Does the speed of light affect the aberration of starlight?

[O Great One]

I was thinking of something and maybe somebody can explain...
If rain is coming straight down at a rate of 4 meters/second and I'm walking along at a rate of 3 meters/second then the rain is hitting me at an angle at a rate of 5 meters/second. So, then why doesn't the same sort of reasoning apply to starlight? The aberration of starlight is what I'm referring to specifically. I mean if the speed of light is always the same then there wouldn't be any aberration of starlight correct? The light would always come down at the same angle regardless of the motion of the Earth with respect to the star. Correct or not?

 

[Janus]

Relativity does predict the abberation of starlight. The difference is that in Relativity you would not see a change of velocity in the light, but a slight increase of frequency. The angle of deflection is the same.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Janus
Relativity does predict the abberation of starlight. The difference is that in Relativity you would not see a change of velocity in the light, but a slight increase of frequency. The angle of deflection is the same.

You can’t have a “change of frequency” in the starlight seen at the Earth if the star is not moving toward or away from the earth, or if the Earth is not moving toward or away from the star, so aberration of starlight coming from directly overhead has nothing at all to do with “a change of frequency," and it has nothing at all to do with "Einstein relativity" either. It was discovered and described long before he lived.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by David
You can’t have a “change of frequency” in the starlight seen at the Earth if the star is not moving toward or away from the earth, or if the Earth is not moving toward or away from the star, so aberration of starlight coming from directly overhead has nothing at all to do with “a change of frequency," and it has nothing at all to do with "Einstein relativity" either. It was discovered and described long before he lived.

It was discovered, by Bradley, in the 18th century, and explained by him in terms of a "wind of light" by naive corpuscles in the style of Newton's Opticks. When the wave nature of light was discovered early in the 19th century, there was a problem because the easy wind explanation could no longer be applied, and it wasn't easy to motivate the phenomenon with waves. But relativity cleared the problem up. Aberration is truly a relativistic phenomenon, and it's not a shift of frequency, it's a change in the observed direction of the star.

 

[David]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It was discovered, by Bradley, in the 18th century, and explained by him in terms of a "wind of light" by naive corpuscles in the style of Newton's Opticks. When the wave nature of light was discovered early in the 19th century, there was a problem because the easy wind explanation could no longer be applied, and it wasn't easy to motivate the phenomenon with waves. But relativity cleared the problem up. Aberration is truly a relativistic phenomenon, and it's not a shift of frequency, it's a change in the observed direction of the star.

Didn’t Einstein adopt the “photon particle” nature of light, rather than the “wave” nature? Isn’t that what his photoelectric effect was all about? Why is it that when Newton says it's "particles", that's "out of date", but when Einstein says it's "particles", that's considered "brilliant"?

Bradley discovered the phenomenon and he explained it. If you know of a specific different explanation, I’d like to hear it. Exactly what did “relativity” “clear up”, and how?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
Exactly what did “relativity” “clear up”, and how?

SR made the "aether wind" unnecessary by explaining how the M&M experiment could produce a null result.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
SR made the "aether wind" unnecessary by explaining how the M&M experiment could produce a null result.

Exactly how did SR explain how M&M got the null result?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
Exactly how did SR explain how M&M got the null result?

Is this a trick question? You talk about this stuff all the time.

The postulate of a constant light speed and its implications on time and space dilation predict a null result.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Is this a trick question? You talk about this stuff all the time.

The postulate of a constant light speed and its implications on time and space dilation predict a null result.

The “constancy” postulate was just a guess that turned out to be wrong, as he admitted in his 1911 paper. He was able to guess at the constancy postulate in 1905, because back then astronomers didn’t realize that stars and galaxies were moving around in space at relatives speeds of thousands of miles a second. There are high-z galaxies known today that have redshifts that indicate they are traveling at 1, 2, 3, and even 4 times the speed of light, relative to the earth. The SR theory doesn’t explain this phenomena at all. The new concept is that light travels through each separate galaxy at approximately “c”, and it changes speed as it moves from galaxy to galaxy, with a local medium inside each galaxy controlling its local speed to about “c” inside each galaxy. Currently, this local medium is called, simply, the “comoving space” of the galaxy.

Anyway, he altered the “constancy” postulate in his 1911 paper and he tied the local speed of light to an astronomical body’s local gravity field.

A logical alternative explanation of the M&M results was that their apparatus was resting inside the earth’s own local ether (the earth’s local light-speed regulating medium) and not moving through it at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
...back then astronomers didn’t realize that stars and galaxies were moving around in space at relatives speeds of thousands of miles a second. There are high-z galaxies known today that have redshifts that indicate they are traveling at 1, 2, 3, and even 4 times the speed of light, relative to the earth. The SR theory doesn’t explain this phenomena at all.

SR doesn't explain it because it has nothing to do with SR. The galaxies aren't moving so much as the space between them is expanding.

The new concept...

Who'se new concept and where can I find it?

 

[Integral]

The “constancy” postulate was just a guess that turned out to be wrong, as he admitted in his 1911 paper.

LOL!

You could not be more wrong.

The "guess" as you call it was the single biggest issue of Physics for the last 50 yrs of the 19th century.

You really need to study up on the REAL history of these things before you start spouting such nonsense.

Have you ever heard of "Maxwell's Conundrum"? You need to do a bit of research, that would be a good starting key word.

 

[DW]

Originally posted by O Great One
I was thinking of something and maybe somebody can explain...
If rain is coming straight down at a rate of 4 meters/second and I'm walking along at a rate of 3 meters/second then the rain is hitting me at an angle at a rate of 5 meters/second. So, then why doesn't the same sort of reasoning apply to starlight? The aberration of starlight is what I'm referring to specifically. I mean if the speed of light is always the same then there wouldn't be any aberration of starlight correct? The light would always come down at the same angle regardless of the motion of the Earth with respect to the star. Correct or not?

Consider a ray of light with a velocity according to (ct, x, y, z) coordinates of $$\vec{u} = -c\hat{z}$$. You want to transform this velocity to a (ct', x', y'. z') coordinate system for an observer moving in the $$+\hat{x}$$ direction with respect to the first with speed v to find out what how he observes this ray. Simply apply the Lorentz velocity transformations to ray's velocity vector's components. Use $$u'_{x} = \frac{u_{x} - v}{1 - \frac{u_{x}v}{c^2}}$$ and $$u'_{z} = \frac{u_{z}}{\gamma (1 - \frac{u_{x}v}{c^2})}$$ to arrive at
$$\vec{u'} = -v\hat{x'} - \frac{c}{\gamma}\hat{z'}$$. The speed of the light according to the (ct', x', y', z') frame is then
$$u' = \sqrt{u'_{x}^2 + u'_{z}^2} = \sqrt{v^2 + \frac{c^2}{\gamma ^2}}$$
$$u' = \sqrt{v^2 + c^{2}(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2})}$$
$$u' = \sqrt{v^2 + c^{2} - v^2}$$
$$u' = \sqrt{c^2}$$
$$u' = c$$

As a side note, this aberration disproves aether dragging. And that in combination with c speed invariance disproves its existence all together.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
SR doesn't explain it because it has nothing to do with SR. The galaxies aren't moving so much as the space between them is expanding.

The “space is expanding” story is silly. Space is three-dimensional physical emptiness. Nothing. Space is filled with both matter and fields. The galaxies that are moving, are moving through space. The only thing that is “expanding” in space is their gravity fields that are, sort of, in effect, “stretching” and becoming weaker in the space in-between the galaxies.

This idea that all the galaxies are “stationary” and are being “carried along by expanding space” is absurd.

If you run away from me at 5 mph, you are “moving through space” away from me at 5 mph. But, if you get into a car and the car carries you away from me at 5 mph, you are STILL moving away from me at 5 mph. It doesn’t matter if you are being “carried along” or if you are running yourself. You are MOVING away from me, and that’s what the galaxies are doing.

There are no scientific papers on “expanding space”. There is no physical reason for “space to expand”. There is no such thing as “expanding space”. There are no reports on where this “new space” comes from to augment “pre-existing space”, and there are no reports on how pre-existing space can physically “expand”. So, there is no such thing as “expanding space”.

If you drive from Chicago to New York, you can’t say the “space” between you and Chicago is “expanding”. That’s nonsense. You are MOVING THROUGH SPACE as you drive, and the DISTANCE between you and Chicago is expanding, but not the “space”.

 

[David]

Originally posted by O Great One
I was thinking of something and maybe somebody can explain...
If rain is coming straight down at a rate of 4 meters/second and I'm walking along at a rate of 3 meters/second then the rain is hitting me at an angle at a rate of 5 meters/second. So, then why doesn't the same sort of reasoning apply to starlight?

It will some day. For some reason, quite a lot of people in physics like to pretend that “light speed is always the same everywhere”, but of course it is not. Einstein proved that in his 1911 gravitational redshift paper.

If we have a light beam in our galaxy emitted by the sun, in the direction out toward the edge of our galaxy, that beam will move out toward the edge, and it will take about 20,000 years to reach the outer limits of our galaxy. In the meantime, that beam will be slowly moving sideways, revolving with the sun around the center of our galaxy.

If we assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere, then light travels through a distant galaxy at, let’s say, an average speed of “c”. If that galaxy is moving away from our own at greater than the speed of light, then obviously the light beams inside that galaxy that are aimed in our direction are not moving toward us at all, but they are moving away from us. So how do the light beams eventually get to us? Davis and Lineweaver explain it in this famous paper of theirs:

LINK TO PAPER

Their term “comoving space” is very misleading. But, they do not want to use the term “ether” or “local ether”, not yet. There is something inside each galaxy and in between the galaxies that acts as a light-speed-regulating medium. For now, Davis and Lineweaver, and most of mainstream cosmology, simply call that something “comoving space”, since they don’t want to call it a “medium”, a “light propagating medium”, or an “ether”. But, as you read their paper, if you just think of it as some kind of “propagating medium” for light, then their paper will make a lot more sense. This “medium” inside a galaxy is a kind of “local” phenomenon, and local mediums travel through space with local galaxies, just as our own local atmosphere travels through space with the earth.

 

[russ_watters]

O Great One, please, please note that what David is posting does not correspond with accepted physics.

The answer to your question lies in the constancy of the speed of light and its implications on space and time: space and time are not constant. In order for different observers to agree on the speed of light (and they always do), they must sometimes disagree on the distance and time over which the measurement was taken (and they do).

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
O Great One, please, please note that what David is posting does not correspond with accepted physics.

Sure it does. The Davis Lineweaver paper is mainstream physics. Einstein himself said in his 1911 gravitational redshift paper that the speed of light is variable. He said in his 1916 book that, “the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”. See Chapter XXII.

What I think you mean is that what I say here often doesn’t conform to junior high school textbook versions of “relativity”, but that’s because the books are written for kids, like when some textbooks still say that electrons “orbit” around atomic nucleuses, even though that concept went out in the 1920s.

Different observers don’t “always agree” on the speed of light being “constant”. Einstein said it slowed down when it passed near the sun and Shapiro’s experiments proved it did. This is mainstream physics. Look up Shapiro’s papers from the 1960s.

What you need to do is read more than just that 1905 paper over and over again.

 

[Peterdevis]

David,

What you need to do is read more than just that 1905 paper over and over again.

I suggest that you read the paper of Davis & lineweaver over and over again.

They believe in expansion of universe
They believe that when you measure the speed of light you will always get the same value.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis

They believe in expansion of universe
They believe that when you measure the speed of light you will always get the same value.

Actually, there is a trick to that, that results from a peculiarity of nature. Seems that local atomic clocks slow down in a gravity field just as the local speed of light slows down in a gravity field. So, a slow-ticking atomic clock will measure “c” as the speed of a slow-moving beam of light. So, locally, you will measure “c” for the local speed of light were ever an atomic clock is located.

Read the Davis Lineweaver paper again and you will see that a photon aimed in our direction, coming from a star inside a superluminal galaxy, is moving away from us at a negative speed, relative to the earth, while it is still traveling through that galaxy. As it gradually leaves that galaxy, it gradually speeds up relative to the earth, and eventually it is received on Earth at an earth-relative local speed of “c”, as measured by an earth-based atomic clock.

 

[Phobos]

In short, I agree with Russ.

David - what are your thoughts on cosmological redshift? (redshift of light associated with the expansion of space)

Originally posted by David
If you drive from Chicago to New York, you can’t say the “space” between you and Chicago is “expanding”. That’s nonsense. You are MOVING THROUGH SPACE as you drive, and the DISTANCE between you and Chicago is expanding, but not the “space”.

Not an appropriate analogy. Galaxies move through space based on gravitational attractions as well as move apart due to the expansion of space. That analogy only mentions the movement part and then uses that as the basis to discount the expansion part. Now, if it takes you X hours to get to New York on a non-expanding highway, it would take you X + Y hours to get there on an expanding highway.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Phobos
In short, I agree with Russ.

David - what are your thoughts on cosmological redshift? (redshift of light associated with the expansion of space)



Not an appropriate analogy. Galaxies move through space based on gravitational attractions as well as move apart due to the expansion of space. That analogy only mentions the movement part and then uses that as the basis to discount the expansion part. Now, if it takes you X hours to get to New York on a non-expanding highway, it would take you X + Y hours to get there on an expanding highway.

What is the “expansion of space”?

What causes it?

Does “new space” fill in the gaps between “old space”, or does “old space” just “stretch” and “expand”?

What are the physical attributes of this “space” that can cause it to “expand”, and what exactly “expands”?

Are you saying that “nothing” expands and becomes “more nothing” in between the galaxies?

Gee, I’d call that “motion of the galaxies”.

When I drive from Chicago to New York, I notice that “space” seems to “expand” between me and Chicago, but I know that is because I’m “moving” toward New York.

Give us some links to some papers about the physical mechanism of “expanding space”. What causes it and how exactly does space “expand”?

What ever happened to the initial “big bang” that started all the stuff of the galaxies to moving outward radially from a point? This was what all the astronomy textbooks were saying in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. They said the galaxies were “moving”. They assured students that the galaxies were absolutely moving.

So now you say they are not moving, but are being carried along by "expanding space". Come on, man, give us a break. Moving is moving, no matter how you are moving.

So what physics laws is this “expansion of space” based on?

There are no such things as “expanding highways” or “expanding space”. There is motion along highways and motion through space.

 

[Peterdevis]

David,

Here is a link where they use expansion of the space to explain the Hubble redshift:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe
Authors: Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Yes i suggest that you read that paper again, until you understand what they say.

Further: space is not notting it is 3 dimensical, so existing, so it can expanding. Just like we don't know of what mass is made of, or energy , we don't know of what space is build.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis

Further: space is not notting it is 3 dimensical, so existing, so it can expanding. Just like we don't know of what mass is made of, or energy , we don't know of what space is build.

Oh, nonsense.

If space goes from here to infinity in all directions, it can’t expand any more than it already is. And nobody knows how far out it goes. There is absolutely nothing stopping the galaxies from moving into infinite open space if space is infinite.

That “expanding space” baloney came about in the 1990s to try to avoid the problem of the superluminal galaxies “violating” the “c” speed limit postulate of SR. That’s all it does. But after astronomers say the galaxies “are moving” for the past 70 years, and then they suddenly change it to “expanding space” so the “c” postulate won’t be violated, then I think that is very stupid. Einstein didn’t create the universe. His postulate might be wrong on an astronomical scale. Anyway, he didn’t invent the “c” speed limit, Lorentz did.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
If space goes from here to infinity in all directions, it can’t expand any more than it already is. And nobody knows how far out it goes. There is absolutely nothing stopping the galaxies from moving into infinite open space if space is infinite.

So why can't we see the edge?

Seems that local atomic clocks slow down in a gravity field just as the local speed of light slows down in a gravity field.

David, from both of the quotes above (and others) it just appears to me that you do know that what you are saying is not what is accepted by the scientific community but you are uncomfortable with it and so are looking for other possibilities. That's fine, its part of the learning process, but sooner or later you'll need to take an objective look at why physicists take the position they do and what it means that the theories work when put into practice. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels in place.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So why can't we see the edge?

We can’t see the “edge” for the same reason we’ve never been able to see the edge. If there is one, it’s too far away for us to see. Every time we build a bigger telescope, we see more distant galaxies. I don’t know if we will ever be able to see an edge or not.

Originally posted by russ_watters
David, from both of the quotes above (and others) it just appears to me that you do know that what you are saying is not what is accepted by the scientific community but you are uncomfortable with it and so are looking for other possibilities. That's fine, its part of the learning process, but sooner or later you'll need to take an objective look at why physicists take the position they do and what it means that the theories work when put into practice. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels in place.

I’ve watched different cosmology theories come and go. I’ve got 18th, 19th, and 20th Century books filled with old obsolete theories, such as the popular 1916 theory that the universe was a “hypersphere” that was not contracting or expanding. I’ve even got books written by physicists in the 1950s who still believed in that theory and who still taught people that a light beam leaving the Earth would eventually return to the Earth after circumnavigating all the “curvature” of universal space, even though that theory was recalled by its author in 1932.

I’ve got photos of a “Piltdown Man” statue that was on display at the Smithsonian for many years. I’ve got old textbooks that say the “catastrophism theory” of geology is completely invalid. When I was a kid, “eugenics” was still taught in schools.

You need to loosen up a little and allow your mind to think freely. You need to not automatically fall for every new cosmology theory that comes down the pike. The truth is, the cosmologists just don’t know what the entire universe is like or what it is doing. They change their minds every ten years or so, but they still don’t know, not much more than they knew 50,000 years ago. They can only guess, and the rest of us are free to guess too. This is not Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. We citizens don’t have to adopt and support any “official” political-science “world view” about highly speculative topics, especially since the latest cosmology theories are constantly changing. You often act like you are personally a member of some kind of self-appointed science “thought police”. Whatever you decide is “official”, then you think that’s what everyone must believe.

Not everyone in cosmology believes in exactly the same thing. Cosmologists have a lot of different opinions and ideas about the universe. And you aren’t the world’s supreme expert on which cosmology theories are the right ones and which are not. You act like someone has appointed you the World Supreme Judge as to which theories are right and which ones are wrong.

When I talk to someone on the board, and when I express my opinion, you follow me around and try to assure them that I am always wrong. You stalk me. You are obsessed with me. I don’t know what’s the matter with you.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
When I talk to someone on the board, and when I express my opinion, you follow me around and try to assure them that I am always wrong. You stalk me. You are obsessed with me. I don’t know what’s the matter with you.

I am countering your disinformation for the benefit of the other posters on the board who may not realize what you are saying is not accepted physics.

 

[Peterdevis]

David,

I agree Russ
Its free to have your own ideas.
But to proove this ideas you refer to papers you don't understand!
(see my postings about Davis and Lineweaver)

When i reading your postings it seems that you have a Newtonian vision of nature: very mechanical.

May i ask you if you ever has studied GR (and then I mean differentional geometry)?
If not, do that first before you attack it(p.e. expanding universe)!

And then its meaningless for me who first came with a theory (Einstein, Lorentz, Higgs ...). But does the theory describing the reality (or a part of it)

 

[Janus]

I, for one am very thankful that Russ has stepped in as he has; It saves me the trouble of having to do so myself.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis

But to proove this ideas you refer to papers you don't understand!
(see my postings about Davis and Lineweaver)

Let me ask you a question about that original Davis Lineweaver paper I posted a link to. Do you understand what this sentence means:

”The total velocity of distant photons is not constant because it is the sum of the distance-dependent recession velocity (vrec) and the constant peculiar velocity, c. When axy > c the distance between us and the photon increases.”

Why don’t you tell me what that means, if you understand the paper so well.

What do you think it means when they say the distance between us and the photon increases? If the photon is aimed toward us when first emitted, and if we eventually receive the photon here on earth. What does it mean when they say the “distance between us and the photon increases”? What do you think they mean when they say the total velocity of the distant photons is not constant relative to the earth?

 

[Peterdevis]

The paper says that the universe is expanding. In an expanding universe it is possible that recession velocity is greather than c without violating SR. (In fact recession velocity is a non physical velocity, because two particles at different points on a curved manifold do not have a well defined notion of relative velocity)
In an expanding universe it is also possible that light travel towards us but that de distance become greater.
That is what tey say in that paper.
Comoving space (or frame) is a typical term for expanding universe, and has nothing to do with ether.

I don't want to offend you, but it is necessary to study differential geometry, if you want to understand the whole picture.

Ofcourse GR is not the one and only theory (what do you think scientist nowadays do?), but to reject him you must understand him.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis
In an expanding universe it is also possible that light travel towards us but that de distance become greater.
That is what tey say in that paper.

That, simply stated, means that the photons are aimed in our direction but the photons are moving away from us. That means their motion, relative to the Earth is not only less than “c” but it is less than zero when they are first emitted. I.E. they are moving away from us when they are first emitted.

Their statement, “The total velocity of distant photons is not constant...” means that the earth-relative speed of the photons changes as the photons travel through deep space. Because of the motion of the distant superluminal galaxies away from us, at speeds greater than “c”, the newly emitted photons emitted by stars in those galaxies are also moving away from us, not toward us. But they gradually speed up relative to us and we eventually receive them at the local speed of “c” relative to us. This does indeed violate SR, and Einstein clearly stated in his 1911 gravitational redshift theory and in his 1916 book that the relative speed of light is variable in different areas of space.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
That, simply stated, means that the photons are aimed in our direction but the photons are moving away from us. That means their motion, relative to the Earth is not only less than “c” but it is less than zero when they are first emitted. I.E. they are moving away from us when they are first emitted.

Speed is a scalar and can only be positive. Put the minus sign on it and it becomes a velocity.

Their statement, “The total velocity of distant photons is not constant...” means that the earth-relative speed of the photons changes as the photons travel through deep space. Because of the motion of the distant superluminal galaxies away from us, at speeds greater than “c”, the newly emitted photons emitted by stars in those galaxies are also moving away from us, not toward us. But they gradually speed up relative to us and we eventually receive them at the local speed of “c” relative to us. This does indeed violate SR, and Einstein clearly stated in his 1911 gravitational redshift theory and in his 1916 book that the relative speed of light is variable in different areas of space.

No, it doesn't and he didn't. I'm sure you've heard this before, David: frame of reference, frame of reference, frame of reference, frame of reference. You are ignoring the importance of frame of reference. SR says that the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame of reference. That is consistent with (and essential to) understanding what those transformation equations are actually telling you.

Whether by accident or on purpose, you are setting up and attacking a strawman by misrepresenting what SR actually says/means.

When light (or anything else for that matter) passes through different frames of reference, what is changing isn't the speed, but the frame of reference from which we are measuring the speed. This should be self evident, as if the speed actually changed, then there would be an unresolvable paradox in the fact that different observers on different frames of reference measure (calculate) different speeds for things not in their frame of reference.

Sitting here at my desk, am I stationary or moving at 900mph? Both at the same time? No. I am stationary in the only frame of reference that matters to me: mine. Whatever speed people in other frames want to use doesn't much matter: all of them start with my speed in my frame and transform from there. This is precisely what is happening in light speed transformations (after all: all of them contain the constant "C" as their starting point).

One point from before I didn't addresss:

We can’t see the “edge” for the same reason we’ve never been able to see the edge. If there is one, it’s too far away for us to see. Every time we build a bigger telescope, we see more distant galaxies. I don’t know if we will ever be able to see an edge or not.

So you're assuming there is an edge even though we have no evidence of one? Why? Because you consider expansion "silly"? Thats as unscientific as you could possibly be. Whether you like it or not (or think its silly), the evidence we have points to a universe that looks like what I (we) have described.

I think QM is silly: an electron being in two places at once? Rediculous! But we have observed it, so I am forced by logic, reason and the scientific method to accept it as reality.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You are ignoring the importance of frame of reference. SR says that the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame of reference.

In the 1905 SR theory he said:

”...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c...”

By 1911 he realized that was wrong. That’s why he said in his 1916 book:

”A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies
with position.”

And that is also why he said in his 1952 Appendix to his book:

”There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”

See? He realized in 1911 that just the 1905 local “reference frame” idea didn’t work. He realized by 1911 that local gravity fields play a big role in the speed of light in both local and deep space, and that the local fields establish the local "frame of reference". That’s why he said in his 1911 paper:

”To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of relativity, and regard both systems from the customary point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring in them from that of ordinary mechanics.”

In 1911 he changed his local reference frame or “system” to two different kinds of “systems”, one kind that was either accelerating or resting inside a local gravity field, and another kind that was moving relative to an accelerating frame or relative to a gravity field. He also change the speed of light from being “constant” in “space” to being variable in space but “constant” inside a gravity field, if measured specifically by an atomic clock that is located inside the same field.

See? The photon initially emitted by a distant superluminal galaxy travels inside the distant galaxy at “c” as measured by atomic clocks located in the gravity fields of that galaxy, but at less than “c” relative to the Earth and our local gravity field. As the photons eventually approach the earth, after many years of travel and after gradually speeding up relative to the earth, their earth-relative speed becomes regulated by the earth’s gravity field when they are finally absorbed at the earth.

This is a very simple process that Einstein discovered. I don’t know why professors don’t explain it in a more simple way.

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think QM is silly: an electron being in two places at once? Rediculous! But we have observed it, so I am forced by logic, reason and the scientific method to accept it as reality.

Well, both Newton and Einstein "observed" all the stars as being "fixed", but they turned out to not be "fixed" at all.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters

I think QM is silly: an electron being in two places at once? Rediculous! But we have observed it,

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, much less one electron being in two places at the same time. And I suspect you haven’t either.

Anyway, that description is not quite the same as saying one single billiard ball is in both Chicago and Miami at the same time.

In the first place, we can’t actually see electrons.

In the second place, we can only try to guess what is happening to electrons by some very indirect detection methods.

I think what will eventually turn out to be the case is that something is happening other than one single “billiard ball” being in both Chicago and Miami at the same time.

But, if you just happen to turn up two separate photographs of the very same electron, showing the very same serial number, with one photo being taken in Chicago and the other being taken in Miami at exactly the same time, please post them on this board, along with the appropriate time-stamp of each photo.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by David
What ever happened to the initial “big bang” that started all the stuff of the galaxies to moving outward radially from a point? This was what all the astronomy textbooks were saying in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. They said the galaxies were “moving”. They assured students that the galaxies were absolutely moving.

So now you say they are not moving, but are being carried along by "expanding space". Come on, man, give us a break. Moving is moving, no matter how you are moving.

Once again, modern astronomy/cosmology shows that galaxies move through space AND are separated by the expansion of space. We're not saying galaxies don't move.

And Big Bang Theory does not say that galaxies are moving outward from a central point. That is a fundamental misunderstanding/misstatement of Big Bang Theory. Observations show that galaxies are moving apart with no central point to it all.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by David
“Piltdown Man”... “catastrophism theory” ... “eugenics” ...loosen up a little and allow your mind to think freely. ...This is not Nazi Germany or Communist Russia...self-appointed science “thought police”... World Supreme Judge... you follow me around and try to assure them that I am always wrong. You stalk me. You are obsessed with me. I don’t know what’s the matter with you.

Please stick to the technical discussion. I would have locked the thread here, but I see that your later posts were getting back on track.