Does light have a mass?

[(Q)]

137

Those "ad hominem crackpot retorts" were not aimed at you, unless you yourself are Tom, who btw is also listed as CRANKIEST:

"The Speed of Gravity: What the Experts Say"

http://www.crank.net/einstein.html

 

[huh???]

137

We are obviously reffering to different experiments. Both were probably conducted. If you think that one experiment made Einstein an overnight celebrity by prooving relativity, you couldn't be more wrong. Every aspect of relativity has been prooven so far. Clocks have been put in towers, on concords, on rockets, and partical acceleraters showing an increase in a particals inertia, and the decay rate of moving muons, these all proove relativity. Even nuclear power, for which you take for granted. Back when your experiment was probably conducted, astronomers had no good data as to the mass of the moon, whereas the sun had accurate estimates. The moon does <I>NOT</I> significantly affect surrounding light. In 1859 scientists had no way to measure the speed of light. Maxwell did that in the 1900s. Also, ANY substance effects the speed of light. Water, glass...Makes little difference what direction they are moving.

<I>The 'proof' from 1919 is always used as the major proof of Relativity.
</I>


If the only proof of relativity came in 1919, then there shouldn't be any proof discovered in partical acceleraters (invented in 1932) or from concords (1967) or from rockets (1970s). Furthermore, there were no atomic clocks back then for accurate measurments, or computers to compute astronomical data.

<I>Cosmological Constant anyone?</I>

What constant and how is it wrong?

<I>Clocks may move slower due to a decrease in gravity</I>

At least get it right. Clocks move <I>faster</I> in microgravity.

<I> interaction with magnetic
field of the earth in a different manner</I>
How? They don't.

<I>gravity or sub-atomic interaction</I>

How? gravity has a negligible effect on atomic nuclei. This is because the other forces are so strong.

<I>My atomic interaction with my wristwatch [I
hold the second hand from moving] does not affect time nor effect a time dilation</I>

Yet there is no way to mechanically controle the decay of particals/atomic nuclei.

<I>Hafele-Keating eastbound airplane showed retarded clock readings when compared with ground clocks, as
expected. But then the westbound flying clocks showed... increased time readings!</I>

Um, maybe you will notice your moronic mistake. Plane speed + earth speed is faster than plane speed minus earth speed, Jr Genius.

 

[137]

really?

Q...no, I mean ad homina homina towards another.I did not take it directed towards myself.

duh, huh??, well...
Look at the history. Eddington's Proof's did make Einstein a celebrity. It was promoted as proof positive that part and parcel that Einstein 's NEW and IMPROVED theory was correct. Yippee!
When an event occurs [in the realm of physics] a theory may or may not predict or explain the results OR a theory may be the current 'winner' of use due to its better prediction.

You cite placement of clocks as proof, but not the experiments/experimenters/data sources. I would love the references so I can study up.

On 'ANY substance effects the speed of light. Water, glass...Makes little difference what direction they are moving. ':
A little difference can make a lot of difference when we are talking about atomic and sub-atomic level. Has the Fizeau experiment been disproven? If I were a professor, I would say, 'Cite your source for and against the position...'

I did not say the only proposed proof came in 1919, I said that :
'The 'proof' from 1919 is always used as the major proof of Relativity. ' As in the understanding in physic, a little difference in understanding can render a conclusion that is correct in someone's mistaken reading, but this renders the conclusion irrelevant to the original statement.

Cite specific proofs/experimental evidence discovered in partical acceleraters (invented in 1932) or from concords (1967) or from rockets (1970s). ' I can guess some of what you are referring to, but as throughout the history of science, there is legitimate and healthy debate over whether the results of experiments constitute proof. Theories are not religions to be adhered to, they are tools of understanding. Some tools can have flaws, or be partially broken, but still be mighty useful.

At least get it right. Clocks move faster in microgravity.
My mistake: I meant to say- Clocks may move slower due to an increase in gravity - to make the point that If there is no standard frame of reference, why cannot I take a clock in microgravity and say, ' This clock moves x,' but low and behold it slows down in a measurable way depending upon the gravitational force that is acting upon it.

Yet there is no way to mechanically controle the decay of particles/atomic nuclei.
Does gravity affect the control or decay of particles and if so then the placement of the particle can be arranged accordingly? The issue is more of whether someone can discuss the theory of gravities affect on clocks/particle decay, without wrongly moving into the realm of time dilation, and even worse, time travel.

Um, maybe you will notice your moronic mistake. Plane speed + earth speed is faster than plane speed minus earth speed, Jr Genius.
What is moronic? I am citing different arguments [not necessarily my own] to find intellegent proofs and counter-arguments.
Are you saying that it is a matter of speed combinations using simple algebra that answers the paradox of the clocks? Lets see you illustrate your point in an intellegent manner.

It is amazing the song and dance routine that is done to avoid some of the questions I have posed. Make me understand the theory of relativity. I am starting to think that there is no depth of understanding, merely regurgitation.

have a great weekend
137

 

[Crisp]

Hi all,

"It is amazing the song and dance routine that is done to avoid some of the questions I have posed. Make me understand the theory of relativity."

Nobody can. Do the following:
a) Take a course Physics 101
b) Take a course in Differential Calculus and Algebra
c) Take a course in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics
d) Take a course in Special Relativity
e) Take a course in Diffential Geometry
f) Take a course in General Relativity.

The theories of relativity cannot be explained merely in words. Many attempts have been made to make it conceptually clear (example: "Spacetime physics" by Wheeler and Taylor) but you cannot give a complete picture without going into the better mathematics. The loose fragments of documentation on the net simply won't do the job, because of difference in notation, dubious sources, ...

"I am starting to think that there is no depth of understanding, merely regurgitation."

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but you are wrong. Almost everybody can understand special relativity, the days that only a few people could grasp what Einstein was brabbling about are over. It only takes quite some time to get familiar with the maths and classical physics to truelly understand what the theory of relativity is all about.

Bye!

Crisp

 

[137]

Fair enough

Crisp,
Fair enough to direct one towards the basics. Most of your recommended courses are covered, but yes, I would be the first to agree that in depth study over many years is necessary to fully understand the computational proofs and elaborations upon Relativity.
Here is the big but. Einstein relied heavily on the ability to think out/metaphorize/analogize as a major force in arriving at his theory. Fenyman is praised for his 'maverick' approach at pushing the envelope of modern physics. Fenyman diagrams are a visualization of uncertainty that many praised as an ideal short-hand enhancing understanding.
Also note, I have requested that the mathematics that are being cited on this forum are posted OR links to websites that contain them OR journals/publications containing them are produced.
I do not rely on 'The loose fragments of documentation on the net.'
What I am relying on are firsthand sources, Einstein, Minkowsky, Lorentz, Newton, Schrodinger, Fenyman,Lederman etc. I pound the pages of theorizers and experimenters.
When I have read 'the explainers' of a theory many times they go off in an esoteric direction that has nothing to do with science and more to do with a mistaken notion of the implications of the theory.

I am being somewhat facetious in saying "Make me understand the theory of relativity." and " "I am starting to think that there is no depth of understanding, merely regurgitation." I am referencing this forum first, and a large number of hangers on to a theory, both in acedemia and without. You have to admit that not everyone who claims to understand a theory necessarily understands it, nor has any idea what they are talking about, no?

It seems to be contradictory to state that one only needs to take 6 heavy courses and understand the better mathematics, yet state that almost everybody can understand what relativity is all about[the educational level or desire to be educated in America is abyssmal.]

Are you or anyone else stating unequivocally that GTR and STR are 100% proven and correct? And further that it is so correct that it is not even worth discussing any anomalies or questionable data manipulations to uphold the theory? And lastly, that politics and vested interest could not ever sully the saintly profession of physics?

If so then you do not understand fully the theories of the past which successively led up to Relativity and the political battles and character assassinations that ensued.

My interest is on light. In my next post, I will try to limit my words and hone in on basic key syllogisms around this and see what happens. The clear and consise tone is preferred, no?.

 

[c'est moi]

137, you have unaibled both mail and PM, too bad.

 

[Prosoothus]

137,

My atomic interaction with my wristwatch [I hold the second hand from moving] does not affect time nor effect a time dilation.

Thanks for that!!I had a good laugh.

As I stated before, the speed of reactions can be increased or decreased without influencing time. It was a little far-fetched for Einstein to assume that particle reactions are constant, and time slows down, instead of particle reactions slowing down while time remains constant.

A catalyst speeds up a chemical reaction, but it doesn't effect time. If Einstein were here, he would probably argue that catalysts speed up time.

Tom

 

[137]

email to be enabled

c'est moi [and any other interested],

email to be enabled within 24 hrs.

137

 

[Prosoothus]

137,

By the way, welcome to sciforums.

It's great having a person on this forum with an open mind(that is, besides me, c'est moi, and Crisp(a little))

Tom

 

[on radioavtives wave]

the speed of light

pertaining to the speed of light, have you all looked at this article about slowing the speed of light by trapping it in different quantum states ? its pretty interesting.....


http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701hau.html


check it out

 

[Crisp]

Hi all,

137,

"Here is the big but. Einstein relied heavily on the ability to think out/metaphorize/analogize as a major force in arriving at his theory. Fenyman is praised for his 'maverick' approach at pushing the envelope of modern physics. Fenyman diagrams are a visualization of uncertainty that many praised as an ideal short-hand enhancing understanding. "

Yes, but Feynmann diagrams are much more than visualisation tools: each and every symbol in that diagram represents an entire mathematical formula. What Feynmann did was to translate elementary calculus rules to rules for his diagrams, in such a way that overwhelmingly complex integrals can be evaluated in a more intuitive way. However, the rules are well defined, there's no magic or mathematically dubious reasoning there. (okay, perhaps a small bit ).

"It seems to be contradictory to state that one only needs to take 6 heavy courses and understand the better mathematics, yet state that almost everybody can understand what relativity is all about"

... I wanted to illustrate that it takes a bit of effort to understand it, but that it is not impossible. There are exceptions ofcourse, but I don't think we have any of those on the forums here.

"Are you or anyone else stating unequivocally that GTR and STR are 100% proven and correct? And further that it is so correct that it is not even worth discussing any anomalies or questionable data manipulations to uphold the theory?"

Nobody can claim that GR and SR are absolutely correct, no theory can: you would have to perform every experiment imaginable, and there are a lot of those . However, it is true that a lot (and that is an understatement) of evidence is in favour of SR, and that GR has also withstood the test of time so far. Why throw away a perfectly funtioning tool when there's no alternative available ?

"If so then you do not understand fully the theories of the past which successively led up to Relativity"

I think it is essential to have a good feeling of how classical mechanics works, before starting to study relativity. In classical mechanics you can still use your intuition if things are not entirely clear, but once you get to relativity, intuition is the first thing to throw overboard. If one can't talk about quantities like momentum or energy, without knowing 100% sure what they mean in classical mechanics, then that person will have a very difficult time understanding relativity. As I said, it's not that difficult, it just takes time .


Tom,

"It's great having a person on this forum with an open mind(that is, besides me, c'est moi, and Crisp(a little)) "

LOL, yes, unfortunately, I'm a "believer" of SR . But you shouldn't underestimate the other physicists on this board; I think most of us are sceptical enough to realize that "mainstream" theories will eventually fail. It's just that whenever a question is posted, we have the urge to answer with what physics has to say about it - even though we perhaps don't always fully support that view .


Bye,

Crisp

 

[137]

Muy bien

I am email enabled!

Prosoothus: thanks for the lauds. Though I've been playing with computers since the 80's and on the net since the 90's, this is the first forum I have ever participated in. I hope everyone is patient with forum newbies as they learn how to interact effectively.

on radioavtives wave: I have read and continue to read tidbits, including the article in Scientific America. Fascinating stuff. The issue of slowing/stopping light is at the heart of some of my wondering about the conclusions that some reach based on these sorts of experimental results.

Crisp: Thanks for the level headed approach to 'descriptifying' the general arena of the Relativities.
In one sense, I am trying grasp the common framework for discussing the topic. I know, I know...go back to page 1 and read the posts...it is on my to do list.

In classical mechanics you can still use your intuition if things are not entirely clear, but once you get to relativity, intuition is the first thing to throw overboard.

Case-in-point of the opinions to weed through is Paul Davies, physics popularizer, stating of Feynman that, 'His[Feynman] special talent was to approach essentially mainstream topics in an idiosynchratic way. This meant eschewing existing formalisms and developing his own highly intuitive approach.'
I do not think intuition, if it is defined as a mind familiar with both the tools of the trade and the data in question and the ability to conjecture, needs to be removed.:bugeye: [I like the bugeye..]

For the sake of argument, let's say I am an idiot [maybe some would say you can remove 'for the sake of argument, let's say'part] and ignorant of everything but the predicted results of Relativity and I read from a man who worked on GPS who states,

At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds(one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second -- their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks. To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works."

and this writer ends with "They have basically blown off Einstein.".

Now what am I to make of the situation? Does the retardation setting of the clocks once, match Relativistic predictions or not? This must add to the 'proof positive,' proof negative, or 'proof neutral' question of whether Relativity is correct in regards to computations of time dilation accurately decribing any time difference[or clock difference in my preferred term]being observed/recorded in a multiple velocity framework.
A NASA website discussing GPS in all its glory states that there are relativistic effects, but they are negligible and can be discarded. I love those sort of statments. "I ran over an old lady...but she was already dead, so the effects were negligible."

I gotta tend to my 19 month old who is running his mama[me wife] to exhaustion.
Am I running on too long on these posts? What is the etiquette on post length. I am going to hit the Einstein again starting with ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, woo hoo! ...its been 2 years since last studied - then I will try to herd myself towards the thread's 'Does light have mass' focus. Fair enough?

Bye now. 137

 

[(Q)]

The issue of slowing/stopping light is at the heart of some of my wondering about the conclusions that some reach based on these sorts of experimental results.

The slowing/stopping of light is rather insignificant, almost as insignificant as the so-called FTL experiments by NEC. I believe it is simply the photons quantum state is re-created from the photons original template after being 'dumped' into the condensate.

I am going to hit the Einstein again starting with ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT

More Tom van Flandern ? Please take his theories to pseudoscience where they belong. Thanks.

Unless of course, there is a "Crank" forum.

 

[137]

How is it insignificant?

Howdy, y'all,

Q says

The slowing/stopping of light is rather insignificant, almost as insignificant as the so-called FTL experiments by NEC. I believe it is simply the photons quantum state is re-created from the photons original template after being 'dumped'into the condensate.

The use of Bose-Einstein condensates to 'slow light' is insignificant? Please elaborate. :bugeye:

ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT by Albert Einstein. Published in the Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911 under the title Uber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes. Here are Einstein's own verds Are you saying that Einstein should be moved to psuedo-science or a CRANK
Man, oh man this Van Flandern guy gets your knee jerking so fast it makes one of your legs age more slowly than the other.
I will state it again. I have no vested interest in Van Flandern. I read one article of his and am wondering if there is any response to his 'GPS don't need no relativity' comments.

 

[James R]

137,

As far as I can see, resetting the clock rates so that the times will remain synchronised when the satellites are in orbit <b>is</b> taking the relativistic effects into account. It is not "blowing off Einstein".

As for the NASA site which says that relativistic effects can be ignored for GPS satellites: if that is what it says it is wrong. Just ask the people who workwith the GPS system.

 

[thed]

Re: How is it insignificant?

Originally posted by 137
The use of Bose-Einstein condensates to 'slow light' is insignificant? Please elaborate.

The Q may have uncharacteristically not fully explained himself.

Using BEC's to slow light was predicted within the known physics of quantum mechanics and relativity. That is, it is not an unexpected result. Same for the work by NEC labs. It is well known that you can slow light by altering the optical characteristics of a medium. All you do in a BEC is create a highly unique material, not found naturally, and test it's properties versus the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. It behaved as expected and therefore does not constitute the criterion of falsifiability. It is an insignificant result from that point of view.

What was significant was the disccovery of superluminal jets from Quasars. This can be explained by the simple fact that Relativity only holds in inertial frames and the conditions where the jets are created are definitely not inertial.

What is significant was the recent finding that the Universes expansion is accelerating the fine structure constant may be variable in time. That really throws a curve ball into accepted physics.

Are you saying that Einstein should be moved to psuedo-science or a CRANK
Man, oh man this Van Flandern guy gets your knee jerking so fast it makes one of your legs age more slowly than the other.
I will state it again. I have no vested interest in Van Flandern. I read one article of his and am wondering if there is any response to his 'GPS don't need no relativity' comments.

If I get time I'll look at Van Flandern's claims but I want you consider this. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics from a philosophical perspective. He invested a lot of time trying to find fault with it. That was good science as he tried to find the falsifiable areas of the theory. End result was the apparent contradictions Einstein, and Schroedinger and Heisenberg, found but are now embodied in the theory. This is good science though. Einsein also goofed on the cosmological constant. Something that has come to the forefront again.

The true crank or crack pot would use these facts in the logical fallacy that because they made mistakes, bucked the system or predicted outrageous concepts then others doing the same have equal merit. Invoking Galileo as a persecuted scientist is a similar tactic oft used to defend the crackpots.

Van Flandern has been debunked by minds greater than mine. What puts Van Flandern into the crank camp is continuing to hold onto ideas against the overwhelming evidence. The true skeptic/scientist should accept when they are shown to be wrong, or if they are right be prepared to slog it out. If Van Flandern's ideas are right then at least he can find solace that when he is found to be correct science will recognise it. At the moment the evidence is apparently against him.

 

[137]

thed,

Quasar and expansion bits are intriguing...I am in the dark regarding the details..so I may look up some information to 'learn me some new stuff.'

I think there is an assumption that what I am interested in and questions of 'why is something not significant' is that my sole purpose is to 'debunk.' My mind likes to read up on all sides and see if there is any validity. It is also understood that, just like in music, there are one hit wonders who contribute a HUGE tidbit to understanding/knowledge in physics, but may either never contribute much again or stew in the juices of error for the remainder of their life. To be able to understand WHY someone is in error and be able to lucidly decribe this is to completely understand the theory in question - both its strengths and weaknessess[sp?] >>southern twang - - I don't traffic in no 'I heard tell that that boy wasn't raght in the head..so don't even bother trying to counter his crazy talk' - just believe me when I say his is wrong - -end twang<<

Using BEC's to slow light was predicted within the known physics of quantum mechanics and relativity. That is, it is not an unexpected result. Same for the work by NEC labs. It is well known that you can slow light by altering the optical characteristics of a medium. All you do in a BEC is create a highly unique material, not found naturally, and test it's properties versus the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. It behaved as expected and therefore does not constitute the criterion of falsifiability. It is an insignificant result from that point of view.

This was already understood. I am not someone who thinks every proclamation in physics is false, nor is the slowing of light by creating the BEC arena something I find as fuel for the falsifying the RTs. I find it significant and enjoyable as an experiment that verifyies theoretical predictions [a generality, I know.] What I am interested in is the vocabulary used. [Just a hint of my interest - what does it mean to have light slowed or stopped? Q's description is satisfying as a description of a physical transaction as opposed to the 'light is frozen and can be put in your icebox' statements of the mediocre physics popularizers.]

The current legitimate debates that engage the contradictions, which Einstein recognized, continuing to the present is what I am interested in. This is at the heart of some of my musings.

One desire is to hunt up the evidence against the GPS statement.
Evidence, not hearsay, or 'crackpot' talk or 'trust me I know.' This sort of approach is not science, it is only surface response.

James R - The claim I read was that a single retardation of the GPS clocks for satellites going in a myriad of directions with no further adjustments needed. My understanding is that this does NOT mesh with relativistic predictions. I am not claiming to know that this is the reality of the GPS experience[an unreleased Hendrix tune.] I am trying to see whether the CLAIMS which have been made have any validity or merit in full or part.

The NASA site I included claims to be an arm of those who work on GPS[ at least on initial reading..I may be wrong]...I will look into it further.

Many good replies...I look forward to seeing more.

Cheers,
137

 

[thed]

Originally posted by 137
thed,

Quasar and expansion bits are intriguing...I am in the dark regarding the details..so I may look up some information to 'learn me some new stuff.'

It's worth it. The questions on accelerating expansion are throwing some serious questions up about accepted wisdom. The answer to this may well provide the next major conceptual leap forward.

I think there is an assumption that what I am interested in and questions of 'why is something not significant' is that my sole purpose is to 'debunk.'

Pity, science is all about debunking and questioning. Something I have said many times, the goal of all Physicists is to try and find the answer to life the Universe and Everything. In tis respect Einstein and contemparies are constantly under attack. The person who finds the 'smoking gun', the falsifiable truth, will win the plaudits and smart-ass of the year award. Of course, they will then be beaten up as no one likes a smart-ass.

My mind likes to read up on all sides and see if there is any validity.

For sure.

It is also understood that, just like in music, there are one hit wonders who contribute a HUGE tidbit to understanding/knowledge in physics, but may either never contribute much again or stew in the juices of error for the remainder of their life.

For sure, again. It was Sagan who said that even the Nobel prize winners are wrong. A colleague of mine once said (in a company promo video), "Science is about being 99.99% wrong. I live for the 0.01%".

To be able to understand WHY someone is in error and be able to lucidly decribe this is to completely understand the theory in question - both its strengths and weaknessess[sp?] >>southern twang - - I don't traffic in no 'I heard tell that that boy wasn't raght in the head..so don't even bother trying to counter his crazy talk' - just believe me when I say his is wrong - -end twang<<

And I think it was Einstein who said that if you can't explain it to your Grandmother you don't fully understand it yourself. The problem nowadays is that there is so much information to digest you can spend a lifetime looking at one problem and only learn enough about the rest of the field to get by in. I once spent a year trying to learn everything about the theories on the structure of Spiral Galaxies. I gave a presentation and contradicted accepted wisdom. In the ensuing argument with my tutor the head of Physics reminded the tutor that students could think for themselves. In another project that yyear I spent 6 months trying to apply a new theory to solve Einsteins Field Equations. Got no where. In the real world a researcher concentrates on one small thing and assumes other authorities are as honest as they should be, you can not question every paper written in a subject.

I find it significant and enjoyable as an experiment that verifyies theoretical predictions

What would be more interesting is one that falsifies the prediction.

(a generality, I know.) What I am interested in is the vocabulary used. (Just a hint of my interest - what does it mean to have light slowed or stopped? Q's description is satisfying as a description of a physical transaction as opposed to the 'light is frozen and can be put in your icebox' statements of the mediocre physics popularizers.)

What it says, the speed slows. Different materials affect the speed of light differently, denoted by the refractive index. The maximum value is in a vacuum. Where light 'stopped' is where they made a material such that average speed, knowing the refactive index of the surrounding medium, implied light was stopped in the middle.

Of course, there is no problem with this. Relativity only says that light speed is invariant between frames

The current legitimate debates that engage the contradictions, which Einstein recognized, continuing to the present is what I am interested in. This is at the heart of some of my musings.

One desire is to hunt up the evidence against the GPS statement.
Evidence, not hearsay, or 'crackpot' talk or 'trust me I know.' This sort of approach is not science, it is only surface response.

I hear what you are saying. Just read a paper outlining Van Flandern's objections, intriquing. Unfortunately I not a Thorne or Wheeler to address them without further research.

As this may take some time I will direct you to news://sci.physics.relativity and the usenet Web gateway, http://groups.google.com and goto sci.physics.relativity. Search on that for Van Falnder and GPS or ask the questions yourself. Some of Physics best people read that group and partake in it. You will get a lot of flack for even mentioning Van Flandern though. A bit like saying "Nancy" on news://sci.astro. Look that one up as well. Difference being that nancy really is absolutely clueless.

 

[137]

And on I go...

thed,

I will take a peek at the links you provided. More forums! My God..am I going to be doing this full time at some point. Is anyone experiencing this currently?

My first thought/wince at each response is at how I need to learn clarity and consitency, so here is a tangential go at it.

The 'I am not here to necessarily debunk' was a meant to remove an impression that I am unthinkingly attempting to 'crackpot attack' Relativity in a mindless manner. My desire is to pick and prod and see what holds true and what does not...as part of this process there will be those who truly understand the theories they hold dear and those who are merely regurgitating. So in my vocabulary, I am not debunking and am questioning. Semantic gymnastics could be performed regarding this, but I am to tired for that now..

What would be more interesting is one that falsifies the prediction.

I cannot live without the thrill of practical discoveries which are made. The mental excercises of what can be done with each new advance in the experimental is thrilling. Though, obviously, much of my questioning pokes around the idea of the potentially falsifying 'proofs' of RTs. So I, too, am obviously interested in the outcome of the falsifying claims.

What it says, the speed slows. Different materials affect the speed of light differently, denoted by the refractive index. The maximum value is in a vacuum. Where light 'stopped' is where they made a material such that average speed, knowing the refactive index of the surrounding medium, implied light was stopped in the middle.

Me loves the refractive index.
OK, here is light slowed/stopped semi-question:
1. I have created a BEC
2. My aparatus which creates and controls the BEC triggers the BEC to absorb and retain a specific light signal.
3. My trigger to release the light signal causes the BEC to emit a light signal equivalent to the one absorbed.
Or is the claim that it is the EXACT light signal, frozen in time?
This is a simplified verbal schematic of the process. Is this an acceptable description?
To me an almost equivalent question is this.
When a light signal is aimed at clear glass, is the energy absorbed and transmitted [lets ignore the scattering and reflections for now] repeatedly through the glass, exiting on the opposite side as an equivalent signal?

I may try the sci.physics.relativity. Aside from light questions...I will attempt to become an expert on the GPS/Relativity issue and if I feel confident enough that I have gathered the arguments for and against, I will try to put something together and post a link to it. If I am really lazy in thought, I will build a link page of the arena of debate...

Back I go to work...
G'day everybody.
137

P.S. I am reading Lorentz and am prompted to ask a question: Why was it necessary for Einstein to pick up the contraction formulation from Lorenz[and rework it to his own ends, of course?] My reading is that the Michelson-Morley concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the ether on their apparatus [Michelson interferometer]...and therefore introduced the the length contraction equation. 1] What were[are] the experimental proofs of contraction - a shrinking of bodies along their direction of motion and 2] if there is no ether and, therefore, no contraction necessary to explain the equivalent speed/distance of light traversing the interferometer, why was this entered into the germinating theory being cultivated by Einstein?

 

[137]

From: Frozen Light by By Lene Vestergaard Hau
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701hau.html
as posted by on radioavtives waves

"The frozen pattern imprinted on the atoms contains all the information about the original light pulse. For example, the ratio of states 1 and 2 relates to the intensity of the pulse at each location. We effectively have a hologram of the pulse written in the atoms of the gas. This hologram is read out by turning the coupling laser on again. Like magic, the light pulse reappears and sets off in slow motion again, along with the wave of atoms' states, as if nothing had interrupted it."