01/07/2016 15:38:55
Quote from: mmfiore
In a vacuum like outer space light always travels at exactly at 299,792,458 m/sI am no expert, but I understand that this applies only when you measure the speed of light in your laboratory, in your frame of reference.
If you observe someone who is measuring the speed of light in their laboratory, they will get the same answer. But if they are deeper in a gravitational well than yourself, you will notice that the clock they are using to measure the speed of light is ticking slower than your clock; so you will calculate a different speed if you use your clock.
So if you measure the speed of light in a different frame of reference, it may not be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
But I'm happy to be corrected by those who know far more than I do!
Post by: mmfiore on 03/07/2016 13:55:54
Since some have introduced ideas that are some what speculative I would like to introduce a fact of nature about light that may help us arrive at an answer to the question.
I think that in the context of the special case that my question involves the simple answer to this question maybe this fact. The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference because its velocity or to say its origin of motion is generated by its own accord. To put it another way the cause of the motion of the photon is completely independent of all other frames of motion. The cause of the motion of the photon is somehow being generated by its geometric construction relative to the space it resides within. So a standard for an addition of velocities of other things such as rockets in motion or planets moving through space do not apply to light. Their motions do not add or subtract to the motion of the photon.
The basic point I am trying to bring out is that the photon moves independently from all other frames of reference and it does this in a perpetual manner. This state of the perpetual motion of the photon appears to me to be completely ignored. Okay so there it is. So I am thinking at this point that since I have introduced a a line of thought that is outside the current paradigm that we move the discussion to the New Theories area of the forum so that we can continue discussing this strange fact of nature in more detail or we can continue it here. I will leave that up to the moderator to decide.
Post by: Colin2B on 03/07/2016 18:54:08
The basic point I am trying to bring out is that the photon moves independently from all other frames of reference and it does this in a perpetual manner. This state of the perpetual motion of the photon appears to me to be completely ignored.The perpetual nature of the photon is a fundamental assumption of physics. It is not often mentioned explicitly as it is assumed as general knowledge.
It follows Newton's laws that a body will continue in motion if not acted upon by any forces. A pendulum in a vacuum, with frictionless bearings, would oscillate forever. The photon does the same - as far as we know.
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/07/2016 01:24:11
Post by: mmfiore on 04/07/2016 01:27:01
There are several problems with this model.
1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.
4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.
The only reasonable mechanical explanation that can explain every instance above is that photons are moving by their own accord completely independent of all other moving objects or external forces. For this to be possible then the photon must be moving through a medium that it is consubstantial with. It appears to me that mankind made a big mistake in 1905. I mean no disrespect to anyone but these facts of nature trouble me. They need to be explained. I do not believe that photons are being ejected from electrons like a pitcher throws a hardball.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 04/07/2016 07:41:04
Post by: Colin2B on 04/07/2016 11:21:52
1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?It comes from the energy stored by the electron as it changes level. It is best not to think of it as a force but as a trigger for the oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields.
Also, it is best to think of the momentum of the photon. You may have heard of the solar sail where light hitting the sail transfers momentum to the sail and it moves. Similarly, when a photon leaves an atom there is a a conservation of momentum, as the photon moves away there is a reaction and the momentum of the atom changes.
2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?Think of a pendulum. The physical characteristics eg length and g, determine its frequency. Similarly with the oscillation of the em fields as described by Maxwell, faraday etc.
3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.Newton's Laws as we generally encounter them involve elastic collisions. Photons, and remember, although we are not talking about little billiard balls they do behave as if they were inelastic, again momentum is conserved. This is too big a subject to discuss in a short post, but there is quite a bit on the web about particle collisions.
4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.If you were to roll a ball down a hill where the other side of the valley is an exact reflection then the ball would exchange potential energy for kinetic going down and vise versa going up the other side. If there is no friction, at the top of its motion on the other side of the valley the ball will have the same potential energy as it started with, energy is conserved and the ball will continue forever.
Again remember these are very brief and incomplete responses, but I hope you can use them as a springboard for further study.
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/07/2016 12:31:09
Post by: mmfiore on 04/07/2016 20:40:23
First to John
There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking. Where. as I do not disagree entirely with what you say where the ether is concerned, just saying that it has to do with the medium is insufficient, this of course assuming that ether assumption is correct.
Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information. To be honest with you I am already somewhat familiar with your work. As I also believe in studying not only traditional classical physics but Quantum physics and the theoretical ideas of people outside the mainstream. I believe that I must keep an open mind to all ideas. The only way to get to truth is too examine all the evidence and as many approaches as possible and then make a decision based on the scientific facts and using logical arguments to form a working mechanical model that describes what the truth is. This method puts me in the classification of a natural philosopher. I have been in this process for over 40 years. With that said, I find that perhaps your weakest aspect in your arguments is that you must try and represent what is the established point of view is and then contrast your point of view to that. That way people can make up their own minds in what they believe to be true.
What I am trying to do here is to completely understand the point of view and logic behind the most current conventional point of view. I commend all people who are engaged in this line of study because it is very important and very difficult. So all people here are welcome in this conversation as far as I am concerned.
Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more. I appreciate the fact that the people here have agreed to leave this context of the discussion within the realm of classical physics. If Quantum Physics were introduced into this conversation it would rapidly become impossible to drill down to the very foundation of reality because everything becomes abstracted when we apply the QM paradigm.
You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large. One must go to the core essence. No one has made it yet to that level. The old masters of the last century were the closest. QM has went in an entirely different direction but it does not provide the why and how answers. Classical theory does not supply them either.
Finally there was a mistake made in 1905 and the origin of the mistake has already been mentioned in this discussion and there is a link in this discussion pointing to the paper. The embedding of the error is subtle but it is there in that paper. Can you find the error and the motivation behind it? Its is all there if you are willing to dig for it.
To jefferyh
I very much appreciate your comment as it is I believe it is a part of the solution. Maxwell was the man that discovered this fact of nature. Maxwell is one of my heroes he was an incredibly brilliant man and in my opinion was on the right track. Permittivity and permeability do play the main role in determining the absolute maximum velocity in free space. By introducing this fact that is an undeniable truth you have now exposed yet another problem in physics. As I am sure you already know the dominate idea about space is that it is made of nothing and it does not exist as a physically independent existing object. Yet space has measurable properties such as the two you just introduced. Logically speaking a thing that does not physically exist should not have any measurable properties. Yet space does have measurable properties. This certainly does seem to suggest that space is a something. This does support the idea of an ether. Thank you for bringing it up and I appreciate that you admit that you do not know why this should be. Know one really knows why because we do not understand the foundation mechanics under lying this fact of nature. I believe that this knowledge is obtainable and I believe it is at hand. There is just one layer that lies just beneath Maxwell's discovery of nature. It is a purely mechanical and I am writing the solution for this as well.
Ah, but this piece of information only concerns the speed limit. This discussion is about the cause of motion. Sensibly enough I believe they are both related.
For Colin2b
You said in response to my question: Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
It comes from the energy stored by the electron as it changes level. It is best not to think of it as a force but as a trigger for the oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields.
Also, it is best to think of the momentum of the photon. You may have heard of the solar sail where light hitting the sail transfers momentum to the sail and it moves. Similarly, when a photon leaves an atom there is a a conservation of momentum, as the photon moves away there is a reaction and the momentum of the atom changes.
This is a great explanation. I read several times and each time it made more and more sense. There is a nifty logic to it. Unfortunately it opens up a real sticky wicket and does not undo my chief complaint. So as I understand it the photon obtains its momentum from the action of the electron changing levels. I do agree fully with the concept that it is the action of the electron moving to a different level that causes the emission of a photon. That is far as I can go for agreement. There is ample evidence that this is true. But now we have a new problem where did the electron obtain its initial momentum? It seems to me that the electron is also in perpetual motion and never at rest. Why doesn't the electron slow down and lose momentum. In fact all particles that we know of are in constant motion. If we are going to accept that they all obtained their motion from something else external we still have the problem as to why they do not slow down when they collide with other particles. Scientisits have correctly observed that momentum is in fact conserved. If this is true then we cannot invoke Newtons law for the explanation for the conservation of momentum. Why is this so? Because particle collisions in which two particles collide when going toward each other from opposite directions would and do violate Newton's law of motion. Particles should lose momentum when they collide head on. So technically speaking they violate Newton's law because they do not lose their momentum as a result of this collision. Now I suppose that you can attempt to make the claim based on in-elasticity of the particles but I do not for one believe that particles are in-elastic but even if they were a direct collision of equal an opposite force would render both objects motionless under the laws of Newton.
Imagine your example of the pendulum. Now imagine a second pendulum colliding with the first from the opposite direction. The result of this collision will always result in a loss of momentum for both pendulums. This collision obeys Newton's laws. The question is why are particles continually able to conserve their momentum. Classical physics does not explain this nor does QM its just another law of nature. The only reasonable explanation for this is that all particles move independently of any external cause. In this way the law of conservation is now explained. So now the infection of the question I have asked has spread to all particles.
Okay moving on to the next explanation that you provided for my question: How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
Before I start my reply. I will say that perhaps I have misunderstood your answer if so I apologize ahead of time and I am sure you or someone else will straighten me out.
Your explanation using the pendulum is not logically consistent. It is not logically consistent because the speed of the pendulum changes when ever you change the length of the pendulum which directly corresponds to the wave length of the pendulum. All photons no matter what their wave length travel at the exact same speed. This means that the speed of light is completely independent of frequency (in free space). You seem to be saying that it is somehow dependent on frequency. Now what is different is the time it takes for a wavelength to be completed as a photon passes by. So with the pendulum we can make clocks with different lengths of pendulums and make them keep the same time because the speed at which the pendulum moves is faster for longer pendulum lengths versus shorter pendulum lengths.
Your next response about particle collision and the conservation of momentum is the real mystery and I already covered what I think above. The conservation of momentum is not explained down to the mechanical level by anyone that I know of. Its just a law of nature at this point. It needs to be explained.
Your final response to my question: Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.
Thank you for representing what the mainstream establishment believes. I realize that you are conveying the accepted explanation and that is what I am examining very closely. I am seeing for my self if the logic is consistent and explains the facts of nature. It is then up to each and every individual to decide for themselves what to believe.
I am once again going to use the example that you provided. Unfortunately once again I find inconsistencies in the logic that is supposed to explain the above stated phenomenon.
You said: If you were to roll a ball down a hill where the other side of the valley is an exact reflection then the ball would exchange potential energy for kinetic going down and vise versa going up the other side. If there is no friction, at the top of its motion on the other side of the valley the ball will have the same potential energy as it started with, energy is conserved and the ball will continue forever.
Now the speed of light and its momentum have been tied to the geometry of space. Seems like a safe and reasonable path at first glance. The first exception I find with the modern day explanation is that the photon does the exact opposite of what should happen if we use the example you provide. If in fact the photon were traveling through space and the geometry of a gravitational field was effecting the photon as described then the shape of space where the gravitational field is concerned would have to be a convex shape meaning that having an outline or surface curved like the exterior of a circle or sphere. This would then match your example and would impede the photon speed. Unfortunately we know the opposite is true in so far as the shape of space is concerned. Every drawing I have ever seen represents the shape of space in a gravitational field as being a concave collapsing inward shape. This shape has been proven by the fact that the photon is deflected toward the source of the gravitational field. This then means that the speed of a photon should increase as it proceeds toward the gravitational source. This does not happen in the case of the photon. The velocity changes the speed of the photon slows down and deflects toward the gravitational source. Now lets repeat the experiment but this time use something with mass. Lets use a proton and see what will happen. Once again the speed of the proton changes but it speeds up and it to is deflected toward the gravitational source. So there is a distinct difference in the first case the photon slows down which implies that it is going up hill but it is deflects toward the gravitational source which implies that the shape of space is downhill. On the other hand the the proton speeds up when and falls toward the gravitational source. When the proton then leaves the gravitational field it is slowed down as it leaves. In this example the exact opposite result is experience by the proton compared to the photon.
So why is gravity having such different affect on two very similar objects both are entirely composed of electromagnetic fields shouldn't they behave the same when they experience the same force or the same geometry? The difference is the proton has mass and the photon does not. Once again we cannot use a macroscopic law to describe this situation. Speed wise the photon is acting like it is going up hill when entering the gravitational field but direction wise it is acting like it is going downhill. The proton on the other hand is acting completely sensibly it is acting like it is going downhill when entering the gravitational field and acting like it is going up hill when leaving the gravitational field. So tallying up the score we have 3 votes for down hill concave shape for gravity and one vote for the reverse.
Speed wise the photon is acting exactly opposite of the downhill uphill example.
Lets drill completely into this problem the massless photon also is effected in another way it's frequency is compressed when it enters the gravitational field and it expands when it exits. This is good so we have a nice mechanical explanation for the conservation of the energy of the photon. Everybody is happy about that. Its sensible for everyone. I am happy for a moment and then that pesky brain of mine then asks why does the photon behave this way in a gravitational field? The only reasonable rational fully complete explanation must have something to do with the fact that the photon is interacting with something. Where is the photon located? Its located in the vacuum of space outside of the earth's atmosphere. The only thing that is out there is the gravitational field located within space. So I am forced to conclude that space is a real thing that has real effects on particle like objects.
With all this said we still have not explained why a photon maintains its momentum when it leaves the gravitational field. The external force that has effected it is diminishing and the photon has already been slowed down. Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed. Newton's law states that in order for there to be an increase in speed an external force has to be applied to that object. Where is the external force? We already have proven that the gravitational field is diminishing that can't be it and that the shape of the space as it leaves space is uphill not downhill that can't be it. What should be happening is that the photon should be slowing down not speeding up. That is what the proton does and that is what every other particle other than the photon does except for maybe the neutrino but that is a whole other can of worms. I say something else is going on that is not explained by the current laws and theories of physics. It is my intention to get to the bottom of this mystery.
Post by: Colin2B on 04/07/2016 22:54:44
I say something else is going on that is not explained by the current laws and theories of physics. It is my intention to get to the bottom of this mystery.I wish you all the best in your quest.
When you have completed it and have it documented I hope you will post it here in our New Theories section.
Post by: mmfiore on 05/07/2016 19:39:22
This study of physics has been a hobby for many years since I was 9 and then it turned more serious when I became older. I do not like to write but I am forcing myself to do so because this story is not going to write itself. LOL I may at some point post a brief foundational question as I did here and then have everyone put their ideas out for discussion. That will be fun to do. I will not post info about the details of my model until the entire set of ideas has been documented. It looks like it will take about 400 + pages or so to completely describe the Model its components and ramifications some of which may be patentable. It is a lot of fun exchanging ideas in an open friendly format like you have here at this site. You guys have definitely answered my question and now I have a better understanding of how traditional science views this problem. Thank you.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 07/07/2016 14:59:20
There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking.A complete understanding is available in continuum mechanics.
Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information.It isn't my theory. The speed of light is related to the permittivity and permeability of space via the expression:
See Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#Significance_in_electromagnetism). There's a somewhat similar expression for shear wave velocity in mechanics:
Again see Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_modulus#Waves). G is the shear modulus of rigidity and ρ is the density. When these vary, the wave speed varies. It's similar for light. Note that there's a shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2Fi1AHK.png&hash=79695fde08a72ade57949d5a48a85af8)
Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more.Relativists do. See for example Don Koks saying it here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
But their voice is drowned out by popscience quacks and misinformation from particle physicists who have never read the Einstein digital papers. People who would censor the Einstein digital papers because they contradict what they've told you.
You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large.See this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity) and this (http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+aether/0/1/0/all/0/1). It is difficult to convince people who thinks the popscience woo they believe in is mainstream science, and that anything else is some new theory.
Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed.The photon has an E=hf wave nature. There is nothing strange about a wave changing speed when the medium changes. What's strange is that nobody has read the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22).
Post by: mmfiore on 07/07/2016 16:14:47
I'll check out your links especially the Einstein digital papers. Maybe there is something in those papers I have not seen before.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 07/07/2016 21:47:48
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.ucla.edu%2F%7Ewright%2FEinstein-wavelets-75.gif&hash=90c19f44af64e060d75969fcfc93939f)
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/07/2016 23:04:06
"Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculated the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations."
The coordinate speed of light along a path depends upon the position of the observer. If we placed observers all along this path at regular intervals none of them would record the speed of light as anything other than c in vacuum. Wouldn't you agree John? For the sake of clarity.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 08/07/2016 14:03:45
Post by: PhysBang on 09/07/2016 03:20:53
That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.Note that this is not actually what is said by the authors of the paper Mr. Duffield cites. The main point of their paper is that there is a way around this apparent tautology and explain what it means to have a different speed of light. It is a somewhat complicated paper and a somewhat advanced look at relativistic physics. Nonetheless, the authors write about what it means for the speed of light to change between cosmological eras (or locations) even though it seems like a tautology given a superficial examination of physics and constants.
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 11:11:31
That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.
Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms. You do know that Einstein used Lorentz transformations don't you? You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 09/07/2016 12:34:52
Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.What? Lorentz transformations are nothing to do with it. Instead see the definition of the second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second):
"It is quantitatively defined in terms of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock"
You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.What? I'm not flatly contradicting Einstein. I'm referring to the guy (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22):
"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".
At a lower elevation where the light moves slower, the 9,192,631,770 periods of caesium radiation yields a longer duration. We call it time dilation.
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 12:57:08
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 13:04:16
Post by: PhysBang on 09/07/2016 16:36:14
As Magueijo and Moffat point out in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 , the Lorentz transformations have everything to do with it, as they form the basis of relating fundamental constants to each other so that we can use physical processes as workable definitions for units.Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.What? Lorentz transformations are nothing to do with it. Instead see the definition of the second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second):
"It is quantitatively defined in terms of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock"
Quote
The ability to cherry-pick sentences out of Einstein's work (and occasionally pick out things that might be relevant) does not make anyone an expert on relativity theory. Einstein was known to make mistakes about relativity theory, some that he corrected himself.You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.What? I'm not flatly contradicting Einstein. I'm referring to the guy (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22):
"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".
Quote
At a lower elevation where the light moves slower, the 9,192,631,770 periods of caesium radiation yields a longer duration. We call it time dilation.According to relativity theory, time dilation causes all physical processes to be slower in one area than another, not the other way around.
Post by: mmfiore on 10/07/2016 04:20:02
Post by: jerrygg38 on 10/07/2016 11:16:43
This is good information Collin2B I like to hear about what physicists agree upon. Thanks for that. There is really so little information about this topic of photon motion as it is in the perpetual state. As jeffreyH said this has to be taken down to the level of the very small and looked at. I am a bit surprised about how this fundamental assumption of physics today would have such a deep logical flaw in its model of photon motion. I am surprised no one has noticed it. Let us take the example you gave concerning the pendulum and Newton's law. In order for this model to be correct the photon would have to be placed in motion by some external force just as a pendulum has to have an initial starting force to start it swinging. Then the photon would then move through friction less space unimpeded forever.
There are several problems with this model.
1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.
4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.
The only reasonable mechanical explanation that can explain every instance above is that photons are moving by their own accord completely independent of all other moving objects or external forces. For this to be possible then the photon must be moving through a medium that it is consubstantial with. It appears to me that mankind made a big mistake in 1905. I mean no disrespect to anyone but these facts of nature trouble me. They need to be explained. I do not believe that photons are being ejected from electrons like a pitcher throws a hardball.
Since this is now in the New Theories section I will provide my answers to your questions.
1. There are electrical energy and mechanical energy forms. Photons are balanced blends of electrical energy.Photonic energy takes two basic forms. there are spherical waves containing the energy of huge amounts of photons and individual photons. the individual photon is a self propelled electrical motor. Thus when released it moves automatically at the speed of light C.
2. The speed of light C is really the jump speed as the photon jumps between gravitational field lines. This is similar to the speed of a synchronous motor.
3. the jump speed is constant yet the speed is slightly higher than the C we measure. It takes time between jumps.
4. The light speed is the average speed of jump speed and the delay time between jumps. Thus within a strong gravitational field, there are many more field lines to jump. In pure outer space the amount of jumps per unit distance is less and the speed is the ideal speed of light which is slightly faster than here. In a black hole the jump speed is the same but the density of the field lines brings the light speed (average) to zero.
Post by: mmfiore on 10/07/2016 19:01:49
Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.
I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines. Problem 2. There are not really gravitational lines in space.
You also mention a density of field lines this too is similar in concept to what I am about to say.
I am still working on my explanation should be ready later today.
Also I have another problem concerning this website. Neither of my browsers Chrome or Edge are displaying the editing controls properly. Does anyone know how to fix this problem. I cannot do any of the fancy stuff like mark quotes, underline and bold. It works every once and a while but then it stops. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Post by: mmfiore on 10/07/2016 19:19:02
The photon extricates itself from all other frames of reference because it is self propagating object that moves at a constant rate of speed relative to an absolute stationary back ground. I know, I know there is no such thing. Maybe we are wrong about that. I'll get back to that later on. The constant rate at which light travels is in part determined by permittivity and permeability. I believe the modification of permeability and permittivity can be done by modifying spatial tension and density.
Wow, what does all that mean? I believe the velocity of light is caused by the idea that photons are in actuality pressure waves which are moving through a medium. I call this mechanical process the Slip Wave. I am deliberately leaving out the details of this process because it is a patentable idea and it is very detailed and lengthy.
So the differences in speed that we see when light goes through various mediums can be attributed to coordinate transformations of the medium as caused by massive objects that make up the medium, for example gas, water or glass. What transformation am I talking about? It a new transformation that may be derivable using Einstein's gravitational field equation. The transformation occurs as a result of modifications of space caused by different densities of matter within different mediums. The denser the matter the stronger the gravitational field within that medium. We already know that gravity slows down light just like other mediums. The big question is why? In all cases I believe that there is a coordinate transformation in which the density of the medium increases in a gravitational field. Space itself is real physical object that is an elastic solid and can be condensed. The stronger the gravitational field the slower light will move when we observe light from outside the gravitational field. This is because we are using clocks that run faster and distances that are physically shorter. The transformed coordinate system within the gravitational field contains more space per meter of length and a clock that runs slower. This then enables us to measure the speed of light from within the altered frame of reference to also be the correct speed of light. The speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference.
Let us imagine that we have a truly rigid measuring rod and we measure space outside of a gravitational field in a completely flat Cartesian space. We measure the length of this space to be 1 meter long with a specific content value. Now lets move the rod to a gravitational field. The rod is truly rigid and does not shrink or compress in this field. We place the rod in the gravitational field with the rod parallel to the surface of the earth's surface. The rod still has a length of 1 meter but the density of space along the length of the measuring rod is now slightly increased. In other words in a gravitational field space not only bends toward the gravitational source, it also condenses in the direction toward the gravitational source and becomes a gradient field. This conforms to the acceleration equivalence. A gradient field of increasing density exists in the direction toward the gravitational source. This mechanical apparatus also explains the tidal effect.
Why should this slow down light? Simple D=r*t Now solve for time t=d/r.
If the speed of light remains constant which I believe it does then the time it takes light to traverse the meter inside the gravitational field will be slightly longer when we observe from outside the gravitational field. Why is it longer? It is longer because the actual physical distance of space has increased across the length of the rigid measuring rod. The rod which measures a meters worth of distance to us but in actuality the distance of physical space is greater in the gravitational field. There is more support for this idea. The frequency of light also compresses when it enters a gravitational field. The change of density perfectly explains both the frequency compression and the apparent slowing of the speed of light. It also explains the equivalence of acceleration to gravity. Light does not really slow down in a gravitational field it has to travel farther and so to us it appears to be slowing down. Inside the gravitational field it still measures as traveling at proper light speed.
There is one very important anomaly that is rarely if ever discussed. That anomaly is that light itself resides in a frame of reference that is not subject to the Lorentz Transformations. One should be asking why is light misbehaving in this way. The answer is shown below.
The final break through for me was the realization that balanced charges are immune to inertial effects when they move through space. Inertia being directly related to gravity. My system can also be used to explain inertia. The photon is a neutral or balanced charge moving at a constant rate of speed.
Postulate: The central cause of mass is directly rated to the motion of unbalanced charges accelerating through space. These type of particles move in a curved fashion which is a absolute form of motion. By definition absolute motion is accelerated motion. Accelerated motion causes inertia and inertia becomes gravity. I am deliberately leaving out the mechanical process for the details of inertia. On the other hand balanced charges such as the photon do not move in an accelerated fashion they move at a constant rate and therefore do not generate inertia and correspondingly do not generate mass and are not subject to the Lorentz transformations.
Gentlemen what I have just explained is the completion of Einstein's Unified Field theory. If this is ever proven to be correct electromagnetism will be united to gravity.
So you must be thinking at this point how does one prove this? Repeat the Michelson Interferometer experiment BUT DO NOT USE PHOTONS. We must use a Proton beam or and electron beam. The particle must possess mass. The experiment using this test will reveal an ether wind. My suggestion is to review the maintenance logs of the beam speed of at Cern accelerator. I am willing to bet big money that the beam speed has to be adjusted every year during the December / January time frame. If anyone knows somebody who does this type of work at Cern ask them if every year they have to re-calibrate the accelerator in the December/January time frame and then change it back in June / July time frame. In particular the speed will change most in the tunnels traveling East and West.
So for fun lets say this some how this is proven correct. That would be something. What would it mean. It would mean that Einstein and Lorentz were right after all. QM is incomplete and the ether does exist. It means a whole lot more but that is another story.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 11/07/2016 12:56:11
JerryGG38The photon
Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.
I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines. Problem 2. There are not really gravitational lines in space.
You also mention a density of field lines this too is similar in concept to what I am about to say.
I am still working on my explanation should be ready later today.
Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self-propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self-propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.
I have two different models of the photon. In my Dot-wave theory there are three different forms of energy in the universe, spherical, linear, and orbital. In addition there are three fundamental structures of this energy negative dot waves, positive dot-waves, and bipolar dot-waves.
The photons are bipolar dot-waves. Bipolar dot-waves form structures which when spherical they produce mass. When linear and orbital they form photons. The positive and negative dot-waves exist within positive and negative fields. They tend to attract each other but they cannot because they make up separate dimensions within space. Space has no dimensions as such but within space are fields which are separated from each other. Thus a photon is something that tries to become one with each other but cannot. You cannot put a plus dot-wave into a minus dot-wave and get zero. They always attempt to destroy each other but they cannot.
The photon model is a form of linear and orbital dot-wave energy that contains the energy which would destroy itself if it could but takes the form of an electrical motor. Positive dot-waves and negative dot-waves revolving around a straight line tend to align themselves so that the magnetic field in the front of motion is zero. The magnetic field is the interaction of the photon with the plus and minus dot-waves of space. They tend to attract the opposite dot-waves within the photon and repel the same dot-waves within the photon. Thus you get a magnetic field which responds to the magnetic field in the photon. It becomes a bipolar magnetic field. However one field will lead and the other lag.
The net result is that the photon threads itself through space as it moves on a straight line.
I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines.
My dot-wave theory in my “Doppler Space Time Book” only had a motor model. After my surgery last December I decided to rewrite my book as “The Gravitational Wave and the Dot-wave Theory”. At that time I realized that the Michelson/Morley experiment was invalid because every strong gravitational field is its own reference platform. Thus the Earth is a reference platform and the sun is a reference platform. Photons from the sun become part of the earths platform as soon as they start to reach the zero balance point between the sun’s field and the earths field. Since spherical energy converts into linear and orbital energy, it is possible that photons constantly change from a spherical field to an individual field. Thus looking at the photon as converting between these forms what happens when they change reference. The jump concept is for the wave. The wave will jump between gravitational field lines.
Is this a good concept? It is only six months old and my bipolar brain acts as a devils advocate against the concepts proposed by my inner brain to my outer brain. Right now I am attacking the concept and looking for an alternate explanation.
It is possible that the photon remains as the electrical motor model suggests. It threads itself through the sun’s gravitational field and then reaches the balance of gravity point. Then it reaches the dot-wave structure of the Earth’s field. There is a transition as the photon encounters the differential velocity due to the Sun/Earth relative motion. This may very well cause a transfer of dot-wave energy between the sun’s photon and the Earths field. Thus as the photon adjusts to the Earths field it turns red or blue depending upon the relative motion. For this case there is no jump but a smooth change in the amount of dot-wave entering or leaving the photon as it adjusts to the different fields.
In either case the MM experiment is invalid and Einstein’s special relativity is incorrect although his equations are excellent because in my opinion we have a Doppler Universe and not an Einsteinian universe. Yet the geometric mean of Doppler equals Einstein so his equations are excellent.
I like to see your ideas concerning the photon. I am still looking at several different models. Another one is a Doppler model.
2. Since everything radiates dot-waves space is filled with dot-waves which produce both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. Thus these dot-waves produce gravitational field lines.
Post by: mmfiore on 11/07/2016 17:08:05
Your theory like my own is something that comes primarily from the imagination. There is a lot of conceptual items in your theory that I cannot visualize because there is not a detailed mechanical explanation. Without that I am having trouble visualizing what you are saying. Heck, I have to work real hard to visualize what I imagine and then link the imagery to known observations of factual science. Making you own theory takes time and a lot of reading so that you can work the logic into a sensible theory. My recommendation for you is to give it time and keep questioning your ideas as well as others. Try and make a model that explains how things work.
As far as getting a breakdown of the concepts you have you should rely on people with an educational background in math and physics to analyze what you hypothesize. That is what I do. I respect the opinions and ideas of the people who have the training in the fields of math and physics. I may not always agree with them but I appreciate and respect their opinions and knowledge.
I will comment on one thing you brought up and that is the M&M Experiment. I believe that the execution of the experiment was perfect. Michelson did not make any technical errors and the data is valid. My problem with the experiment is that the design of the experiment was flawed. Using a particle that always moves at constant rate and whose motion is completely independent of all other frames of motion could never, ever detect an ether wind. People in that time really did not know that light would behave like that. This is why I suggest redoing the experiment with something that is subject to the laws of inertia. Use any particle other than a photon or neutrino. Anything else should reveal an ether wind and detect the earth's motion relative to the stationary ether.