Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 20:27 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >How do you treat time? > Process Physics assumes that only the present moment has a physical existence. So the past and future only exist as memories, mental images or as records or plans. But to allow change, a mechanism is assumed to exist to allow a transition from one present moment to the next present moment. > >You are probably going to wind up with a spacetime no matter what >words you use to describe it; maybe not the spacetime of GR, but a >spacetime. > Spacetime diagrams will probably always be useful. But in Process Physics such diagrams would be regarded as only an aid to calculate relative timing of events and not as representing any physical "space-time". >(Not an intentionally hostile comment. I personally enjoy trying to >describe GR in those terms -- just to annoy. :-) You are welcome :-) There is an introductory paper here (with no maths) on Process Physics treatment of space and time. Space and Gravitation. http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS20.pdf
From: Yuancur on 13 Apr 2008 20:47 On Apr 13, 12:17 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 12:03 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Actually, he asked a question. He wasn't making a logical proposition. > > I was aware of that when I wrote, and also that somebody would > probably make an issue of it. Congratulations. :-) > Well it seems to me that it's issues that we should be discussing. If not issues, then what? Non issues? > > There again, this is physics, not logic. The two are only feebly > > connected. > > Quite strongly, I would say -- unless you mean this as a sociological > observation/insult against physicists. > Not at all! Logic is about reasoning. Physics is far more than that. I'm trying to defend physics from mindless mantras. > > Asking a slightly different question: > > > Assuming firstly that Citizen 1 invokes a model and makes a prediction > > which is subsequently matched by observational data. > > > Assuming secondly that Citizen 2, invoking a different model, makes a > > contary prediction which is not matched by that observational data. > > > Do we prefer the model of citizen 2, and, if so, why? > > > Is it because he made his prediction first or some other prejudicial > > reason? (i.e have we prejudged the issue? Was making the observation > > a waste of everybody's time? Is this Science or Dogma) > > I've read Kuhn. > Apparently you didn't understand well enough, or are not courageous enough, to answer the question. Another question for you to run from. "If the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, then any observation in conflict with that proposition must be flawed." Do you agree with that statement or not? In my opinion, it's good logic, but atrocious physics. Love, Jenny
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 20:52 On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:44:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Somewhere among the references someone said something like "the speed in >the earth-centered frame is unchanged", which is wrong. That is true >ONLY in a local ECI frame in which all other gravitational fields are >negligible, and here both of those conditions are probably not good >approximations to the accuracy required. It is tantalizing that the >anomaly is about one part per million, which "just happens" to be the >magnitude of the curvature of spacetime near earth. So I have to wonder >if this is related to an inaccurate approximation in the coordinates >used in the analysis. > >IOW: the speed of light in the coordinates used might not be >isotropically c to sufficient accuracy over the distances involved. > >This is NOT a simple thing to check.... > That's very interesting. I just had another look at: The river model of black holes Andrew J. S. Hamilton and Jason P. Lisle JILA and Dept. Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences, Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060 They say "In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a flat background, while objects move through the river according to the rules of special relativity." I take this to mean that light travels at speed c relative to the river. They say the river model is equivalent to the Gullstrand Painleve metric which is equivalent to the Schwarzschild metric. If you assumed a Gullstrand Painleve metric that immersed the earth in such a "river of space", flowing past it with the same speed and direction that Cahill uses for dynamical 3-space, I wonder if you would get the same values for light-speed anisotropy and hence get the same results as he does?
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 22:04 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Let me see if I understand you correctly: > >1) The speed of light is not really constant, but a conspiracy of >effects, i.e. time dilation plus length contraction, make it >impossible to observe light speed anisotropy using earthbound >apparatus. > >OK. What you have so far is pre-1905 LET theory. But now you add >something new: > >2) Length contraction only applies to condensed matter. It does >not apply to the spacings between the free molecules in gases. As >condensed matter objects travel through whatever they travel >through, the interatomic spacings vary exactly as predicted by >the length contraction equation, and clocks vary in their speed >exactly as predicted by the time dilation equation. > >3) However, the spacing of disconnected objects in free space do >NOT vary according to the length contraction equation. Although >the objects themselves will contract, the spacings between the >objects do not. > I suspect that. It would be consistent with the idea that the length contraction is caused by the interaction of objects with a medium as they move through it. Since the space between objects is just the medium itself, there is no reason why it should contract. > >4) If the above hypothesis is true, light speed anisotropies >between objects in free space should be observable. > I suspect that is the case. >Also, please answer the following: > >5) Do you believe that light in free space propagates according >to ballistic rules, or do you believe that it propagates at a >fixed speed with respect to an "aether" or "quantum foam" or >other such background? > I believe it propagates with fixed speed relative to a medium.
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 22:10
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >Kuhn: the reigning paradigm determines what we can see. > Good point ! |