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.

 

[Phobos]

Related topic by DW...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15225

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
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...

Good to know that Einstein's Relativity isn't the only modern theory you have a problem with. Careful though: if you flush QM down the toilet your cd player and computer might explode.

Regarding the various papers, I'm sure you've heard this before too: context, context, context. You're taking quotes out of context. Particularly, your last quote clearly is not meant to discard Relativity (and probably, that's still just SR) altogether, but rather to simplify a hypothetical situation as so not to confuse separate effects. For example, if you do an atomic-clocks-on-towers experiment, the rotation of the Earth has an SR impact that must be accounted for to flush out the GR effects. So, to use Einstein's own words applied to this situation: ”To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of [special] relativity" and mount our atomic clock on a tower located at the north pole.

Context is everything in quotes.

 

[turin]

Originally posted by David
Didn’t Einstein adopt the “photon particle” nature of light, rather than the “wave” nature?

No.

EDIT:
To elaborate on my dispute, Einstein didn't adopt the photon particle nature of light, RATHER than the wave nature of light. He realized that there is a dualism, so that light acts both like a particle AND a wave. The photoelectric effect shows a manifestation of the particle nature, but the wave nature is not ignored.

Originally posted by David
Isn’t that what his photoelectric effect was all about?

No.

EDIT:
The photoelectric effect wasn't just about Einstein's preference. It is Einstein who receives credit for our present interpretation of the phenomenon, but the phenomenon is about photons freeing electrons.

Originally posted by David
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"?

Because, for one thing, Newton said "corpuscles." But, more importantly, Newton meant classical particles, while Einstein meant quanta (of energy). Totally different pictures.

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

You must be joking.

Originally posted by David
He was able to guess at the constancy postulate in 1905, because back then astronomers didn’t realize that stars ... were moving around in space at relatives speeds of thousands of miles a second.

What does the fact that the stars are moving have to do with the validity of an inertial frame?

Originally posted by David
The SR theory doesn’t explain this phenomena at all.

Why should it? (I'm assuming that you are referring to his preliminary scalar field theory for the speed of light to include gravity, which he had rejected by 1915 to adopt the full-on geometrical picture.)

Originally posted by David
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.

This is basically correct, but I have the slight suspicion that you have no idea how to appreciate the mechanism or consequence of this alteration.

Originally posted by David
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.

I suppose I can't refute this.

Originally posted by David
The “space is expanding” story is silly. Space is three-dimensional physical emptiness. Nothing.

Then what causes distance? Space at least has geometry, which is what gravity manipulates in order to affect stress-energy.

Originally posted by David
The galaxies that are moving, are moving through space.

Wait a second! I thought that you just said space was "nothing." How can anything move through nothing? That doesn't make sense. How do you define such motion?

Originally posted by David
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.

Expanding gravity fields? Do you even know what these terms mean?




EDIT:
assuaged road-rage

Originally posted by David
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.

OK, but there isn't any "being carried along" going on in expansion. That's the point. Why don't you try to understand what expansion is before you say it is wrong? The distance relationships between the points are expanding.

Originally posted by David
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”.

Because you haven't been privelaged with the info.

Originally posted by David
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”.

But again, if space is "nothing," then why is there an accounting problem. If I don't buy stock, then I don't go broke if it drops a million points.

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 noticeably. So, are you basing your views of the phenomena of distant galaxies over millions of years on your little drive from Chicago to New York? Interesting. Isn't that the same flaw in interpretting the null result of the M&M as a support of SR?




EDIT:
to remove unresponded quote

Originally posted by David
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 be slowly moving sideways, revolving with the sun around the center of our galaxy.

The light beam will follow a geodesic. The effect of the sun on that geodesic will diminish long before it reaches the edge of the galaxy. Probably, it will follow somewhat of a spiral on its way out, but it will not revolve with the sun.

Originally posted by David
Their term “comoving space” is very misleading. But, they do not want to use the term “ether” or “local ether”, not yet.

So you've consulted them on this issue. It's good that they can turn to you for such advice.

Originally posted by David
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, what you want to do is redefine time and speed so that GR is incorrect if you replace its definitions with yours?

Originally posted by David
If space goes from here to infinity in all directions, ...

Space "goes?" What is that supposed to mean? Does it drive or walk?

Originally posted by David
... it can’t expand any more than it already is.

Take at least one math course. Infinity + 1 = ?.

Originally posted by David
Einstein didn’t create the universe. His postulate might be wrong on an astronomical scale.

True.

Originally posted by David
Anyway, he didn’t invent the “c” speed limit, Lorentz did.

Einstein used it appropriately; Lorentz did not.

Originally posted by David
You need to loosen up a little and allow your mind to think freely.

You need to tighten up a little and learn how to think logically.

Originally posted by David
”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.

Yes, because space-time isn't Minkowskian in a universe containing stress-energy. But, c is still c. The issue is that, in GR, coordinate systems usually only make good sense in a small region surounding a point about which they are defined.

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

Um, no. Einstien was a big fan of Mach, but he wasn't so deluded to think that the stars didn't move. Whince did you dig up that nonsense?

Originally posted by David
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, ...
...
... we can only try to guess what is happening to electrons by some very indirect detection methods.

Do blind people make less legitimate physicists?

EDIT:
to remove any indication that I, or any blind person, may have been greatly offended by the intrinsic unnecessarily discriminatory exclusion.

Originally posted by David
... if you just happen to turn up two separate photographs of the very same electron, showing the very same serial number, ...

A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.

 

[David]

Originally posted by turin

A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.

My statement about the electron serial number was intended to be a joke.

 

[Phobos]

turin - Your otherwise good post had 2 no-no's...the running over with the car comment and the 'arrogant bigot' comment. That kind of flaming is against PF rules.

 

[turin]

Originally posted by Phobos
turin - Your otherwise good post had 2 no-no's...the running over with the car comment and the 'arrogant bigot' comment. That kind of flaming is against PF rules.

Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.

BTW, what was wrong with answering David's questions in one word (as rhetorical as they may have been to David)? Is there a rule on PF that I must answer with a certain minimum of text?

Originally posted by David
My statement about the electron serial number was intended to be a joke.

I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking. Are you aware of any consequences of indistiguishability besides not being able to read serial numbers?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by turin
I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking.

I've been having similar problems with him. Its pretty hard to tell.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by turin
Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.

Thanks, turin. I know this is a frustrating debate. Just want to keep it civil.

BTW, what was wrong with answering David's questions in one word (as rhetorical as they may have been to David)? Is there a rule on PF that I must answer with a certain minimum of text?

I didn't say there was a problem with that. I think those responses were appropriate in this case.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Phobos
I know this is a frustrating debate.

I think all debates are somewhat frustrating, aren’t they?

A friend of mine, a photographer, went on a photography board one time, and he saw a bunch of guys in a heated debate about focal lengths of lenses. They were calling each other nasty names and stuff. He said he got off the board and never went on another one. He refuses to go on message boards.

But, I’ve found that if we go on a board in which everyone thinks exactly alike, that is extremely boring. We have to agree with everyone. We can’t say anything different. If we make any suggestion that is not “approved” by the moderators, we either get chewed out, attacked viciously, or banned. That’s no fun! One time I got chewed out and humiliated by a board owner, because I said something about the water in a sink drain turning a certain way in the Northern Hemisphere. Well, that’s what my science teacher had said in the 9th grade and I never conducted any real scientific examination of the situation regarding drains. That was just some very minor urban legend I had picked up years ago. It amounted to nothing at all. All the guy had to say to me was, “Opps, that’s actually incorrect, because sink drains are too small to be affected by the Coriolis Effect,” or something like that. But, the board owner got all upset like I had committed the Crime of the Century. I thought he was going to try to have me arrested or shot or put in a concentration camp. I couldn’t believe his over-reaction.

I’ve noticed that if we go into a university student union building, and listen around at the different tables, we see the same kind of debates going on. Universities and coffee houses in Europe used to be the places where people went to debate stuff. Now it’s the internet. But I don't think there is any reason to get upset about it.

 

[Peterdevis]

David,

I agree that debating is booring when everybody agrees.
But debating is not to proove your right, it is to learn something.
When you don't agree with a theory you can argue that

"its silly"
"Lorentz said it before"
Quoting papers you don't understand

are no good arguments.

When i says that your clock theorie violates EEP (even WEP), you don't argue I' m wrong. You keep argueing on atomic clocks used by maxwell etc..

Debates whithout good arguments are frustrating for both sides, because nobodys learning anything.

So I'm waiting for your good arguments

 

[Nereid]

stalking? hardly!

David (about Russ): 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.

This comment went by without a response, and I feel it shouldn't have.

First, russ is https://www.physicsforums.com/memberlist.php?s=&what=topposters&perpage=15 , so it's not really surprising to see his posts on a great many threads.

Next, IMHO, he does a particularly good job of helping to keep physics (and other science) discussions tied to what we call 'science' or the 'scientific method'. I say, let's have more Russes!

Third, based on my own disagreements with him, it seems he will readily accept good data and consistent logic which contradicts his own assertions, and graciously admit his case is either weak or flawed.

Finally, even if you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded (and she or he doesn't keep repeating things no longer in contention), it behoves you to respond - with good data or logic of your own - to his or her criticisms. Indeed, we should all welcome such critics, they can only make our own proposals better.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis

When i says that your clock theorie violates EEP (even WEP), you don't argue I' m wrong. You keep argueing on atomic clocks used by maxwell etc..

When you say that my clock theory violates EEP and WEP, where is your argument? All you are saying is that my theory violates EEP and WEP but without explaining why. I’ve explained my point of view several times. An atomic clock rate depends on how fast the atoms are oscillating internally and that determines the frequency of light they emit, while a thermodynamic clock rate depends on how fast a group of molecules are bouncing around. So tell me exactly how that violates EEP and WEP.

In my statement, I’ve not said anything against any known law of physics. We all know very well that internal atomic oscillation rates slow down at massive stars, and this causes what we call a “gravitational redshift” in the light emitted by the stars. And we all know that molecular vibration rates speed up at the same places and this is caused by the heat energy causing the molecules and atoms to bounce around more rapidly. So what have I said that is so objectionable?

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nereid

Finally, even if you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded...

Russ’s points about the atomic clocks were not well founded. He said atomic clocks were not invented until 1952. He said they didn’t exist before that. He said that Maxwell and Einstein couldn’t have been thinking about “atomic clocks” since they were not invented to 1952.

This was absolutely wrong. In fact, the “manufactured atomic clocks” were invented in 1952 because of the work by people like Maxwell and Einstein and their studies of and theories about oscillating atoms and the light frequencies they emit. This is a main feature of Einstein’s 1911 gravitational redshift theory. He was talking about natural and fundamental “atomic clocks” as found in nature.

I told Russ that Maxwell and others in the 19th Century knew that oscillating atoms were “atomic clocks”, but he denied it and implied that I was some kind of crackpot for saying such a thing. The truth is, he just didn’t know that fact of science, and he had apparently never heard of it before.

This is how the whole concept of “atomic clocks” got started, because of the “natural atomic clock” theories of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, and this is the very basis of the modern invention of atomic clocks that are specifically manufactured as self-contained units that have a clock-face digital read-out. They are manufactured in that manner so that scientists will not have to heat groups of atoms until they glow, and then study them with a spectroscope, and then try to calculate their frequencies in the old 19th Century way.

Fundamental “atomic clocks” are and always have been naturally oscillating atoms. Russ didn’t seem to know that, and he even denied it, so I explained it to him. I had to go to one of my old books and explain it to him with a quote from the book that said what I had already said. So what is wrong about what I have done?

One great problem that I see on the internet all the time is that a lot of young people today have no idea of the history of modern science. Russ and everyone else who takes a university physics course should be told what I have just told about natural “atomic clocks” being the basis for modern manufactured atomic clocks, and they should be told what gave scientists the idea to invent modern atomic clocks in the first place. I had to find that information in old books, since I can’t find it in modern books. I should be thanked for the information, not ridiculed for it.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nereid

it behoves you to respond - with good data or logic of your own - to his or her criticisms.

Here are Maxwell’s 1873 statements about natural atomic clocks:

”In the present state of science the most universal standard of length which we could assume would be the wave length in vacuum of a particular kind of light, emitted by some widely diffused substance such as sodium, which has well-defined lines in its spectrum.”

And:

”In astronomy a year is sometimes used as a unit of time. A more universal unit of time might be found by taking the periodic time of vibration of the particular kind of light whose wave length is the unit of length.”

In 1923 Steinmetz explained it simply:

”We cannot carry a clock from the Earth to Betelgeuse, but we do not need to do this, since every incandescent hydrogen atom, for instance, is an accurate clock, vibrating at rate definitely fixed by the electrical constants of the hydrogen atom and showing us the exact rate of its vibration in the spectroscope by the wave length or frequency of its spectrum lines. Thus in a strong gravitational field the frequency of luminous vibrations of the atoms should be found slowed down’ in other words, the spectrum lines should be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.”

And this is the knowledge that Einstein had in 1911 when he wrote about “the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator.” And I should not have been ridiculed by Russ for talking about Einstein and Maxwell using natural atoms as “clocks”. He obviously didn’t know the information, while I did, he should apologize for being rude to me about what I said earlier about Maxwell and Einstein using “atomic clocks” in their theories.

 

[Peterdevis]

Dear David,

When you say that my clock theory violates EEP and WEP, where is your argument? All you are saying is that my theory violates EEP and WEP but without explaining why

You have a good point, when I attack your theory I must proof where he is wrong.

So when I’ve got it right, in your theory there are different sorts of time:

1) atomic time (internal oscillation rate of an atom)
2) mechanical time (pendulum clock)
3) thermodynamical time (external vibration rate of atoms/molecules)
4) maybe others

First I’m going to point out that if it are really different times there is a violation of the equivalence principle and second that your notion of time is (in my eyes) no good definition.

So, let’s say we have three clocks:

1)An atomic clock (better photon clock) who is slowing down in a stronger gravitational field (or acceleration) and who speeds up when she’s traveling faster.

2)An pendulum who’s speeding up in a stronger gravitational field (or acceleration) but stays the same when she’s traveling faster.

3) thermodynamic clock (only depends from temperature)

When you are in a closed box with the three clocks and the atomic clock is slowing down according the TC (thermodynamic clock) and the pendulum is speeding up according to TC here is no problem, you can’t detect your in a gravitational field or in acceleration.
But when the atomic clock is slowing down (according to TC) and the pendulum stays at the same rate as the TC, there is a violation of EP : Because the only conclusion is that you are moving.

Second, you are confusion measurements devices (clocks) with the physical parameter you want to measure.
What you really measure with the clocks are CHANGES. And there exist a bijective function between the clocks who defines the relation between these clocks, If such a function doesn’t exist you always violate EP.


It is obvious that al measurement devices depends on physical laws, but that doesn’t mean that they defining other physical parameters. (p.e there are hunderds of sorts of meters to measure length, but there are not hunderd sorts of lenghts).

In SR and GR time dilatation depends not on the clock you used ,but is affecting the parameter time (are must a say CHANGE) itself.

I’m looking forward to your reply. Can you first reply my first statement and then the others. So we can keep this discussion structured?