READERS: I would like to draw your attention to Paul T's topic "MacM's Exercise" and Pete's contribution 7 June @ 9:19 AM as well as my post following.
And how exactly is it wrong that when I send a laser into a fiberoptic that is 1 km long, that 1/300000 of a second later I see it come back out ? Why exactly is this not a fact but something "from our current interpretation". What has interpretation to do with this ? Again, do the experiment. Measure the speed of light. You will find c. Now we will put you on a train, and you measure it again. You will again find c. How exactly is this an interpretation of ... anything ??!? Are you going to tell us in a second that we are not measuring light but that our measurement methods are flawed ??? /me starts feeling that the "way around" that he has been predicting is unveiled here... and that you *are* going down the "measurement method" is flawed alley... Cherenkov radiation *is* light. We are not talking about the speed of light in a medium (where Cherenkov radiation comes into play) but rather about the speed of light into vacuum, which is something completely different (well, not completely, but in the absense of a medium, the word Cherenkov radiation has no meaning). Oh dear... So instead of just "light" which we measure to be at the speed of light... you prefer some mysterious medium that cleverly manipulates our measurement instruments so that we measure shorter distances and longer timescales. It is undetectable until today, after numereous experiments (hey Mac, you are not the first aether believer ... or UniKEF field or whatever you call your pervasive medium). Yes... Ofcourse, it becomes all clear now... how wrong have we all been... [/sarcasm] So basically you are saying that energy is an observer-dependent observable. Fine, even Newton would agree. I fail to see how this would be the case, but ok... I think you are assuming the validity of the Galilean velocity addition formula here for a starters... a wrong assumption... but ok... Cute... and then what is this thing what ordinary people call "photons" or "light" ? If light is something that moves faster *than* the speed of light, you seem to have some paradox, no ? You have (cleverly) shifted the discussion from the constancy of the speed of light to some ... wierd mechanism on how "light" would be created through energy flowing faster than the speed of light (light *is* energy). The truth is that nobody cares, because there is absolutely not even the slightest experimental hint that light would originate from something more "fundamental". The truth is that modern physics, by using relativity, already *has* a complete description of light and its interaction with matter (QED), which considers light just as a form of energy. Why drag in some mysterious fluid-like substance oozing faster than the speed of light ? This only complicates things (which is what you seem to be doing by dragging in the goo-of-light thing in the first place), and there is no experimental evidence to support this claim... oh wait... the slowing down of the Pioneer probes is due to the cosmic ooze, right ? Well, to be honest, I think you have lost the last bit of credibility by saying that 100 years of experimental verification of the constancy of the speed of light here on earth is a joke. It's an undergraduate physics experiment, thousands of students around the world do it every year. Please spare me the "conspiracy" and "they dont have the guts to go against their professors" bullsh*t because you have absolutely zero experience with the academic world. I would just *love* to be the student who finds a repeatable experiment which shows that the speed of light is not constant, it would be a guaranteed Nobel prize winner!
Crisp, You really seem to fall short understanding what is being said. Perhaps that is my short coming in presentation. Let me try again. If what you are measuring is the consequnce of a process and not actual velocity of a photon then your data and the interpretation of that data can be wrong. You may be measuring a process that produces light or that allows observation of light as an energy function. Relative motion alters the relative energy and hence alters the production or observation. That is not the same thing as photon velocity. Try to think of it this way. Space conducts a primary energy signal (which is not measured or observed) When that signal is present and a specific quanta of its energy has been received a photon is produced and observed. Motion along the line to the primary signal source alters the relative energy and hence moves where photons appear giving the illusion that the photons have changed velocity to keep a constant velocity to the observer. No. They are the only currently known methods of detection. What is wrong is the understanding of what light is and how it is created and appears to propagate. No. Not measurement. Understanding of what light is and how it propagates. I would hope, I having been a nuclear engineer, that you would realise I know what Cerenkov Radiation is. I would hope that you are also smart enough to figure out where I am taking this. If Cerenkov Radiation (Light) is a consequence of particles exceeding v = c in a medium, then what do you suppose would happen if FTL energy was flowing through space which was also a medium? Is it not logical that the consquence would be standard light? Where c' is c in the medium: What do you suppose happens if we send a beam of particles which contained an energy gradient into a medium and then caused the medium to flow +/- along the line of particle flow? Do you not see it would alter the energy of the particle (Velocity) which then creates Cerenkov Radiation (Light) to one that matches the requirement of e = c' + v or e = c' - v? Holly sh_t. I think Crisp may be starting to see through the fog. HeHeHe. There you go with Relativity again. This issue has nothing to do with measurement error, time dilation or length contraction. That is its beauty. You can shit can all that nonsense and get exactly the same measure and observation. This has to do with production or creation of light as a quantum energy process where your time-space is actually flowing energy. That is the medium. That is the absolute reference (Unknown but quite possibly virtually instantaneous), which also makes UniKEF gravity virtually instaneous. This is in fact substantially stronger from the reputed favorite Relativists answer "O'Razor. As to your response about detection. Please ship me one quart of time or a clock which you can show actually meaures the enity called time just as one measures force, heat etc. Your clocks measure a process a quanity of energy which in quantum steps create what we conclude are increments of time. Guess I was wrong he doesn't get it after all. HeHe. Sarcasm indeed. Shame that such a simple process can undo the entire quagmire of Relativity. OK, I think. Have to see what follows this statement. There may be a parallel but these thoughts do not relate in a direct dependance of it. You are missing the point. The underlying energy is not photons but creates photons when the energy exceeds the requirement to do so, in the same fashion that particles are not photons but produce Cerenkov Radiation (Light) in a medium at the requisite energy. 1 - You seem to have already forgotten by your own admission energy of particles in a medium produce light. So what is your objection to an underlying energy flow that also produces light in space (other than you prefer to not recognize it as a medium, nor give up Relativity). 2 - Proposing an underlying energy which creates time-space itself solves numerous problems. It is the basis of UniKEF Gravity. While not yet proven I have to say is not doing bad at this time, and has some (very limited) actual test verification. Further it (once discovered may well be the anwer to the FTL issue, particle entanglement issue and SOG issue. It is a far superior to dragging in Dark Energy and Dark Matter to patch the fact that Relativity doesn't resolve certain issues of observation. Don't you think? I truley suspect you are right. This energy flow not only creates time-space but induces gravity (and is the primary carrier for production of light). Gravity production varies the energy density which "WOW" causes a variable distance based on gravity along the line between objects; which is Relativities curved space but with an energy source. Wha La. What about "I accept the measurement of the speed of light as being Invariant" do you not understand? The invariance of measured light speed is not at issue. It is the underlying cause of that apparent invariance that is at issue. And the existance or non-existance of Relativity that lies at stake to the answer to that question. If we all live in a dark tunnel and never knew we were only riding a very smooth linear velocity train and all we could see is the passing of an occasional flash of light. There could be a million passengers on that train and you could all say correctly that you measure and observe this light which travels past periodically has an invariant speed. But the big guy operating the train knows that in reality the lights are stationary to the road bed and the train is merely passing by. Observation really is just relative perception, isn't it. An added thought to this discussion would be that just such an underlying FTL carrier in the production of light would seem to fit well into solutions for the dual slit observation and the apparent instant communication about which path the photon will take.
James R, What I told MacM about addition of velocities related to his exercise is like this: Say, there is a rocket moving at velocity 0.6c relative to earth. Rocket observer would see earth moving at -0.6c. Then, the rocket accelerates to 0.8c, relative to earth. Of course, again, rocket observer would see earth moving at velocity -0.8c. How much does the rocket velocity increase from 0.6c to 0.8c in reference frame moving at velocity 0.6c? It is not 0.8c - 0.6c = 0.2c, but u=(0.8c-0.6c)/(1-0.48)=0.3846153..c. MacM claimed, in principle, rocket velocity of 0.8c is achievable (from 0.6c) by applying acceleration, say 300,000m/s<sup>2</sup> in 200 seconds in rocket observer's reference frame. I told him, that's not possible, because that amount of acceleration and elapse time would increase the rocket velocity by 0.2c only (actualy less than 0.2c, if we take into account relativistic effect in the rocket reference frame as well), while the rquired velocity increment is 0.3846153..c. Hence, it needs more than 200 seconds. Note: MacM's exercise using difference figure, but the principle is the same as the above.
James R., I would like to take this opportunity to make a few closing remarks about Paul T's above post to put it into the correct perspective. In the initial post I proposed that Relativity would cause a paradox where accelerating away would create a situation where objects not only were getting closer but could do so at FTL speeds. In the process I pointed out that acceleration rates would be viewed differently by the two observers due to time dilation but that I had found including it didn't alter my conclusion and I was suggesting ignoring doing all the calculations. Just concentrate on the ultimate conclusion and not calculate precise dimensional closure, acceleration, etc. This was after all a very hypothetical example and in no way was intended to somehow represent a realistic event or proposed test, including, rocket mass, fuel efficiency, fuel load and all the other real issues. This was a thought process addressing the contraction phenomena only. Paul T, began to attack each and everything being said by attacking me personally. I in return picked on some of his posts just to return the favor. Where he mis-stated something or as in the case of using the velocity addition formula he was not clear on his purpose I held his feet to the fire arguing it was invalid to do so to calculate the contraction which was the topic of the post. Well his purpose was to make issue as to the magnitude of the time dilation affect as presented in my initial post on acceleration rate calculation. As you have correctly pointed out you can't really calculate (at least not easily) that affect in an accelerating frame. The VAF simply is inappropriate and doesn't alter the conclusion in any case. He has made a big issue of the fact that I used a nice round grab bag number of 10 B Ly distance at a specified velocity and gamma to emphasize the affect I wanted to present and the fact that viewing that dimension from rest would in theory result in the universe being 1,500 times the current observed universe. The fact is the thought problem does not have to be real in that sense since it is looking at only the contraction mathematics. Further, there is nothing that shows the current observable universe ends where we are looking. Indeed there is no end in sight yet and there are those that propose an infinite universe. None of this has any bearing what-so-ever on the topic or alters the result. He has stated elsewhere that he doesn't care what you say. The paradox doesn't occur. I believe you have agreed with me that it does (Not that you would call it a paradox necessarily). I'll grant you I have made some errors and taken some short cuts and perhaps may not have been completely clear on some issues and may have in fact been deliberately antagonizing (I know you find that hard to believe of me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) The point is his post to you is to try and get your support on an issue which I do not contest mathematically but in the general application here do believe is incorrect even for Relativity and has no ultimate affect on the concluison..
What the hell ? And just 10 posts ago you were saying that you did not believe in the invariance of the speed of light ? IT *IS* THE ISSUE, because that is what it is all about. I don't care for underlying causes, especially if we will never be able to measure them. I'll leave the underlying issues to philosophers to debate about. Anyway, Mac, thanks. You have now showed us that you: - truely don't know relativity (see other threads). - truely don't know what you are talking about (so now the constant speed of light no longer is an issue ?) - are actually looking for something we will not be able to experimentally verify anyway. And for doing this: you win a life-long subscription to the pseudoscience and philosophy forum. Have fun there.
MacM, O, really? You made some hypothetical example and did not expect anybody to do some computation to verify its validity? That's funny, MacM. You were just making a wild speculation then. Still think addition of velocities irrelevant? Show me why is it irrelevant; but please not because you feel so. Do some simple calculation just to show your point, it doesn't have to be a complicated one. This is not your only misconception. Remember about your argument on rocket that according to you could increase its velocity until many times the speed of light, in the rocket reference frame? That's the same mistake as the one here. Apparently, that's what your 'understanding' about relativity. In your rocket reference frame (moving at velocity V1=0.9999999c relative to earth), you increase velocity by 27m/s. Grabbing your calculator, add V1 directly to 27m/s you get V2=0.99999999c. However, if you open your rocket window and measure the earth velocity relative to you, you'll find the relative velocity is not V2, but only slightly more than V1. Why? Because 27m/s addition of velocity in your rocket reference frame is only a very tiny increase of velocity in earth reference frame. What? Your rocket has nothing to do with earth observer? Then, what V2 really mean? It's your rocket velocity relative to earth. Well, you seem to think that you are still correct. I will not amaze if a few weeks later, you come back and argue the same thing again here...like always.
Paul T, Can I interupt here a little and ask you if you feel a photon experiences Lorenze contraction and if it doesn't could you explain why not?
MacM: I would like to state for the record that I do not believe that General Relativity is in any sense the "final" or "ultimate" theory of gravity. Paul T: All this is correct. We have reached the same conclusion from two different directions.
QQ: Nobody knows exactly what a photon experiences. The Lorentz transformations do not strictly apply to photons.
if the transformation does apply then light has the unique postion of being instantaneous and 'c' rated depending on your frame of reference. I am sure this is not a new POV....as I am sure others have suggested similar i the past. I am just curious how relativity deals with this possibility that light speed from any frame to us is invariant at 'c' and yet instantaneous from any frame of reference from the photons perspective. This is very interesting to me and would explain many other incongruous observations It has the potential to mean that light that is observed is instantaneous but when measured is 'c'. It may also go a way in explaining why we have 4 dimensional space at normal velocitys but zero dimensional space for 'c'. It also has the potential to open the door to the understanding the dimensionality of gravity. Which if I'm not mistaken is as zero as light is.
Crisp, Actually this response is good. It shows your lack of understanding of my presentation. That isn't your fault but mine and perhaps it will help in the long term for me to be able to alter it to be more effective. It alsoweakens your criticisims since you clearly aren't addressing my views. This is where I find you and other Relativists are failing. Your assumption that my views are untestable and hence of no scientific value and are just philosophy is flawed and results in your unwillingness to explore the concept to actually determine it value if any. The underlying causes are very much important to science since they may alter the ultimate scientific view and principles applied via your mathematics as what you call science or phsics. Your position is very much like, I have a favortie route between point "A" and point "B" and I refuse to consider if there might be a shorter route or a safer route because my route works and that proves it is valid. Therefore there is no benefit for me to explore alternate routes. Wrong on all counts but not unexpected and as stated above is meaningless since you don't understand my concepts. No ill will for your posts. I truely hope one day you will realize the differance in the measure of light invariance and the requirement that that means Relativity nor does it mean measurement error.. It doesn't.
Paul T, Due to your continued unwillingness to actually address issues related to the topic, I find I cannot in true conscience abandon responding but will only respond philosophically. What about not giving a sh_t if you run all sorts of unrelated tests on the example don't you undestand. If you choose to go off topic on mute points of thoght experiments, that is your perogative but I won't participate. As stated I will not participate in dragging this off topic but it is irrelevant because it does not impact the ultimate contraction calculations which are the subject of this topic. How one gets there and how fast only affect the details of the affect being sought and the the ultimate fact that the affect occurs. Try addressing the topic. Again you mis-state the issue. This has nothing to do with not understanding Relativity but rejecting its conclusions in favor of a view that is broader and actually offers greater overall consistancy and logic to actual observation. What about stick to the topic do you not understand. Your desire to compute acceleration rates doesn't address the issue and as James has pointed out is flawed in any case because computing such affect in an accelerating frame is this manner is not appropriate nor accurate. No need to since the jparadox I proposed has been confirmed, even though you, the knower of Relativity, disagree.
James R., My post did not specify gravity but in any case we agree. And correct me if I have misunderstood but the bottom line is that in spite of Paul T's assertion to the contrary the proposed paradox occurs. Further the inclusion of time dilation in the rate of acceleration difference between observers has no bearing on the topic nor the conclusion.
QQ, I wont pretend to agree with your every word not try to disect your specific responses but only say that in an overall general way you do seem to be getting it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
QQ, I do believe yu really are starting to learn. Fantastic. but I don't want to put you in harms way from all the harpons you will be receiving. HeHeHe.
I do very well understand your presentation. You say that we measure the result of some proces. Fine. The result of ... whatever proces... is that the speed of light is invariant for all observers, as a given experimental fact. If you accept this, then you accept (special) relativity. You can claim and shout and protest all you want, pure simple mathematics takes you from this point to relativity. The nature of the underlying proces is irrelevant -- you talk about cosmic energy ooze, physicists will just say "there is no proces, you have light, that's it". Show me an experiment which can measure your energy fluid. Not something like "yeah, the deep space probes are slowing down, and I have some hand-waiving argument which could perhaps relate this to some goo flowing everywhere". No. Simple clear experiment which shows the goo. If you are not able to give such an experiment, even hypothetically, then your claims are not falsifiable and hence unscientific. We went over this already and please don't make me go over this again. It does. If you refute that fact -- which basically means saying that 1+1 is not equal to 2 because that is the kind of math that you need to go from "c is constant for all observers" to the entire theory of relativity -- then you are truely the über-super-crackpot-overlord. Oh wait. You already said you don't believe in the mathematics that take us from A to B ... How should we salute you, your highness ?
Crisp, You were doing well until the last parts. The process that causs light to appear invariant has nothing to do with time dilation or contraction of space. It is the other way around. Relativity predicts (Proposes) those affects to account for the observation and the observation is natural without them. So Relativity doesn't phyically exist, although it provides a good mathematical base to compute observations. And therein lies the error, limit to progress and red herring issues generated by a pure mathematical concept not anchored by a sound physical understanding of the process. Now I suspect if and when I can do that, your attitude toward me might just change. But the simple fact is in a very limited way I have actually started such testing (and have seen favorable results) in UniKEF Gravity. No need we agree. But what you have continued to not recognize that to not consider such concepts you will never concieve of or perform such tests. I would be thrilled to see such testing, whatever the results. At least one would be one step closer to understanding what is or evn what is not. Everyone here seems to have the wrong view of what I see in UniKEF. That is not that it IS the answer but may be the answer (or something simular). I am not married to my own concept. I am divorced from Relativity even though it has many useful things. UniKEF is not so much over turning Relativity as it is bringing it under control and extending its usefulness. Not sure I follow these comments. See again you have missed the point. I agree with much of the mathematics but disagree as to what is the meaning of their results, predictions and limitations.
Crisp, I agree somewhat with what Mac is saying, but not necessarily his view of the underlying cause. That is currently unknown. You seem to imply the vacuum of space is empty, other than the EM radiation that goes chug-chugging along with modulating electric and magnetic components. How do you modulate magnetism, not electromagnetism? What of vacuum energy, gravity, Dark Energy and other components of the vacuum? Are they all completely independent and do not interact with electromagnetic radiation, except gravity can 'bend' nothingness to alter lights trajectory and drain energy from EM radiation leaving a gravity well? If gravity can drain energy from light, what 'adds energy' to light as you increase velocity in its direction, resulting in even visible light turning into high energy gamma rays with enough velocity? Yes, I know light's wavelength is shortened as we approach it, but where does the additional ENERGY come from? I have wondered before if gravity may be the 'fabric' of space and light may be 'conducted' through this medium, always at 'c' between two points, just as electricity is conducted through a wire at 'c', regardless if the points the electricity is moving between are moving or not. I am speaking of a stationary gravitational 'field' between all objects with mass. Perhaps even vacuum energy is a part of this field. Just your 'cosmic ooze' and I realize my musings have no scientific or any other kind of value, but I do wonder if we know the true nature of light propagation and maybe assign too much emphasis to its 'speed.'
