Are you saying that the Sun has an absolute position and momentum? Because that is what you seem to be saying. What does this mean? Are you saying that the actual shape of the Earth is a spheroid that is length contracted relative to the CMB frame, since the Earth is moving relative to that frame?
Thanks for trying to make that clear to me. It only brings more questions to my mind, and they are far afield from topics that I feel comfortable talking about in P&M, given the intention that this forum is for more established, generally accepted physics. Perhaps we can run into each other in the Fringe. Perhaps this thread will end up there, who knows Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Please do not take him as trying to make things clear to you. He is trying the same tactics that religious cult leaders use.
Farsight and most folks here are now thinking independently of Minkowski (invariant intervals, tacking on c invariance to Euclidian space as though it was a trivial mathematical necessity to muck up Einstein's relativity, or like it was just a poor choice of a physics problem from a former student who should have studied math harder). Excellent doesn't really describe this level of gratification You guys really don't need me any more. My job here is done.
If you look at gravity and GR, mass is the basis for gravity and mass is what causes space-time to contract around stars and black holes. The contraction of space-time does not change the mass. However, based on relative reference, these two should be interchangeable. This interchangeability is indirectly assumed with the assumption that the expansion of space-time cause the the mass of the universe to shift and not the other way around. That assumption makes the mass of the universe a passive variable manhandled by space-time so there is no center of gravity because mass comes secondary to space-time as though this come first. It is a relative reference illusion of GR. Like I showed relative reference in space-time is not consistent with energy/mass conservation. The problem is we can't measure mass directly, but need to use energy which is space-time dependent thereby erroneously stacking the deck.
Just about everything I've told you is robust rock-solid physics where I can refer directly to Einstein or some other reliable source. Sadly when I say the speed of light varies and here's Einstein saying it, some people here oppose it tooth and claw and make specious assertions that it's out of context or cherry-picking, when it isn't. It's as if bona-fide physics is drowning in popscience cargo-cult woo. And the people who peddle this woo defend it with ad-hominems and that's not mainstream rather than evidence and references. I will not stand idly by whilst physics is traduced by such quacks.
You have been shown several times that this is nonsense, but that has not stopped you from repeating it.
Farsight did not need any prodding from you to abandon mathematics. One can see him fumbling with trying to do the mathematics of SR in a couple of places on the web. He failed and then gave up, deciding that he would rather just lie about physics than learn it. Regardless, Minkowski did not add anything to relativity. c invariance is in SR from the beginning and neither Einstein nor Minkowski use a purely Euclidean space. It is sad that there are people who take their mathematical illiteracy as a point of pride. You are a poor student and you should study mathematics harder.
While it is true that you can refer to carefully picked sentences from Einstein, it is a lie to say that you always refer to a reliable source. You regularly refer to cranks like Robert Close, to vixra.org, and to obscure journals. In the end, however, the problem is that you never give evidence. You never show us how your ideas work as physics. This is exactly the lie that you cling to. You don't simply say that the speed of light varies over finite distances, you say, directly contrary to GR, that the speed of light varies at every point. And since you can't use your ideas to do physics, there is no evidence that your ideas are even coherent, let alone possible of describing the world. If you care about evidence, let's see how your ideas relate to evidence. You have dodged every question asking you for evidence.
I think we all missed it! And the atom can be explained in its entirety by a plum pudding analogy? There are some aspects of modern theoretical physics that could be interpreted as ether like, but what you are suggesting is not even close to any modern understanding of the interaction of matter and energy.., space, time and mass or spacetime. You often use reference to Einstein's 1920 Leyden address as support for your obsessions with the ether. The full contents of which you take completely out of CONTEXT. The reference you often cite, a few words in the concluding paragraph, which are immediately preceded by, in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph, Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass. Einstein, 1920 Leyden address Nothing you have presented in support of your imagined ether (a ghostly gin-clear elastic jelly), can be supported by any version of quantum theory past or present... Instead of some kind of progress in understanding you have and are regressing to a time in our understanding of reality, that imagination dominated the science. Farsight, I know you have said you put me on ignore, but this is really off the rails. James made a very clear and distinct statement, that is in complete agreement with both modern interpretaions of SR and GR.., and Einstein himself.., and you still seem to find a way to argue and disagree? Imagination, as thinking beings, is perhaps our greatest gift and asset. It can also be terribly dangeourous when one loses the ability to know the difference between what is imagined and what is real. Twice in my life I have had close personal relationships with persons who slipped over the edge of that divide. Neither one, ever fully recovered a sense of reality, that could be shared with the rest of the world. If I were the one to decide such things, though there are some limited times that your comments may stimulate discussion in the Physics and Science threads, you would be, for the most part, restricted posting On The Fringe and Alternative Theories.
Yes it is. See the Robert Laughlin quote here: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[7]" Also take a look at the stress-energy-momentum tensor and note that it "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". It has a shear stress term. And an energy-pressure diagonal. Oh not that old chestnut again. Einstein said what he said. Go and read what he said. He said recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. See above where Robert B Laughlin was talking quantum theory. There's plenty that supports the idea that space can be subjected to pressure and curved. You're just denying all the stuff I refer to because all you know about is popscience for kids and suckers. As I've said previously, go and search the arXiv for papers with aether in the title. It isn't something I've made up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, because what he said was wrong. I explained why. Two observers compare notes and they know the star isn't moving towards both of them. It's that simple. Now you you try explaining why I'm wrong. And when you can't, shut up. I have no issues on that score. I'm the one quoting Einstein and others here. You're the one dismissing the bleedin' obvious. You mean you'd censor Einstein. And anybody else who doesn't agree with the popscience woo you believe in, and cling to.
But those teerms do not do what you say they do. They do not, for example, guarantee that space expands. And, despite being asked, you have never shown us your proof that these mathematical objects guarantee that space expands. You can put that "old chestnut" to bed by showing how your ideas can be used to do physics. But we all know that you are merely lying about your abilities. What you have fabricated is that your ideas bear any relationship to the contents of the arXiv. You can't give us evidence. But you haven't finished your explanation. Is one of the observers correct? Or is neither correct? You dodge questions like these because you suspect that they will show you up.
Einstein conceptualized space as a medium because EM waves propagate — move — through it. If the space between two objects did not exist EM waves could not move from one to the other.., in fact they would be the same object. Laughlin, mis-states the case above with respect to what Eimstein's original premise was in his 1905 paper. Yes, it is true that how Laughlin describes it is consistent with how it came to be interpreted, but Einstein only presented in that paper that he could explain the evidence we had at the time without an ether, not that an ether did not exist. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space''... Einstein, 1905 — On The Electrodynamics Of Moving BodiesEspecially a relativistic ether, which would not resemble your gin clear jelly in any manner. In addition, Laughlin's full explanation crosses the boundaries between what Einstein presented in the early 1900s, as the theories of special and general relativity and a far more modern understanding of quantum mechanics than existed, at the time. Again — Imagination, as thinking beings, is perhaps one of our greatest gifts and assets. It can also be terribly dangeourous when one loses the ability to know the difference between what is imagined and what is real. The same can be said for losing the ability to understand the difference between theory and what has been proven to be a physical reality. You have obviously slipped down that rabbit hole.
Here we agree about the observable, clocks measuring time to pass at different rates, and we agree on the conclusion, the energy density of the local environment governs the rate that clocks will measure time passing; it is the rate that clocks tick, and not the rate that time passes that is variable. We agree to that extent. But we agree for different reasons. Both of our reasons are alternative hypotheses, not rock solid physics, even though we could both point to generally accepted science that our ideas are consistent with, and that serve as departure points from accepted theory into new hypotheses; the new hypotheses are what makes it appropriate Alternative Theories material. You can fight the mainstream from the perspective that you have it right and your views are supposed to be mainstream, but you have no evidence that the rest of us don't have, and mainstream is a consensus, not a declaration. This is a declaration, not a consensus. This sounds too much like pop culture rhetoric than some scientific break through. You are talking about the medium of space, filled with energy, instead of some medium that fills space and carries waves; with the waves bringing the energy to the medium of space. This is theory that has no mechanics. We all can see how light acts in different mediums, the observations, and we know there is some physics going on, but to say what we observe, and to explain it with mechanics are two different things. We don't know how it works, or what governs the speed of light through various mediums, and it seems simplistic to rely on the "light is absorbed and re-emitted" explanation. When you consider the intersecting fields, the bonds in the medium, and the preciseness of the repeatable measurements, it becomes more complicated than "absorbed and re-emitted". That is because the physics is different; impedance and permittivity are the not the same and so comparing them doesn't make a good analogy. Yes, it is, in my hypothesis too; the wave propagates spherically at the local speed of light, based on the energy density of the local medium. But photons have both a particle nature and a wave nature, and how we detect those states depends on how we set up to observe them, and yet it is reasonable to consider that they have both states at all times. My view is that there is a connection between light and gravity, which I described in the fringe. I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate for you and I to discuss it here because it picks up at the point that your hypothesis fails, i.e. the lack of any mechanistic explanation, which moves us away from consensus mainstream discussion (oops, we are way past that line in the sand, lol).
Just about everything you tell this forum, is actually robust rock-solid woo, that you are doing your damndest to get others to believe. Let me correct you for the umpteenth time, and I will continue to correct you for umpteen more times, as long as you keep repeating such trash. [1] Space, time, spacetime are basically all one and the same: " The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski, 1908: I do not remember Einstein ever rebuking this statement. [2] The speed of light "c" in a vacuum is constant and always has been, and always will be. No one has ever shown "c" to vary within his own FoR. [3] Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime: [4] When we see any apparent variation to "c" in any other FoR, it is simply because light/photons following curved spacetime geodesics, has a longer distance to traverse. [5] Light/Photons are never ever seen to be stopped. From any remote FoR, light/photons near a BH's EH for example, will gradually be red shifted further and further until red shifted beyond the range of the optical equipment in use. Again, it is never seen to be stopped. [6]From the photons/Light's own FoR, nothing extraordinary happens. From the local FoR, light/phots will cross the EH as per normal, to oblivion and whatever exists at the Singularity. [7] The one exception to that is any photon/light that happens to be emitted directly radially away from the BH's EH. In such a scenario, the photon will be seen to apparently hover forever just above the EH, never quite secumbing, and never quite getting away. A useful analogy for this is a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr against the stream flowing at 10kms/hr. Yes, that's what you claim, and that's what most will always claim when they are burdened with an over-inflated ego and delusions of grandeur. The man you so often erroneously quote and misinterpret, unlike yourself, was never backward in coming forward in admitting when he might have been in error. His greatest attribute which you are blinded to was his humility. He left it to others to sing his praises and compliment and reward him for his great insight. I fail to see you adhering to any of those qualities either. And as I have quite often said, if you had anything at all to support your erroneous versions of SR/GR and cosmology, you would not be here. You would be knocking at the doors of mainstream cosmology and academia with your supposed ground breaking work. But that will never happen. All the 7 points that I have listed are there for you to refute, with any evidence, either observational or experimental. Something else you are unable to do. ps: Just one more relevant issue Farsight..... A few months ago, you claimed to have a TOE. I think most here would treat that claim with the contempt it deserves. And I believe it just adds further fuel to the type of misinformed, misinterpreted and fairy tale woo like childish claims that you have made of late.
Time doesn't pass. Things move. Clocks feature some kind of regular cyclical motion. They effectively show you a cumulative display that you call the time. Even light clocks do this. It's important to understand this. This is where it all starts. We agree about the rate that clocks tick. Not about the time passing. Can you see time passing? No. because it's just a figure of speech. No. I can point to Einstein saying the speed of light varies, and to those NIST optical clocks. Mine is rock-solid physics. No. Relativity is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and Einstein said what he said. Anybody who contradicts that ought to be in Alternative theories. No, it's a declaration. People like paddoboy say "I'm mainstream" when he warbles on about time travel and the multiverse. No I'm not, I'm talking about space and energy being the same thing. Look at that stress-energy-momentum tensor and think it through. Go and look up permeability and permittivity. Do not be persuaded that "we don't know how it works". We do. Understand them! I'm not making this stuff up. When I tell you something and give you the supporting references, follow them up. If you can't find papers / books / etc go and ask about what I've said. Impedance really is resistance to alternating current. Conduction current really is not the only current there is. Light really is alternating displacement current. Spherically? I've never said light propagates spherically. I'm not some "my theory" guy making hypotheses. I tell you what Einstein said, I give you references. Follow them up. No, they're waves. Photon energy is E=hf. I'm telling you what Einstein said. Pay attention to what Einstein said.
LOL, no they aren't. If they were, rulers would be the same as clocks. And they aren't. So that's enough stupid nonsense from you . You're back on ignore. All: ignore this guy. He's an naysayer shouting idiot who knows no physics, and never ever will.
Oh, come on Farsight, you'll soon have the whole forum on ignore... Please invalidate the following...... [1] Space, time, spacetime are basically all one and the same: " The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski, 1908: I do not remember Einstein ever rebuking this statement. [2] The speed of light "c" in a vacuum is constant and always has been, and always will be. No one has ever shown "c" to vary within his own FoR. [3] Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime: [4] When we see any apparent variation to "c" in any other FoR, it is simply because light/photons following curved spacetime geodesics, has a longer distance to traverse. [5] Light/Photons are never ever seen to be stopped. From any remote FoR, light/photons near a BH's EH for example, will gradually be red shifted further and further until red shifted beyond the range of the optical equipment in use. Again, it is never seen to be stopped. [6]From the photons/Light's own FoR, nothing extraordinary happens. From the local FoR, light/phots will cross the EH as per normal, to oblivion and whatever exists at the Singularity. [7] The one exception to that is any photon/light that happens to be emitted directly radially away from the BH's EH. In such a scenario, the photon will be seen to apparently hover forever just above the EH, never quite secumbing, and never quite getting away. A useful analogy for this is a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr against the stream flowing at 10kms/hr. You cannot, because everything I have listed is exactly what SR/GR entails, without any misinterpretations.
