Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????

On Jun 18, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Henry Wilson, DSc wrote:
How can all the starlight in the universe
that is moving in our direction magically find a common speed if there is no
'medium' in space that determines that speed?

The same way that a straight line "magically finds" the shortest
distance between two spatial points (over distances less than ~1000 km).
That is, GEOMETRY.

I don't know why the space-time geometry of the world we inhabit has
this property, but experiments show that this model is one of the best
and most widely-applicable descriptions of our world that have ever been
discovered.

This is not really a surprising result, to people who have actually
studied the matter. Here's a simple explanation:

Assume the world we inhabit is causal. That is, for a given point in
space P and given time T, all phenomena located at P at time T can
depend only on phenomena near P a short time before T. This implies that
it is not possible for some object or influence to "zoom in from
infinity" with infinite speed and affect any phenomena located at P at
time T [#]. So there must be a finite upper bound on the speed of all
objects and influences -- that's the only way to ensure they are near P
a short time before T. Mathematically this implies that the only valid
transformation group among inertial frames is the Poincaré group [@],
which has the property that all objects and signals are restricted to
speeds less than a universal maximum speed; experiments show that this
universal speed limit is equal to the vacuum speed of light. The theory
that describes this is known as Special Relativity, and experimentally
it has been observed to be valid for all phenomena that have been tested
under conditions where gravity can be ignored.

Experimental results should be interpreted, Honest Roberts. The
Doppler effect (shift in frequency) is unquestionable but it takes a
sane (non-Einsteinian) mind to say whether it is due to shift in
wavength (then no problem for Einstein's 1905 light postulate) or
shift in the speed of light (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
false). Consider a light source and an observer initially at rest
relative to each other. Then the observer suddenly starts moving, with
constant speed, towards the light source. The frequency unquestionably
shifts, but can you imagine the wavelength shifting as well? A sane
(non-Einsteinian) mind cannot imagine any shift in wavelength (the
wavelength can only be determined by the source and has nothing to do
with the movements of the observer) and concludes that the speed of
light has shifted, in accordance with the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 19, 10:30*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:



Henry Wilson, DSc wrote:
How can all the starlight in the universe
that is moving in our direction magically find a common speed if there is no
'medium' in space that determines that speed?

The same way that a straight line "magically finds" the shortest
distance between two spatial points (over distances less than ~1000 km)..
That is, GEOMETRY.

I don't know why the space-time geometry of the world we inhabit has
this property, but experiments show that this model is one of the best
and most widely-applicable descriptions of our world that have ever been
discovered.

This is not really a surprising result, to people who have actually
studied the matter. Here's a simple explanation:

Assume the world we inhabit is causal. That is, for a given point in
space P and given time T, all phenomena located at P at time T can
depend only on phenomena near P a short time before T. This implies that
it is not possible for some object or influence to "zoom in from
infinity" with infinite speed and affect any phenomena located at P at
time T [#]. So there must be a finite upper bound on the speed of all
objects and influences -- that's the only way to ensure they are near P
a short time before T. Mathematically this implies that the only valid
transformation group among inertial frames is the Poincaré group [@],
which has the property that all objects and signals are restricted to
speeds less than a universal maximum speed; experiments show that this
universal speed limit is equal to the vacuum speed of light. The theory
that describes this is known as Special Relativity, and experimentally
it has been observed to be valid for all phenomena that have been tested
under conditions where gravity can be ignored.

Experimental results should be interpreted, Honest Roberts. The
Doppler effect (shift in frequency) is unquestionable but it takes a
sane (non-Einsteinian) mind to say whether it is due to shift in
wavength (then no problem for Einstein's 1905 light postulate) or
shift in the speed of light (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
false). Consider a light source and an observer initially at rest
relative to each other. Then the observer suddenly starts moving, with
constant speed, towards the light source. The frequency unquestionably
shifts, but can you imagine the wavelength shifting as well? A sane
(non-Einsteinian) mind cannot imagine any shift in wavelength (the
wavelength can only be determined by the source and has nothing to do
with the movements of the observer) and concludes that the speed of
light has shifted, in accordance with the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev


In the aether [...]

Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the [...] as independent
entities that the light source gives off, just as in [the] result of
the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to [....] Musatov
[. ...] The progression {np} with pa prime is closed and X — (Jp {np}
is not closed. [...]

On Jun 20, 8:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
The theory
that describes this is known as Special Relativity, and experimentally
it has been observed to be valid for all phenomena that have been tested
under conditions where gravity can be ignored.

Experimental results should be interpreted, Honest Roberts. The
Doppler effect (shift in frequency) is unquestionable but it takes a
sane (non-Einsteinian) mind to say whether it is due to shift in
wavength (then no problem for Einstein's 1905 light postulate) or
shift in the speed of light (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
false). Consider a light source and an observer initially at rest
relative to each other. Then the observer suddenly starts moving, with
constant speed, towards the light source. The frequency unquestionably
shifts, but can you imagine the wavelength shifting as well? A sane
(non-Einsteinian) mind cannot imagine any shift in wavelength (the
wavelength can only be determined by the source and has nothing to do
with the movements of the observer) and concludes that the speed of
light has shifted, in accordance with the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Another example. Sometimes clever Einsteinians give sane (non-
Einsteinian) interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

John Norton's "later writers" who "almost universally" use the
Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of
special relativity" can only do so if the world accepts the idiotic
implications of this insane (Einsteinian) interpretation of the
Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The theory
that describes this is known as Special Relativity, and experimentally
it has been observed to be valid for all phenomena that have been tested
under conditions where gravity can be ignored.

Experimental results should be interpreted, Honest Roberts. The
Doppler effect (shift in frequency) is unquestionable but it takes a
sane (non-Einsteinian) mind to say whether it is due to shift in
wavength (then no problem for Einstein's 1905 light postulate) or
shift in the speed of light (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
false). Consider a light source and an observer initially at rest
relative to each other. Then the observer suddenly starts moving, with
constant speed, towards the light source. The frequency unquestionably
shifts, but can you imagine the wavelength shifting as well? A sane
(non-Einsteinian) mind cannot imagine any shift in wavelength (the
wavelength can only be determined by the source and has nothing to do
with the movements of the observer) and concludes that the speed of
light has shifted, in accordance with the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Those who find this argument inconvincing (e.g. it may seem to them
that the wavelength is not determined by the light source and somehow
varies with the speed of the observer) should consider an analogous
case. In the presence of a gravitational field, the frequency f varies
with the gravitational potential V (gravitational redshift) in
accordance with the formula f'=f(1+V/c^2) experimentally confirmed by
Pound and Rebka. If the Doppler effect consisted in the combination:

variable frequency, variable wavelength, constant speed of light

then the same combination would characterize the gravitational
redshift as well. Silly Einsteinians do suggest so but clever
Einsteinians know that the combination:

variable frequency, constant wavelength, variable speed of light

is the true one:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Of course, truth has always been dangerous for Einsteiniana so in his
general relativity Einstein had to confuse the topic by claiming that
the real variability of the speed of light was even greater than that
consistent with the formula f'=f(1+V/c^2):

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...5_898-908.pdf).
It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

Pentcho Valev