Recent content by Albrecht

That is a great response. When I asked for a specific property of photons as particles some time ago, I got the response that photons are clearly waves and not particles and that I am stating nonsense by asking for particles; and my access to the forum was blocked. What has changed?

According to the other contributions here, both statements are equivalent. And the topic of the paper is clearly the speed of light. - The assumption of a variation has fascinating consequences. It explains directly the (otherwise not understood) cosmological inflation (said by the authors). And...

What we know about our world is what our measurements tell us. That is a basic result of epistemology and generally accepted. Why should this be an assault? Yes, the result of our measurements is that all inertial systems are equal. That is the same as what I said about the speed of light. But...

There is a paper of A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo about this: "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles", Physical Review D, Band 59, 1999, 043516 It can be assumed that this article is peer-reviewed. They say that the assumption of a higher speed of light at earlier...

Einstein died in 1955. So there are no actual papers from him. In the years 1925 until 1955 he developed his understanding of space which means his understanding of those properties of the space which he called the "new ether". He published a series of papers and also books about this topic. I...

That is in general correct. But as said before: in a radial field or in general in a radial situation curvature means contraction. And in the case of the expanding universe: this is also a radial situation and so the change of the space means expansion.

Of course I know the distinction. All this is the view of an observer from outside the field. For the observer in the field there is no difference visible. This is demanded by the principle of relativity. First about time: There is time dilation in a gravitational field. An observer can put a...

Fields cannot contract? How can you say this? Example: There may be a field E of a charge q described by the equation: E = q/r2. Then assume that conditions change so that now there is E = q/(2r). So, if one looks to the spatial distribution of the field, the field (i.e. its shape) is...

It was my understandig of Einstein that he has developed a generel concept about space. Also in his later papers about, what he called "new ether", he discussed general properties of the space and did not differentiate between the space in SRT, in GRT, or in cosmology.

Sorry but I have learned that differently. Wrong? In my knowledge Lemaitre has used Einstein's general concept of space to describe the development of the universe. He has related the expansion to space. - Not true? And in the discussions about Dark Energy, the argument (also in univerity...

The same situation here. Contraction follows indirectly. Imagine a light clock in a gravitational field. The time indication of such clock has to show the dilation which happens there. This can only work correctly if (1) the speed of light is reduced as given by GRT and (2) the distance of the...

In my knowledge there do not exist any real experiments, in which contraction was directly proven. But contraction has to be assumed in special relativity to avoid conflicts. So it follows indirectly from dilation and the constancy of c. As well the contraction of fields. - One can find this in...

Yes, fields can contract, and that is (as you say) described by the Lorentz transformation. And you can measure the contraction. If you have a charge, then at a distance r from the charge you may have a field strength E. If now the field contracts (by whatever cause) by a factor of 2, then at...

I do not mean any pressure or any force. If there is for instance relativistic contraction (in SRT) then there is contraction for all objects and for all fields and for everything. There is no force involved. - My question is whether expansion in case of the whole universe is the same or is it...

I have not really understood this. If the space expands, do fields like the electrical field and the gravitational field expand by the same amount? - That would mean that any objects and also galaxies expand in the same way as the space and are so unchanged in relation to the space.