Before the Beginning ???

Painius wrote:

"Double-A" wrote in message...


ps.com...

Painius wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Paine,
When we measure the speed of light in our own local reference frame,
it
is c. But when we observe it in another reference frame, such as
close
to the Sun, it does not measure out to be travelling at c.
You appear to be talking about the eclipse experiment
that was the first evidence for the validity of relativity
theory, Double A. If i recall correctly, c was considered
a "scalar" quantity that did not change. The acceleration
which was noted was the effect of the curved path taken
by the light from the star which was near the edge of the
Sun. So it was the change in *vectorial* direction of the
light, but not actually a change in the value of c, the
*scalar* speed of light, which accounted for the noted
acceleration.
I was thinking of the Shapiro Effect.
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
Of course this is an abservation made about radio waves, but radio
waves are photons too and are in fact a low frequency form of light.
There is nothing about it that contradicts relativity, in fact Einstein
predicted it. But what I am talking about is purely a matter of
perspective.
If you looked at this from a Newtonian mindset, you would definately
say, "Aha! Light travels slower near the Sun." It is only when you
put on the Einsteinian colored glasses that you say, "Oh, the speed of
light could not have changed. That's fundamental! So, there must be
something wrong with our clock! Our clock's speed must change
depending on where it is."
The point is that if your number one article of faith is that the speed
of light never changes, then you'll mentally move heaven and Earth
before admitting that it does.
Double-A
Okay, i'm with you now. I must be seeing the Shapiro
effect wrongly. I assumed that the increased time it took
for the RF waves to travel was due to the increased
DISTANCE caused by the path curvature due to the
Sun's gravity field. If the Sun wasn't there to make these
paths curve, then the RF waves would travel in a straight
line, and therefore they would travel a shorter distance,
isn't this correct?
So why would the scalar speed of the RF wave have to
decrease?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Selene in crescent wane,
She rises in her palace,
Her smile brings to mind
The Cheshire cat in "Alice"!
Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


Double-A writes:

Hi Paine,

Sorry but I didn't have an answer for you back when you posted this a
couple months ago, but I have now come across some new information.

The question was whether the delay in photons passing close to the Sun
was sufficiently explained by the increased distance resulting from the
bending of their path due to the Sun's gravity field.

The following is from a paper by Dr. Paul Marmot of the University of
Ottawa. I know he has some unusal views, but I believe his
calculations here are in standard form.


Dr. Paul Marmot:

"Delay Due to the Geometrical Bending of Light.
We have seen above that general relativity predicts that light
passing near the solar limb is deflected by an angle of 1.75". The same
theory predicts that due to the same gravitational potential, the
radiation takes a longer time to travel the distance between the Earth
and Mars. Figure 1 illustrates how light is deflected when grazing the
Sun.


Geometrical Time Delay
Figure 1

One can see on figure 1 that if the trajectory of light is not
a straight line (dotted line), it takes a longer time to travel between
Mars and the Earth. The increase of time Dtb due only to the
geometrical bending of light by d = 1.75" is given by the relationship:


(You can visit the site to see the actual equations)

We find that Dtb = 0.010 ms or 3.2 meters. The increase of time
D tb (with respect to a straight line) taken by light to travel from
the Earth to Mars due to the geometrical bending of light is extremely
small and negligible with respect to the delay (125 ms or 36 km)
predicted by relativity as given in equation 5. Consequently, the angle
made by light grazing the Sun is totally insufficient to explain the
increase of distance (or delay) compatible with the prediction of
general relativity as given in equations 3 and 5. This geometrical
delay caused by the bending is not the main cause of the delay
predicted by general relativity. It is several thousand times too
small."

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html


Double-A:

So it is not the increased length of the path due to bending that is
responsible for the significant part of the time delay.

My point is that from our perpective light is travelling slower when it
passes near the Sun. This also suggests that light travelling through
space outside the graviy well of the Sun must be travelling faster than
c as measured on Earth.

Some constant!

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message...
oups.com...

Hi Paine,

Sorry but I didn't have an answer for you back when you posted this a
couple months ago, but I have now come across some new information.

The question was whether the delay in photons passing close to the Sun
was sufficiently explained by the increased distance resulting from the
bending of their path due to the Sun's gravity field.

The following is from a paper by Dr. Paul Marmot of the University of
Ottawa. I know he has some unusal views, but I believe his
calculations here are in standard form.


Dr. Paul Marmot:

"Delay Due to the Geometrical Bending of Light.
We have seen above that general relativity predicts that light
passing near the solar limb is deflected by an angle of 1.75". The same
theory predicts that due to the same gravitational potential, the
radiation takes a longer time to travel the distance between the Earth
and Mars. Figure 1 illustrates how light is deflected when grazing the
Sun.


Geometrical Time Delay
Figure 1

One can see on figure 1 that if the trajectory of light is not
a straight line (dotted line), it takes a longer time to travel between
Mars and the Earth. The increase of time Dtb due only to the
geometrical bending of light by d = 1.75" is given by the relationship:


(You can visit the site to see the actual equations)

We find that Dtb = 0.010 ms or 3.2 meters. The increase of time
D tb (with respect to a straight line) taken by light to travel from
the Earth to Mars due to the geometrical bending of light is extremely
small and negligible with respect to the delay (125 ms or 36 km)
predicted by relativity as given in equation 5. Consequently, the angle
made by light grazing the Sun is totally insufficient to explain the
increase of distance (or delay) compatible with the prediction of
general relativity as given in equations 3 and 5. This geometrical
delay caused by the bending is not the main cause of the delay
predicted by general relativity. It is several thousand times too
small."

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html


Double-A:

So it is not the increased length of the path due to bending that is
responsible for the significant part of the time delay.

My point is that from our perpective light is travelling slower when it
passes near the Sun. This also suggests that light travelling through
space outside the graviy well of the Sun must be travelling faster than
c as measured on Earth.

Some constant!

Double-A

Interesting stuff, AA! If i read it correctly, then objects
(stars and galaxies) we see out there could be a great
deal closer to us than we think!

You see, while light traveling through space outside the
gravity well of the Sun must be traveling faster than light
near to the Sun, the light outside the gravity well is still
traveling at speeds significantly lower than c. This means
that this light, the light from stars and galaxies, takes
quite a bit *longer* to reach us than previously thought.
Therefore, the objects emitting this light are a whole lot
closer (some of them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!

Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that, everywhere in
space, light is transmitted at a velocity slower than the
accepted definition of the velocity of light known on
Earth."

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Photons!...
Puzzling bursts of energy!
Particles and waves they be!
Pummeling eyes so we may see!
Promises of dreams to be!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Painius:

You see, while light traveling through
space outside the gravity well of the Sun
must be traveling faster than light near to the Sun, the light outside
the gravity well is still traveling at speeds significantly
lower than c.

Too bad the NG has been all but destroyed and rendered useless by the
current blizzard of OT trash.

But regarding your above statement, you did not clarify _from what
referance frame_ the speed of light is being observed. The same is true
of the cited paper by Marmet and Couture,
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.htm
This paper and its attendant math is predicated on the
space-as-void or 'No Medium' premise. It makes no provision for
_pressure/density gradients_ in the spatial medium, and does not
recognize such gradients as being responsible for variances in the speed
of light (same is true of the VSL {variable speed of light} models by
Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt, Troitskii et al).
Variations in the speed of light are always _as seen
from the external frame_. The observer, mentally transposed 'outside' of
space, sees the variation across any density/pressure gradient in the
medium. Meanwhile, here 'inside' of space, the Earthbound observer sees
the _artifacts_ of the variation, and tries to interpret them and "math"
them based on void-space (as in the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration
anomaly).
Relativity itself is rooted 'inside' of space.
Transposing 'outside' of space is the natural extension/expansion of
relativity. For example, where Marmet-Couture see c as dropping to zero
at a BH's event horizon, the 'outside' observer sees _space itself_
accelerating to c at the event horizon.. and an inbound photon hitting
the EH at 2c(!). An outbound photon, trying to 'climb out' of the BH's
gravity well, would have zero velocity at the EH.
In more familiar settings here in our Sun's gravity
well, what is actually going on as seen from 'outside'? Well,
pressure/density _decrease_ the closer you get to the Sun, as the
velocity of flow into the Sun increases (think venturi). Out in deep
space, farthest from any gravitating mass, pressure/density is
_highest_. And the speed of light is highest there.
As pressure/density decrease in a gravity well, the speed
of light within it decreases proportionately. Yet to the observer
'inside' the gravity well, c is always constant *locally*. C is always
186,282 mps here, locally, just as it is always 186,282 mps out in deep
space, locally. And relativity is never violated, locally. The prime
variable from location to location is the pressure/density of the
spatial medium.. the most prominent example being the _cosmological
density gradient_, not yet recognized in deep-field observations.
Just as SR sees c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model sees it constant in all _density frames_ to the 'inside'
observer. The 'outside' observer sees lightspeed vary across any density
gradient (Wolter's 'c-dilation'). This is the natural extension of SR;
all that's needed is to replace the "Void" with the hyperpressurized,
fluid spatial medium.. and to correctly interpret the artifacts we
observe 'inside' of space.

This means that this light, the light from
stars and galaxies, takes quite a bit
*longer* to reach us than previously
thought. Therefore, the objects emitting
this light are a whole lot closer (some of
them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!
Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that,
everywhere in space, light is transmitted
at a velocity slower than the accepted
definition of the velocity of light known
on Earth."

Stop a moment to think this through from the standpoint of the 'outside'
observer. Remember too that the _volume_ of space increases with
diminishing density/pressure, and that space (and everything in it)
stretches axially in the direction of flow.. as seen from 'outside'. And
now interpret the artifacts of all this we see here 'inside'.g

Clearly, the view is vastly different from that of the old physics based
on void-space.

Note: the term "pressure/density" is more concisely rendered
"pressure/density/Temp" or PDT, since the 'Temperature' of the medium is
the function of its pressure/density (with unwitting credit to OG).

oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

You see, while light traveling through
space outside the gravity well of the Sun
must be traveling faster than light near to
the Sun, the light outside the gravity well
is still traveling at speeds significantly
lower than c.

Too bad the NG has been all but destroyed and rendered useless by the
current blizzard of OT trash.

Well, yes, there's that...

OTOH, if you slightly change your FoR g, then it
becomes clear that their xposting generates a bit of new
blood. It's how i came to a.a years ago, after all... it was
as a result of a xpost to misc.writing.

So let me take this opportunity to thank the crazy, kooky
denizens of a.u.k. They perform as mirrors for the Kook-
element on UseNet. Don't you just love the way they
"fight fire with fire"?

And it's the first time in many years that i've used the Block
Sender function in my newsreader. I haven't blocked 'em
all, you understand, jus' mos' of 'em. There's "Bookman",
who at least asks intelligent questions, and there's "Art Deco",
who at least tries to be witty on occasion. (One of his latest
responses--i believe it was to the Nightbat--was something
about setting your phaser to dork. While i didn't actually
spray my coffee all over my screen, it did make me giggle.)

And there are one or two others i keep around for amusement.

Cheer up, you ol' coot. Even the great, awesome and
astronomically astounding Greg Neill has posted recently.
The rest may return if the "Lizard Queen" stays away and
the "Coffee Boys" lose interest.

But regarding your above statement, you did not clarify _from what
referance frame_ the speed of light is being observed.

That's only because you are much braver than i. When i
"step outside the box" i still have a difficult time judging
what is real and what may not be so real. Physical reality
is very important to me, and i am loathe to put anything in
this category unless i'm fairly sure it belongs there.

The same is true
of the cited paper by Marmet and Couture,
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.htm
This paper and its attendant math is predicated on the
space-as-void or 'No Medium' premise. It makes no provision for
_pressure/density gradients_ in the spatial medium, and does not
recognize such gradients as being responsible for variances in the speed
of light (same is true of the VSL {variable speed of light} models by
Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt, Troitskii et al).
Variations in the speed of light are always _as seen
from the external frame_. The observer, mentally transposed 'outside' of
space, sees the variation across any density/pressure gradient in the
medium. Meanwhile, here 'inside' of space, the Earthbound observer sees
the _artifacts_ of the variation, and tries to interpret them and "math"
them based on void-space (as in the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration
anomaly).
Relativity itself is rooted 'inside' of space.
Transposing 'outside' of space is the natural extension/expansion of
relativity. For example, where Marmet-Couture see c as dropping to zero
at a BH's event horizon, the 'outside' observer sees _space itself_
accelerating to c at the event horizon.. and an inbound photon hitting
the EH at 2c(!). An outbound photon, trying to 'climb out' of the BH's
gravity well, would have zero velocity at the EH.
In more familiar settings here in our Sun's gravity
well, what is actually going on as seen from 'outside'? Well,
pressure/density _decrease_ the closer you get to the Sun, as the
velocity of flow into the Sun increases (think venturi). Out in deep
space, farthest from any gravitating mass, pressure/density is
_highest_. And the speed of light is highest there.
As pressure/density decrease in a gravity well, the speed
of light within it decreases proportionately. Yet to the observer
'inside' the gravity well, c is always constant *locally*. C is always
186,282 mps here, locally, just as it is always 186,282 mps out in deep
space, locally. And relativity is never violated, locally. The prime
variable from location to location is the pressure/density of the
spatial medium.. the most prominent example being the _cosmological
density gradient_, not yet recognized in deep-field observations.
Just as SR sees c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model sees it constant in all _density frames_ to the 'inside'
observer. The 'outside' observer sees lightspeed vary across any density
gradient (Wolter's 'c-dilation'). This is the natural extension of SR;
all that's needed is to replace the "Void" with the hyperpressurized,
fluid spatial medium.. and to correctly interpret the artifacts we
observe 'inside' of space.

I don't know how else to put this without sounding a bit
quaint... but i absolutely love it when you talk about this
stuff! I wish i understood things like pressured flow and
density better. It just seems to me that we ought to be
able to measure these parameters of space, i.e., of the
SPED.

This means that this light, the light from
stars and galaxies, takes quite a bit
*longer* to reach us than previously
thought. Therefore, the objects emitting
this light are a whole lot closer (some of
them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!
Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that,
everywhere in space, light is transmitted
at a velocity slower than the accepted
definition of the velocity of light known
on Earth."

Stop a moment to think this through from the standpoint of the 'outside'
observer. Remember too that the _volume_ of space increases with
diminishing density/pressure, and that space (and everything in it)
stretches axially in the direction of flow.. as seen from 'outside'. And
now interpret the artifacts of all this we see here 'inside'.g

Clearly, the view is vastly different from that of the old physics based
on void-space.

Note: the term "pressure/density" is more concisely rendered
"pressure/density/Temp" or PDT, since the 'Temperature' of the medium is
the function of its pressure/density (with unwitting credit to OG).

oc

I say again, it will be Thinking, individual thought, put
together with good, healthy Disagreement and Debate,
which will bring in the astrophysics of the 21st century
and replace the Abbott and Costello physics of the
20th...

** NOW PLAYING AT THE COMEDY PALACE **

The EXTRAORDINARY comedy team of ---

Tivvy & Meckie

Yes folks the untamed antics of the hilarious Quan Meckie
together with "straight man" Rella Tivvy will have you in
stitches and rolling on the floor laughing your bells off !!!!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a BANG! so big? or a bang so small,
again and again we rise to fall,
i stare at the stars, at a sky so tall,
to hear the loudest silence of all.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Hi oc Glad to see you posting. Just to bring in this in regards to
before the beginning. QM gives us the best clues. It tells us there was
always quantum fluctuations. That for an infinite spacetime
photons,electrons,protons were popping into existence and anihalating
each other so fast that they can not be observed. Theories of
an"oscillating universe are out there. An ever ending expanding universe
is greatly excepted. oc tell me how a universe can come to a
complete end if the hydrogen atom can last trillions and trillions of
years. oc you talk of small stuff I read this "If the universe
contracted down to a Planck length of 10-33 centimeter,it could become
no smaller Hmmmm. How can we ever visual the whole universe shrunk to
such a small size:? Is this the size of a singularity? Tricky scary
unbelievable stuff to ponder. Goes good with halloween,for it makes the
universe ghost like. Bert

Painius wrote:

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

You see, while light traveling through
space outside the gravity well of the Sun
must be traveling faster than light near to
the Sun, the light outside the gravity well
is still traveling at speeds significantly
lower than c.

Too bad the NG has been all but destroyed and rendered useless by the
current blizzard of OT trash.

Well, yes, there's that...

OTOH, if you slightly change your FoR g, then it
becomes clear that their xposting generates a bit of new
blood. It's how i came to a.a years ago, after all... it was
as a result of a xpost to misc.writing.

So let me take this opportunity to thank the crazy, kooky
denizens of a.u.k. They perform as mirrors for the Kook-
element on UseNet. Don't you just love the way they
"fight fire with fire"?

And it's the first time in many years that i've used the Block
Sender function in my newsreader. I haven't blocked 'em
all, you understand, jus' mos' of 'em. There's "Bookman",
who at least asks intelligent questions, and there's "Art Deco",

*ding*

who at least tries to be witty on occasion. (One of his latest
responses--i believe it was to the Nightbat--was something
about setting your phaser to dork. While i didn't actually
spray my coffee all over my screen, it did make me giggle.)

And there are one or two others i keep around for amusement.

Cheer up, you ol' coot. Even the great, awesome and
astronomically astounding Greg Neill has posted recently.
The rest may return if the "Lizard Queen" stays away and
the "Coffee Boys" lose interest.

But regarding your above statement, you did not clarify _from what
referance frame_ the speed of light is being observed.

That's only because you are much braver than i. When i
"step outside the box" i still have a difficult time judging
what is real and what may not be so real. Physical reality
is very important to me, and i am loathe to put anything in
this category unless i'm fairly sure it belongs there.

The same is true
of the cited paper by Marmet and Couture,
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.htm
This paper and its attendant math is predicated on the
space-as-void or 'No Medium' premise. It makes no provision for
_pressure/density gradients_ in the spatial medium, and does not
recognize such gradients as being responsible for variances in the speed
of light (same is true of the VSL {variable speed of light} models by
Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt, Troitskii et al).
Variations in the speed of light are always _as seen
from the external frame_. The observer, mentally transposed 'outside' of
space, sees the variation across any density/pressure gradient in the
medium. Meanwhile, here 'inside' of space, the Earthbound observer sees
the _artifacts_ of the variation, and tries to interpret them and "math"
them based on void-space (as in the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration
anomaly).
Relativity itself is rooted 'inside' of space.
Transposing 'outside' of space is the natural extension/expansion of
relativity. For example, where Marmet-Couture see c as dropping to zero
at a BH's event horizon, the 'outside' observer sees _space itself_
accelerating to c at the event horizon.. and an inbound photon hitting
the EH at 2c(!). An outbound photon, trying to 'climb out' of the BH's
gravity well, would have zero velocity at the EH.
In more familiar settings here in our Sun's gravity
well, what is actually going on as seen from 'outside'? Well,
pressure/density _decrease_ the closer you get to the Sun, as the
velocity of flow into the Sun increases (think venturi). Out in deep
space, farthest from any gravitating mass, pressure/density is
_highest_. And the speed of light is highest there.
As pressure/density decrease in a gravity well, the speed
of light within it decreases proportionately. Yet to the observer
'inside' the gravity well, c is always constant *locally*. C is always
186,282 mps here, locally, just as it is always 186,282 mps out in deep
space, locally. And relativity is never violated, locally. The prime
variable from location to location is the pressure/density of the
spatial medium.. the most prominent example being the _cosmological
density gradient_, not yet recognized in deep-field observations.
Just as SR sees c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model sees it constant in all _density frames_ to the 'inside'
observer. The 'outside' observer sees lightspeed vary across any density
gradient (Wolter's 'c-dilation'). This is the natural extension of SR;
all that's needed is to replace the "Void" with the hyperpressurized,
fluid spatial medium.. and to correctly interpret the artifacts we
observe 'inside' of space.

I don't know how else to put this without sounding a bit
quaint... but i absolutely love it when you talk about this
stuff! I wish i understood things like pressured flow and
density better. It just seems to me that we ought to be
able to measure these parameters of space, i.e., of the
SPED.

This means that this light, the light from
stars and galaxies, takes quite a bit
*longer* to reach us than previously
thought. Therefore, the objects emitting
this light are a whole lot closer (some of
them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!
Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that,
everywhere in space, light is transmitted
at a velocity slower than the accepted
definition of the velocity of light known
on Earth."

Stop a moment to think this through from the standpoint of the 'outside'
observer. Remember too that the _volume_ of space increases with
diminishing density/pressure, and that space (and everything in it)
stretches axially in the direction of flow.. as seen from 'outside'. And
now interpret the artifacts of all this we see here 'inside'.g

Clearly, the view is vastly different from that of the old physics based
on void-space.

Note: the term "pressure/density" is more concisely rendered
"pressure/density/Temp" or PDT, since the 'Temperature' of the medium is
the function of its pressure/density (with unwitting credit to OG).

oc

I say again, it will be Thinking, individual thought, put
together with good, healthy Disagreement and Debate,
which will bring in the astrophysics of the 21st century
and replace the Abbott and Costello physics of the
20th...

** NOW PLAYING AT THE COMEDY PALACE **

The EXTRAORDINARY comedy team of ---

Tivvy & Meckie

Yes folks the untamed antics of the hilarious Quan Meckie
together with "straight man" Rella Tivvy will have you in
stitches and rolling on the floor laughing your bells off !!!!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

I made the lits o' haet!

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."

"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."

-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:53:20 -0600, Art Deco
wrote:

Painius wrote:

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

You see, while light traveling through
space outside the gravity well of the Sun
must be traveling faster than light near to
the Sun, the light outside the gravity well
is still traveling at speeds significantly
lower than c.

Too bad the NG has been all but destroyed and rendered useless by the
current blizzard of OT trash.

Well, yes, there's that...

OTOH, if you slightly change your FoR g, then it
becomes clear that their xposting generates a bit of new
blood. It's how i came to a.a years ago, after all... it was
as a result of a xpost to misc.writing.

So let me take this opportunity to thank the crazy, kooky
denizens of a.u.k. They perform as mirrors for the Kook-
element on UseNet. Don't you just love the way they
"fight fire with fire"?

And it's the first time in many years that i've used the Block
Sender function in my newsreader. I haven't blocked 'em
all, you understand, jus' mos' of 'em. There's "Bookman",
who at least asks intelligent questions, and there's "Art Deco",

Ding
*ding*

who at least tries to be witty on occasion. (One of his latest
responses--i believe it was to the Nightbat--was something
about setting your phaser to dork. While i didn't actually
spray my coffee all over my screen, it did make me giggle.)

And there are one or two others i keep around for amusement.

Cheer up, you ol' coot. Even the great, awesome and
astronomically astounding Greg Neill has posted recently.
The rest may return if the "Lizard Queen" stays away and
the "Coffee Boys" lose interest.

But regarding your above statement, you did not clarify _from what
referance frame_ the speed of light is being observed.

That's only because you are much braver than i. When i
"step outside the box" i still have a difficult time judging
what is real and what may not be so real. Physical reality
is very important to me, and i am loathe to put anything in
this category unless i'm fairly sure it belongs there.

The same is true
of the cited paper by Marmet and Couture,
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.htm
This paper and its attendant math is predicated on the
space-as-void or 'No Medium' premise. It makes no provision for
_pressure/density gradients_ in the spatial medium, and does not
recognize such gradients as being responsible for variances in the speed
of light (same is true of the VSL {variable speed of light} models by
Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt, Troitskii et al).
Variations in the speed of light are always _as seen
from the external frame_. The observer, mentally transposed 'outside' of
space, sees the variation across any density/pressure gradient in the
medium. Meanwhile, here 'inside' of space, the Earthbound observer sees
the _artifacts_ of the variation, and tries to interpret them and "math"
them based on void-space (as in the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration
anomaly).
Relativity itself is rooted 'inside' of space.
Transposing 'outside' of space is the natural extension/expansion of
relativity. For example, where Marmet-Couture see c as dropping to zero
at a BH's event horizon, the 'outside' observer sees _space itself_
accelerating to c at the event horizon.. and an inbound photon hitting
the EH at 2c(!). An outbound photon, trying to 'climb out' of the BH's
gravity well, would have zero velocity at the EH.
In more familiar settings here in our Sun's gravity
well, what is actually going on as seen from 'outside'? Well,
pressure/density _decrease_ the closer you get to the Sun, as the
velocity of flow into the Sun increases (think venturi). Out in deep
space, farthest from any gravitating mass, pressure/density is
_highest_. And the speed of light is highest there.
As pressure/density decrease in a gravity well, the speed
of light within it decreases proportionately. Yet to the observer
'inside' the gravity well, c is always constant *locally*. C is always
186,282 mps here, locally, just as it is always 186,282 mps out in deep
space, locally. And relativity is never violated, locally. The prime
variable from location to location is the pressure/density of the
spatial medium.. the most prominent example being the _cosmological
density gradient_, not yet recognized in deep-field observations.
Just as SR sees c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model sees it constant in all _density frames_ to the 'inside'
observer. The 'outside' observer sees lightspeed vary across any density
gradient (Wolter's 'c-dilation'). This is the natural extension of SR;
all that's needed is to replace the "Void" with the hyperpressurized,
fluid spatial medium.. and to correctly interpret the artifacts we
observe 'inside' of space.

I don't know how else to put this without sounding a bit
quaint... but i absolutely love it when you talk about this
stuff! I wish i understood things like pressured flow and
density better. It just seems to me that we ought to be
able to measure these parameters of space, i.e., of the
SPED.

This means that this light, the light from
stars and galaxies, takes quite a bit
*longer* to reach us than previously
thought. Therefore, the objects emitting
this light are a whole lot closer (some of
them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!
Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that,
everywhere in space, light is transmitted
at a velocity slower than the accepted
definition of the velocity of light known
on Earth."

Stop a moment to think this through from the standpoint of the 'outside'
observer. Remember too that the _volume_ of space increases with
diminishing density/pressure, and that space (and everything in it)
stretches axially in the direction of flow.. as seen from 'outside'. And
now interpret the artifacts of all this we see here 'inside'.g

Clearly, the view is vastly different from that of the old physics based
on void-space.

Note: the term "pressure/density" is more concisely rendered
"pressure/density/Temp" or PDT, since the 'Temperature' of the medium is
the function of its pressure/density (with unwitting credit to OG).

oc

I say again, it will be Thinking, individual thought, put
together with good, healthy Disagreement and Debate,
which will bring in the astrophysics of the 21st century
and replace the Abbott and Costello physics of the
20th...

** NOW PLAYING AT THE COMEDY PALACE **

The EXTRAORDINARY comedy team of ---

Tivvy & Meckie

Yes folks the untamed antics of the hilarious Quan Meckie
together with "straight man" Rella Tivvy will have you in
stitches and rolling on the floor laughing your bells off !!!!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

I made the lits o' haet!
As did I, and in a higher position, Bruce!

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html

Bookman wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:53:20 -0600, Art Deco
wrote:

Painius wrote:

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

You see, while light traveling through
space outside the gravity well of the Sun
must be traveling faster than light near to
the Sun, the light outside the gravity well
is still traveling at speeds significantly
lower than c.

Too bad the NG has been all but destroyed and rendered useless by the
current blizzard of OT trash.

Well, yes, there's that...

OTOH, if you slightly change your FoR g, then it
becomes clear that their xposting generates a bit of new
blood. It's how i came to a.a years ago, after all... it was
as a result of a xpost to misc.writing.

So let me take this opportunity to thank the crazy, kooky
denizens of a.u.k. They perform as mirrors for the Kook-
element on UseNet. Don't you just love the way they
"fight fire with fire"?

And it's the first time in many years that i've used the Block
Sender function in my newsreader. I haven't blocked 'em
all, you understand, jus' mos' of 'em. There's "Bookman",
who at least asks intelligent questions, and there's "Art Deco",

Ding
*ding*

who at least tries to be witty on occasion. (One of his latest
responses--i believe it was to the Nightbat--was something
about setting your phaser to dork. While i didn't actually
spray my coffee all over my screen, it did make me giggle.)

And there are one or two others i keep around for amusement.

Cheer up, you ol' coot. Even the great, awesome and
astronomically astounding Greg Neill has posted recently.
The rest may return if the "Lizard Queen" stays away and
the "Coffee Boys" lose interest.

But regarding your above statement, you did not clarify _from what
referance frame_ the speed of light is being observed.

That's only because you are much braver than i. When i
"step outside the box" i still have a difficult time judging
what is real and what may not be so real. Physical reality
is very important to me, and i am loathe to put anything in
this category unless i'm fairly sure it belongs there.

The same is true
of the cited paper by Marmet and Couture,
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.htm
This paper and its attendant math is predicated on the
space-as-void or 'No Medium' premise. It makes no provision for
_pressure/density gradients_ in the spatial medium, and does not
recognize such gradients as being responsible for variances in the speed
of light (same is true of the VSL {variable speed of light} models by
Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt, Troitskii et al).
Variations in the speed of light are always _as seen
from the external frame_. The observer, mentally transposed 'outside' of
space, sees the variation across any density/pressure gradient in the
medium. Meanwhile, here 'inside' of space, the Earthbound observer sees
the _artifacts_ of the variation, and tries to interpret them and "math"
them based on void-space (as in the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration
anomaly).
Relativity itself is rooted 'inside' of space.
Transposing 'outside' of space is the natural extension/expansion of
relativity. For example, where Marmet-Couture see c as dropping to zero
at a BH's event horizon, the 'outside' observer sees _space itself_
accelerating to c at the event horizon.. and an inbound photon hitting
the EH at 2c(!). An outbound photon, trying to 'climb out' of the BH's
gravity well, would have zero velocity at the EH.
In more familiar settings here in our Sun's gravity
well, what is actually going on as seen from 'outside'? Well,
pressure/density _decrease_ the closer you get to the Sun, as the
velocity of flow into the Sun increases (think venturi). Out in deep
space, farthest from any gravitating mass, pressure/density is
_highest_. And the speed of light is highest there.
As pressure/density decrease in a gravity well, the speed
of light within it decreases proportionately. Yet to the observer
'inside' the gravity well, c is always constant *locally*. C is always
186,282 mps here, locally, just as it is always 186,282 mps out in deep
space, locally. And relativity is never violated, locally. The prime
variable from location to location is the pressure/density of the
spatial medium.. the most prominent example being the _cosmological
density gradient_, not yet recognized in deep-field observations.
Just as SR sees c constant in all inertial frames, the
expanded model sees it constant in all _density frames_ to the 'inside'
observer. The 'outside' observer sees lightspeed vary across any density
gradient (Wolter's 'c-dilation'). This is the natural extension of SR;
all that's needed is to replace the "Void" with the hyperpressurized,
fluid spatial medium.. and to correctly interpret the artifacts we
observe 'inside' of space.

I don't know how else to put this without sounding a bit
quaint... but i absolutely love it when you talk about this
stuff! I wish i understood things like pressured flow and
density better. It just seems to me that we ought to be
able to measure these parameters of space, i.e., of the
SPED.

This means that this light, the light from
stars and galaxies, takes quite a bit
*longer* to reach us than previously
thought. Therefore, the objects emitting
this light are a whole lot closer (some of
them "reachable" perhaps in the near
future?) than we thought!
Ref:
"Consequently, equation 7 shows that,
everywhere in space, light is transmitted
at a velocity slower than the accepted
definition of the velocity of light known
on Earth."

Stop a moment to think this through from the standpoint of the 'outside'
observer. Remember too that the _volume_ of space increases with
diminishing density/pressure, and that space (and everything in it)
stretches axially in the direction of flow.. as seen from 'outside'. And
now interpret the artifacts of all this we see here 'inside'.g

Clearly, the view is vastly different from that of the old physics based
on void-space.

Note: the term "pressure/density" is more concisely rendered
"pressure/density/Temp" or PDT, since the 'Temperature' of the medium is
the function of its pressure/density (with unwitting credit to OG).

oc

I say again, it will be Thinking, individual thought, put
together with good, healthy Disagreement and Debate,
which will bring in the astrophysics of the 21st century
and replace the Abbott and Costello physics of the
20th...

** NOW PLAYING AT THE COMEDY PALACE **

The EXTRAORDINARY comedy team of ---

Tivvy & Meckie

Yes folks the untamed antics of the hilarious Quan Meckie
together with "straight man" Rella Tivvy will have you in
stitches and rolling on the floor laughing your bells off !!!!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

I made the lits o' haet!
As did I, and in a higher position, Bruce!

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html


Nice to know you have such devoted readers, Paine.

Double-A

From Painius:

OTOH, if you slightly change your FoR
g, then it becomes clear that their
xposting generates a bit of new blood.
It's how i came to a.a years ago, after
all... it was as a result of a xpost to
misc.writing.

Yep, you're right. There's always a silver cloud to every lining.g What
the hell- as long as 99.9% of what's currently being posted is OT
anyway, maybe you'd like to take a gander at the newest addition to my
air fleet - http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/TurboTipsyand/
oc

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi oc Glad to see you posting. Just to bring in this in regards to
before the beginning. QM gives us the best clues. It tells us there was
always quantum fluctuations. That for an infinite spacetime
photons,electrons,protons were popping into existence and anihalating
each other so fast that they can not be observed. Theories of
an"oscillating universe are out there. An ever ending expanding universe
is greatly excepted. oc tell me how a universe can come to a
complete end if the hydrogen atom can last trillions and trillions of
years.


How can you know that for a fact? We haven't yet observed a hydrogen
atom for trillions and trillions of years to see if it can last that
long.


oc you talk of small stuff I read this "If the universe
contracted down to a Planck length of 10-33 centimeter,it could become
no smaller Hmmmm. How can we ever visual the whole universe shrunk to
such a small size:? Is this the size of a singularity?


The universe could never shrink to that size because space expands and
volume increases as a gravitational field intensifies. That is what GR
predicts. That is another reason why there can be no such thing as a
black hole singularity. As mass crunches towards a single point, the
space keeps expanding and so it can never reach the single point state.


Tricky scary
unbelievable stuff to ponder. Goes good with halloween,for it makes the
universe ghost like. Bert


The universe is apparitional, says telescope guru John Dobson.
Starlord would know about that, but then he has us both killfiled.
I'll bet Starlord is the kind of guy who turns out his lights when the
trick-or-treaters come.

Double-A