Some troubling assumptions of SR

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Air cannot support transverse waves at all.

And crystals do not allow planets to pass through.

That was the model of the aether. Imagine a rigid crystal made
of particles that interact less than neutrinos. Regardless, if
you want to use sound as a test vehicle for an aether theory,
crystals would be the closest equivalent. You need the rigidity
for a shear wave to propagate.

***{There were lots of models of the aether, with properties that
varied
depending on the facts known at the time and the extant theories about
electromagnetism, etc. The only thing all those theories had in common
was the belief that what was known could not be explained by a theory
of
empty space, and, thus, that space had to be filled by some sort of
transparent medium. One possibility was the one you have mentioned:
that
light was transverse (shear) waves in a rigid medium. That notion,
however, was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment, ..

No, only the Galilean relativity of the model was refuted.
For example the Lorentz invariant aether is still unproven
within the limitations of special relativity.

***{I still haven't proven that there isn't a little man in my
refrigerator who vanishes every time I look inside. :-) --MJ}***

:-) Very much my own take on an aether.

.. more than a
hundred years ago, and it serves no purpose to discuss it here. More
recent aether theories (e.g., the so called "Dirac Sea") involve
particles that move freely with respect to one another, rather than the
archaic notion of a transparent, solid aether. Such modernized aether
theories are compatible with the view that light waves are composed of
photons rather than continua without discrete parts.

The problem with that idea is that there seems to be no reason
why those photons couldn't propagate through a true vacuum.

***{Consider this:

(1) It is a demonstrated fact that space is filled with a vast,
transparent sea of particulate material having gravitational mass,
irrespective of what we choose to call it.

Sure, what we can detect is of the order of particles per
cubic metre. The queston is how light gets from one particle
to the next if you are suggesting those particles are the
aether (but I don't think you are).

(2) Any object moving through such a sea is going to encounter a force
of resistance, even if it is so slight as to be beyond our present
capacity to measure.

For any massive object which has a non-zero interaction
cross section. Not true for photons (no mass) and possibly
for dark matter (possibly zero cross-section).

(3) Photons cross distances encompassing billions of light years, yet
upon arriving at Earth they have the same speeds as photons produced
locally.

Yes, however, some arrive sooner than others. Consider the
dispersion of pulses from a pulsar. Photons of different
frequencies are delayed by different amounts.

The inescapable implication: a constant driving force, Fd, is being
applied to photons, which increases their speeds until the force
resisting their motion, Fr, is such that Fd = Fr.

Not true, it is as easy to say that photons travel at c
between particles and the reduced mean speed is due to
delays in the interactions so your implication is not
inescapable. Nor is your statement self-consistent
because photons move in all directions so any force
that increases the speed of some would decrease the
speed of those going in the opposite direction.

Lightspeed, in short, is the terminal velocity of a photon in the
aether.

What aether? You have only talked about particles which are
very thinly dispersed in the aether and photons as particles
that need no aether to propagate.

Remember the aether is the substance whose oscillations are
called light and which conveys the packets of oscillations
we call photons between the particles. Those oscillations
are disturbed when they encounter particles and you cannot
apply a force to an oscillation. The speed will always be
determined by the physical constants of the medium. You
can't push sound through air faster than the speed of sound
by applying a force to the pressure waves and they don't
slow down if you stop pushing. Your description so far
doesn't need an aether at all!

The implication: when the density of the aether falls, as it must as its
distance from gravitating masses increases, lightspeed increases.

But, of course, that contradicts the equations of physics, and the
experiments on which those equations are based, right?

No, there is no requirement for the density of the aether
to vary in any way. Until you sort out its properties, you
can make no predictions.

The answer is no: the only thing variable lightspeed contradicts is SR
verbiage

And every measurement ever made of that speed of course.
When you demonstrate some anisotropy of the speed in vacuo
then you have an argument. Until then it is all conjecture
and pretty nonsensical so far.

George

On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Mar 5, 1:18 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:25:17 -0500, Wolf
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:51:18 -0500, Wolf
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:26:17 -0500, Wolf
wrote:

In every beam of light there are two mutually orthogonal vectors, one
in the direction of motion and one along the E polarization vector.
And in the context of bidirectional relative motion studies such as MM
both have to analyzed and treated in terms of FLT instead of just the
one bidirectional longitudinal relative velocity vector conventionally
Actually, there are infinitely many vectors. We just pick the ones that
are relevant to the question we want to answer, and which are most
convenient to calculate with.
Of course this is true. However if we choose the C vector in a
particular direction there is an E vector associated with it lying
There is no vector "associated" with any other vector. there are only
problems or questions that are more convenient to solve with some set of
vectors rather than another set.

So the E vector doesn't produce the C vector? How convenient. What
does pray tell? Is it magic then? Do photons magically appear without
cause? Or are they vectorless?

Yes, they are vectorless.

And you know this how exactly? I mean if they were vectorless they
would be stationary. You can't very well go any where in space without
a vector.

Of course things can go any where in space without a vector.

Then how do you get there? Perhaps you tunnel through cyberspace and
cybertime using a Nintendo GameCube?

Toss a
peanut in the air and it moves through space.

Brilliant, Watson. It moves through what exactly?

Now if you say, well, it
needs a vector to do that, where in the peanut does this vector sit?

Where indeed. Where in the peanut does its velocity sit and where its
acceleration? The DraperFamily must indeed be proud of such pithy,
penetrating, and egregiously stupid observations.

And is it property of the peanut, or is it the product of someone
attempting to describe its behavior?

Do you often find yourself doing philosophy? Because you're not very
good at it. But then you're not very good at mechanics either. So you
might just as well do philosophy I expect. Are you quite sure you're a
member of the physics community? I mean you're not just a troll out
looking for a little slap and tickle?

Well, I see that you have very little physics content to offer at this
point. All you are doing is heckling, which doesn't seem to be either
illuminating or on task.


If it's a property of the peanut,
then why does the size and direction of the velocity vector (used to
describe the peanut's motion) depend on the motion of the observer?

It does? And here I rather imagined it depended on the motion of the
peanut. You know through that "space" you mentioned above?

Ah, here we go. There's a little gem we can discuss. Let's talk about
a particular peanut: you. You must have some motion through "space"
right now, correct? How big is it, and which direction is it pointing,
right now? After all, a vector is specified by a magnitude and a
direction. So specify your velocity vector.

PD


Why would an inherent property of the peanut (that it requires in
order to move) depend on which observer is doing the describing?

Not to mention it depends on which observer is doing the describing of
the observer who is doing the describing etc. etc. and so forth and so
on world without end amen.

PD wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "PD" wrote:

And is it property of the peanut, or is it the product of someone
attempting to describe its behavior?

Do you often find yourself doing philosophy? Because you're not very
good at it. But then you're not very good at mechanics either. So you
might just as well do philosophy I expect. Are you quite sure you're a
member of the physics community? I mean you're not just a troll out
looking for a little slap and tickle?

Well, I see that you have very little physics content to offer at this
point. All you are doing is heckling, which doesn't seem to be either
illuminating or on task.

Which task is that? Trolling or cranking?

--
David Marcus

On Mar 3, 7:41 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...





On Mar 2, 1:25 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 2 Mar, 02:25, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:02 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, "George Dishman"
wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Feb 25, 2:13 pm, "George Dishman"
wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Feb 24, 4:12 am, "George Dishman"

wrote:
...
As you have said, the observations already exist, so
what we need to determine is if the theory can account for the
observations. I am saying the classical analysis uses the wrong
path
for the signal. Correct that error and the predictions agree
with
observations.

It isn't about choosing to use any particular path, the
theory must predict the path.

I disagree. A choice was made for the analysis.

Sorry, no. You can choose what frame you use to do
the analysis but the path must be predicted. You
cannot just assume an answer.

Who wrote these rules? In that case I chose to do the analysis
from the frame of the receiver.

Take your pick, if your theory is self-consistent
it will give the same prediction from any frame.

As I have been saying right along,
the traditional aether analysis of aberration can never agree with SR
while using a different definition of aberration, even when the same
result is observed.

Agreed, but my understanding is that aberration is
the difference in pointing angle of a telescope
resulting from the change in the Earth's velocity
as it orbits compared to that for a telescope at
rest w.r.t. the Solar system barycentre regardless
of the theory.

That is my understanding as well. That is why I object to the
traditional aether drift analysis as presented by Mitchell Jones. It
breaks that different pointing angle down into two components,
aberration and aether drift. The result is that while the predicted
angle may be the same the part attributed to aberration will differ.
Again I will point to the example of two stationary observers with a
cross wind between them. Traditional aether theory says there is
aberration but that it is canceled by the aether drift, resulting in
no difference in the pointing angle.

I don't want ot get into a long discussion of that but
there are a range of points I could make depending on
what you mean by "traditional aether theory".

SR says there is no aberration
so there is no difference in the pointing angle. The predicted
pointing angle is the same but they disagree on whether there is
aberration due to the different definitions of aberration.

OK, but that's a hypothetical case. The Earth is in orbit
and what I am considering is whether a dragged aether can
the explain the actual observed aberration.

Lets try this. You are standing in the open with no wind. An
airplane passes by from left to right. If the airplane dropped a
cannon ball observers on the plane would see the ball drop straight
down, staying directly under the plane as it fell. The observer on
the ground would see the ball dropping from left to right. Following
its path back up leads to a point behind the current location of the
plane, where the plane was when it dropped the ball. This is
aberration. Just consider the airplane to be a stationary star and we
are on the earth moving in our orbit. Have the airplane fly back in
the opposit direction (we have continued our orbit under the
stationary star) and the aberration angle changes direction.

When the cannon ball was dropped a charge of black powder was lit off
with a bang, leaving a cloud of smoke in the stationary air at the
point where the ball was dropped. That is the point we will hear the
sound come from in our stationary air (dragged aether). The airplane
will have moved on in the time it took for the sound to reach us, so
the sound will come from behind the airplane, just like the cannon
ball. When the airplane flys back the other way the sound trails in
the opposite direction.

If you want the star to be at rest in the aether of space just change
the airplane to a balloon floating back and forth in the jet streams.
It wont effect the final leg of the sound's passage to us in our
stationary air.

Yes, we use the down wind origin of the wave to calculate where the
wave front will be, but that is not where the sound came from.

It is where it appears to come from. Try drawing circles
radiating out from the source.

I disagree. This is what the real world experiment with sound
demonstrates. When there is a cross wind between two stationary
observers they still hear the sound come from the direction of the
source, not the down wind center of the wave front.

I have yet to be convinced of that. What was the link
to your experimental evidence again?

I provided no link. I was speaking of first hand observations you can
make yourself. Surely you have been in open areas when the wind was
blowing. Have you ever heard come from down wind of a stationary
object? I never have even when the distance was the better part of a
mile and the wind strong. I have often heard the sound from an
airplane come from a point behind its current location, so I can
detect a difference in direction if one exists. I have also
experienced traveling at high rates of speed near others at race
tracks.

To determine the direction the sound is coming from the receiver needs
at least two points.

Right. Try this sketch:

S

--- wind

|
A--+--B

A and B are microphones and S is a source, say a gun which
emits a single spherical wavefront, or you can use a tone
generator and measure phase difference.

We are trying to duplicate a wave traveling in the aether. The
signals in the wires travel faster than the sound waves so you are in
effect using faster than light communication to determine the timing
of the reception at A and B.

Use a dish to collect the sound at a focal
point.

A and B would then be the surface near the edges of the
parabolic dish.

If aimed at the down wind center the wave front contacts the
up wind and down wind edges of the dish at the same time.

Or put another way the signal reaches the two microphones
simultaneously hence the short line shown normal to the
line joining them would point to the source, downwind.
Alternatively, instead of microphones, think of turning
your head until the sound reached both ears simultaneously.

Imagine synchronizing clocks with sound while assuming there is no
wind. If there is in fact a wind the clocks will be out of sync. But
you have no way of knowing that based on the sound signals alone.

But the
down wind path is reflected up wind while the up wind path is
reflected down wind traveling faster in relation to the dish. The two
paths do not converge at the focal point of the dish.

Ah, that adds a second effect. Now suppose the dragged
aether is dragged by the tube of the telescope so there
is no relative motion of the aether between the dish and
the focal point, what do you get?

The quick answer is that it would equalize the times, but we may be
overlooking something. Does the dragged aether cause a build up of
pressure as it passes the stationary aether? Do the waves reflect in
the same direction when they hit the dish? Where exactly does the
transition take place and along what path? Instant transitions can
give incorrect results as do instant accelerations.

Aim the dish a
bit up wind and the down wind path gets shorter while the up wind path
gets longer, bringing the time of the two paths closer to equal. When
aimed at the source the time for the two paths to the focal point is
the same.

Is it? The light spent a long time travelling from
the distant star to the dish and a very short time
from the dish to the focal point. However the angles
between the paths and the aether flow are also greater
so can you show the effects exactly cancel? How would
that affect a VLBI system?

The paths were very nearly the same for the long trip while they were
in opposite directions from the dish to the focal point.

Aim further up wind and the down wind path's time becomes
shorter than the up wind path's.

As mentioned previously, if you want to block the sound you place an
obstruction on the line of sight path between the source and
receiver. Placing it between the receiver and the down wind center of
the wave front will have no effect.

Agreed, if you place a block on the line between you and
the source, the sound which apparently comes from somewhere
downwind will be silenced.

Doesn't that seem strange to you? In the case of sound coming from
behind an airplane flying by you block the sound by holding something
up in the direction of where the sound is coming from. Blocking the
line of sight does nothing. Why the difference? How can blocking the
line of sight path effect the path from down wind?

If you like drawing try this.

No need, I agree so I'll snip the next bit.

The
path of the sound is from the location of the source at the time it
was emitted, to the receiver, as measured in the receiver's frame.

No, try sketching the wavefronts.

I have. It took a while to figure out how to explain the real world
observations. In the real world you will not hear the sound come from
down wind.

I'd like to see the actual experimental evidence for
that before commenting, can you give me the link again
please.

I have shown that even when the theories agree on a predicted
observation they do not agree on what that result represents. The
traditional aether analysis predicts aberration when there is a cross
wind between two stationary observers. I would consider that an
error.

Yes, I agree with that, but it seems to be the opposite
of what you said above.

Not really. They agree that no displacement will be observed. The
"aberration" is canceled out by the aether drift. I put "aberration"
in quotes because it is not the same aberration defined by SR.

Well it could be but usually when we talk of aberration
it is in the context where the source and observer are
in relative motion. You are saying there will be zero
aberration when there is zero relative motion which is
certainly true in SR.





I feel no need to come up with all the answers from the start.
All I'm after here is to show that a dragged ather theory could be
compatible with SR. We already know that LET is. As far as I know
neither of them attempts to explain everything we know about light.

No scientific theory sets out to explain in the
everyday sense, they set out to explain in the
scientific sense of making quantitative preditions
which match all known observations. What you need
to do is first show that a dragged aether can give
accurate predictions for all the experiments against
which SR has been tested and second show that it
predicts a difference in some currently untested
situation. Then that condition can be tested to see
if your theory is right and SR is wrong.

I'm just one person. There have been hundreds if not thousands of
experiments done to test SR. I couldn't even name them all to say
nothing about making predictions for them. And it is not my intent to
prove SR wrong, or that a dragged aether exists for that matter. I
just suspect that a dragged aether theory could be made just as
compatible with SR as LET is.

Well that really was my point, to do that all you need
to do is show that a dragged aether is equivalent to
a Lorentzian aether, and if it isn't you just identify
one situation where there is a difference and find a
single test for that. It will then either confirm the
draggged aether or SR but at least one must fail.

LET survives simply be having whatever ad hoc
phenomena are needed to emulate Lorentz invariance
which means all the SR experimental predictions
are just carried across and if you can show the
same then you don't actually need to repeat the
work for every experiment and observation.

Yes. As Tom Roberts has pointed out many times, the math is the
same. I suspect the same type of thing can be done with a dragged
aether theory.

I doubt it, consider the effect it would have on the
apparent "downwind" source in VLBI for example. Still,
there's nothing lost trying. Good luck :-)

George- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 6, 12:45 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:41:43 -0500, David Marcus





wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "PD" wrote:

And is it property of the peanut, or is it the product of someone
attempting to describe its behavior?

Do you often find yourself doing philosophy? Because you're not very
good at it. But then you're not very good at mechanics either. So you
might just as well do philosophy I expect. Are you quite sure you're a
member of the physics community? I mean you're not just a troll out
looking for a little slap and tickle?

Well, I see that you have very little physics content to offer at this
point. All you are doing is heckling, which doesn't seem to be either
illuminating or on task.

Whereas you're doing no physics whatsoever. I may not have much
physics to offer but what little I have to offer you appear to have no
capacity to grasp, analyze, or reply to. Of course your feelings are
hurt. Poor boy. Why don't you run home to mommy. Or better yet call
home and see if you're there. Given the "physics" you preach you can
never tell. You might just have gotten there ahead of yourself. Just
don't get your nose bent outta shape with me because you're too lazy
or stupid to guess the right mechanical arguments and conclusions.

~v~~-

Well, let's see. You responded to David's post, but apparently with
regard to a comment that I made. Furthermore, if you read down a
little more in MY post you will find the *one* place where I thought
your comments offered some physics content, but you seem to have blown
right by that without comment.

Either you are "not seeing my posts" again, or you are ignoring them.
If the former, then your usefulness on this group is severely hampered
by pilot error or a poor choice of provider. If the latter, then the
above is a ludicrous display of disingenuousness, and once again your
posts on this group lose any value they might have had.

PD

On Mar 6, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:41:43 -0500, David Marcus





wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "PD" wrote:

And is it property of the peanut, or is it the product of someone
attempting to describe its behavior?

Do you often find yourself doing philosophy? Because you're not very
good at it. But then you're not very good at mechanics either. So you
might just as well do philosophy I expect. Are you quite sure you're a
member of the physics community? I mean you're not just a troll out
looking for a little slap and tickle?

Well, I see that you have very little physics content to offer at this
point. All you are doing is heckling, which doesn't seem to be either
illuminating or on task.

Which task is that? Trolling or cranking?

In PD's case some of each. He trolls for arguments he can't face and
then gets cranky when he gets them.

I notice you're having to channel PD once more, David, presumably
because he asks for answers to questions he can't deal with. In other
words he can't handle the truth. As a member of the physics community
supposedly in fond standing he can dish it out but he can't take it.

Isn't it interesting that when everyone can see my posts but Lester
cannot, he nevertheless assumes that the problem is mine and not his?
I regard this as symptomatic of a behavior of larger scope.


You know, David, twenty years ago when I finished drafting the concept
of anisotropic time as I called it, if anyone had suggested the level
of depraved indifference so prevalent today in the academic scholastic
community at large I wouldn't have believed them. Now it seems the
only thing academics can't and are determined not to stand are new
ideas whose time has come. And perhaps Max Planck was correct in
observing that new ideas don't supplant the old until true believers
in the old just die out. And maybe there's a moral in there somewhere.

It's curious that a community of scholars once admired for its stoic
devotion to the pursuit of truth somehow morphed instead into a
community of clerics determined to defend the faith at any cost. On
the usenet a few years back I even speculated that the academic
scholastic community in general had warped itself into a bizarre first
estate even in the US, a first estate financed with state and local
money together with federal grants. And the primary purpose of that
first estate was maintenance of itself and the establishment in the
realm of all theoretical ideas. Stranger than fiction but there it is.

In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Air cannot support transverse waves at all.

And crystals do not allow planets to pass through.

That was the model of the aether. Imagine a rigid crystal made
of particles that interact less than neutrinos. Regardless, if
you want to use sound as a test vehicle for an aether theory,
crystals would be the closest equivalent. You need the rigidity
for a shear wave to propagate.

***{There were lots of models of the aether, with properties that
varied
depending on the facts known at the time and the extant theories about
electromagnetism, etc. The only thing all those theories had in common
was the belief that what was known could not be explained by a theory
of
empty space, and, thus, that space had to be filled by some sort of
transparent medium. One possibility was the one you have mentioned:
that
light was transverse (shear) waves in a rigid medium. That notion,
however, was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment, ..

No, only the Galilean relativity of the model was refuted.
For example the Lorentz invariant aether is still unproven
within the limitations of special relativity.

***{I still haven't proven that there isn't a little man in my
refrigerator who vanishes every time I look inside. :-) --MJ}***

:-) Very much my own take on an aether.

***{All aethers are not deliberately designed to be unverifiable.
--MJ}***

.. more than a
hundred years ago, and it serves no purpose to discuss it here. More
recent aether theories (e.g., the so called "Dirac Sea") involve
particles that move freely with respect to one another, rather than the
archaic notion of a transparent, solid aether. Such modernized aether
theories are compatible with the view that light waves are composed of
photons rather than continua without discrete parts.

The problem with that idea is that there seems to be no reason
why those photons couldn't propagate through a true vacuum.

***{Consider this:

(1) It is a demonstrated fact that space is filled with a vast,
transparent sea of particulate material having gravitational mass,
irrespective of what we choose to call it.

Sure, what we can detect is of the order of particles per
cubic metre.

***{You are referring to particles of conventional matter: molecules and
atoms, or ionized versions of them in the intergalactic plasma. Between
those particles, however, there exists a series of aether substrates,
which I label as E1, E2, E3, etc., in descending order of size of the
constituent particles. A sea of E1 particles fills the spaces between
particles of conventional matter, a sea of E2 particles fills the spaces
between particles of E1, and so on. The properties of these various
components of the vacuum account for--i.e., they provide causal
explanations for--the observations that we classify under the heading of
electromagnetics. --MJ}***

The queston is how light gets from one particle
to the next if you are suggesting those particles are the
aether (but I don't think you are).

***{Photons are a loosely-bound, shaped array of lesser particles. I
have tried various names, to designate the lesser particles, but have
never really been satisfied with any of them. Lately I have taken to
calling them "corpuscles." In any case, photons are essentially
particulate in nature, and pass between particles of conventional matter
by following continuous pathways in accordance with the laws of
motion--which means: they move through space in accordance with their
natures and the nature of their surroundings, just like everything else.
--MJ}***

(2) Any object moving through such a sea is going to encounter a force
of resistance, even if it is so slight as to be beyond our present
capacity to measure.

For any massive object which has a non-zero interaction
cross section. Not true for photons (no mass)

***{No *rest* mass, George. The effective mass of a photon is hf/c^2,
which is the amount by which the mass of a system increases when it
absorbs a photon, and the amount by which the mass of a system decreases
when a photon is emitted. The question I am trying to get you to
consider is simply this: what prevents the kinetic energy of the photon
from being slowly bled off as it makes its way through a "sea" of
energetic particles which is billions of light years in extent? The
total energy of the photon is hf, and, if you believe that no part of
that is rest mass, it follows that all of it is kinetic energy. In that
case, why is not that kinetic energy slowly bled off, as the photon
makes its way through billions of light years of the "Dirac Sea," or
"quantum foam," or "dark matter," or "virtual particles," or
"zero-point energy," or "aether," or whatever you want to call it? It
seems to me that kinetic energy would have to bleed off--which means:
the energy lost in that way must be somehow restored, by the action of
some other force. The alternative, that photons somehow manage to pass
through a sea of other particles that is billions of light years in
extent without experiencing any energy loss at all, seems utterly
preposterous. --MJ}***

for dark matter (possibly zero cross-section).

***{How can the cross-section of interaction be zero? That would mean
the effective areas of the particles in the "sea" ahead of the photon
would comprise 0% of the background area. That would require that they
occupy no space--i.e., that their volumes be zero. But we know that
particles of "dark matter" have mass. That's the whole idea of "dark
matter"--to supply the "missing mass" of galaxies. And if a particle
having mass occupies a volume of zero, its density is obviously
infinite. Doesn't that seem just a wee bit ridiculous to you? Isn't it
more reasonable to consider the possibility that photons do, in fact,
lose kinetic energy due to a nonzero interaction cross section with
aether particles (or whatever you want to call them), but that the lost
energy is somehow restored by interactions of a different sort? --MJ}***

(3) Photons cross distances encompassing billions of light years, yet
upon arriving at Earth they have the same speeds as photons produced
locally.

Yes, however, some arrive sooner than others. Consider the
dispersion of pulses from a pulsar. Photons of different
frequencies are delayed by different amounts.

***{We are not here concerned with the photons that arrive showing signs
of having undergone interactions with other particles. The conundrum of
concern has to do with the photons that arrive across distances of
billions of light years showing no evidence of having interacted with
anything. It is my position that every photon that makes such a journey
must have lost kinetic energy in interactions, and from that I conclude
that there must be a restorative force--something that speeds them back
up again after they have briefly slowed down. --MJ}***

The inescapable implication: a constant driving force, Fd, is being
applied to photons, which increases their speeds until the force
resisting their motion, Fr, is such that Fd = Fr.

Not true, it is as easy to say that photons travel at c
between particles and the reduced mean speed is due to
delays in the interactions so your implication is not
inescapable.

***{Of course it is: interaction delays would obviously be cumulative.
In the absence of a restorative force, the photon would go slower and
slower, until it stopped. --MJ}***

Nor is your statement self-consistent
because photons move in all directions so any force
that increases the speed of some would decrease the
speed of those going in the opposite direction.

***{Some restorative force theories would be eliminated by that
objection, but not all. Consider, for example, the windspeed measuring
device known as a rotating cup anemometer. It turns at a speed directly
proportional to the speed of the wind, irrespective of the direction the
wind is coming from. Why? Because the cups are shaped in such a way as
to offer more resistance to a wind striking the open side of the
hemispherical cup than the closed side. Since each supporting arm
contains a cup facing one way on one end and a cup facing the other way
on the other end, there is always a torque, when the wind is blowing,
regardless of wind direction.

Now imagine that we remove one such hemispherical cup from the
anemometer and give it a powerful spin around its axis of symmetry, so
that conservation of angular momentum keeps it pointing in one
direction. If we toss it into an environment where it will be struck by
uniform numbers of small particles from all directions, there will be a
net force propelling it down its axis of symmetry toward the closed side
of the cup, irrespective of the direction in which that axis of symmetry
is pointing. That means if we toss a hundred such cups into a situation
where, say, particles of birdshot are flying about isotropically in all
directions, each spinning cup will fly off in the direction pointed to
by its closed side. Each will accelerate in whatever direction it
happens to be pointing, until the driving force, Fd, imposed upon it by
the birdshot impacts, is equal to the backward force, Fr, imposed by air
resistance. At that point all the spinning cups will be moving at a
constant terminal velocity in whatever direction they were originally
pointing.

If tiny microparticles are whizzing about isotropically in space and
photons have a spin and a shape that causes impacts from those tiny
mircoparticles to give more force in one direction than another, then
photons will fly endlessly through space at terminal velocity,
constantly losing kinetic energy due to impacts with particles in the
medium, and constantly having that kinetic energy restored by the
driving force imparted by the tiny microparticles.

That, George, is my model of light.

And, by the way, the tiny microparticles are the cause of gravity as
well: if you were in deep space, equal numbers would strike you from all
directions, imparting no net force; but if you are near a massive body,
it will block many of the microparticles that would otherwise strike you
from below, with the result that a net force will appear, pushing you
toward the center of mass of the body in question. That's what gravity
is, and is all that it is.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Lightspeed, in short, is the terminal velocity of a photon in the
aether.

What aether? You have only talked about particles which are
very thinly dispersed in the aether

***{No. In space it is particles of conventional matter which are very
thinly dispersed. The term "aether," however, refers to the transparent
particulate medium which fills the interstices between particles of
conventional matter. Particles of aetherial matter, in short, are
different from the normal constituents of solids, liquids, gases, or
plasmas. --MJ}***

and photons as particles
that need no aether to propagate.

***{As explained above, the existence of a particulate aether and of
gravity microparticles are necessary to explain the speed of light in a
vacuum. Without the particles of push gravity, photons would slow to a
stop in deep space; and without the aether, they would speed up until
their velocities were vastly higher than anything heretofore measured.
--MJ}***

Remember the aether is the substance whose oscillations are
called light and which conveys the packets of oscillations
we call photons between the particles. Those oscillations
are disturbed when they encounter particles and you cannot
apply a force to an oscillation. The speed will always be
determined by the physical constants of the medium. You
can't push sound through air faster than the speed of sound
by applying a force to the pressure waves and they don't
slow down if you stop pushing. Your description so far
doesn't need an aether at all!

***{See the preceding comments. --MJ}***

The implication: when the density of the aether falls, as it must as its
distance from gravitating masses increases, lightspeed increases.

But, of course, that contradicts the equations of physics, and the
experiments on which those equations are based, right?

No, there is no requirement for the density of the aether
to vary in any way.

***{The density of aether substrates that are gravitationally entrained
must increase as distance from the surface of a massive body decreases,
for the same reason that the density of the atmosphere increases as
altitude decreases. For example, since both electrons and positrons have
gravitational mass, the aether substrate bearing the properties Dirac
postulated for his "sea" must be gravitationally entrained, and must
increase in density as altitude decreases. It is, therefore, unarguable
(a) that the Earth carries with it in its region of gravitational
dominance a vast ocean of aetherial matter; (b) that such material
filled Michelson's laboratory and was at rest with respect to it; and
(c) that, therefore, his finding of no aether wind was entirely to be
expected, given the fact that the aether was gravitationally entrained.
--MJ}***

Until you sort out its properties, you
can make no predictions.

***{I sorted out the various properties I have discussed with you, and
many others I have not yet discussed, years ago. As for predictions, one
of the most interesting is that in a high-g field, uncalibrated clocks
will run slow, and lightspeed will be equally slow, when measured using
calibrated clocks. The reason is that the higher the gravitational
acceleration, the greater the density of the aether. Lightspeed slows
because the resistance to the movement of photons increases, resulting
in a lower equilibrium velocity; and clocks run slow because moving
through thicker aether is harder for the same reason that it is harder
to swim through molasses than through water.

Einstein, of course, has stipulated that clocks in a high-g field are
not to be calibrated. In other words, he has ordered us to not adjust
clocks in high-g fields to run at the same rates as clocks in low-g
fields. Thus if you wanted to use Central Standard Time (CST) in a
high-g field, you couldn't do it. Your clock in the high-g field would
have to run slower, because Einstein has ordered you to not calibrate it
to run at the same rate as clocks in Chicago, and you dare not disobey
him. In the case where the gravitational acceleration in a region is so
high as to render human life impossible, there of course would be no
danger that you might make use of any sort of clock there. However, it
is possible that you might *imagine* using a calibrated clock there, and
that you might talk about the implications of doing so. Thus Einstein
has added a second order to the first: you are not allowed to imagine
using Central Standard Time in a high-g field, and you aren't allowed to
talk about doing so, either. Instead, you are ordered to imagine a
fictive "identical clock"--meaning identical to one used in, say,
Chicago--which has been somehow transported into the high-g field, and,
after arriving there, had NOT been calibrated to run at the same rate as
clocks in Chicago.

Now, of course, many experiments indicate conclusively that a high-g
field will make a clock run slower, and, thus, those experiments imply
that your "identical clock" will not keep Central Standard Time, that it
will be a "slow" clock that you would immediately calibrate, if, for
example, you intended to use it as an alarm clock. However, you can't
calibrate it, and you can't even talk about a calibrated clock, if you
are referring to goings on in a high-g field. Those are Einstein's
orders, and you have to obey his orders.

Result: if your high-g field is intense enough, say, to slow
conventional motions by half, so that a clock using Central Standard
Time will say that light is moving 93,000 miles/sec, you can't say that
the light has slowed down. Why not? Einstein's orders, of course. You
can't use Central Standard Time in the high-g field. You have to use
Einstein's imaginary "identical clock" down there in the vicinity of the
lightpath. And, since the speed of that clock will slow down by the same
amount as the light, it will show that only 1 second has elapsed when,
according to Central Standard Time, 2 seconds will have elapsed. Now if
light is moving at 93,000 miles/sec according to Chicago time, it will
move 186,000 miles in 2 CST seconds, which the "identical clock" will
register as 1 second. Hence, when the uncalibrated local clock is used,
the speed of light is unchanged: 186,000 miles/second. Of course, if an
accurate clock--i.e., one that has been calibrated--is used, the speed
of light has dropped to 93,000 miles/sec. But you can't use an accurate
clock. Einstein has banned it.

As you may have guessed by now, I consider Einstein's prohibition
against using calibrated clocks to be idiotic, and I'm not going to
abide by it. I run on Chicago time right now, and I'll continue to use
that or some similar standard time when in a high-g field; and if the
field intensity rises to such a point that I can only imagine the goings
on there, I will imagine a clock that has been calibrated to keep pace
with Chicago time or some similar standard. The reason I'm going to do
that is the same reason that, if I note my alarm clock running ahead, I
going to use the calibration switch on the back to slow it
down--specifically: the numerical readings of a clock that hasn't been
calibrated aren't going to be right unless you reset the damn thing all
the time. In other words, I'm going to continue to use clocks calibrated
to match some widely used community standard, whether Einstein wants me
to or not, because it is, to put it mildly, the only sensible thing to
do.

The implication: the prediction of the gravitationally entrained aether
theory is that lightspeed declines as aether density increases; and
aether density increases as altitude decreases. Hence the prediction is
that lightspeed decreases as altitude decreases, given the standard and
reasonable practice of referencing all times to Earth-based clocks that
have been calibrated to run at the same rate. By that standard and
reasonable practice, the facts support the gravitationally entrained
aether theory, and refute the predictions of SR. Moreover, proponents of
SR cannot escape from this refutation by claiming that we have been
ordered by Einstein to not calibrate our clocks. The fact is,
calibrating clocks is standard practice, for reasons that are obvious,
and has been standard practice for as long as clocks have existed. And
it will remain standard practice for as long as human civilization
endures, because without the ability to measure time, civilization
cannot continue.

Bottom line: the prediction of variable lightspeed is supported by all
relevant experimental results, and by all relevant equations of physics,
while the SR prediction of constant lightspeed is contradicted by all of
the relevant experimental results and all the relevant equations of
physics.

And that's all there is to *that* story.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The answer is no: the only thing variable lightspeed contradicts is SR
verbiage

And every measurement ever made of that speed of course.

***{Absolutely backwards. See above. --MJ}***

When you demonstrate some anisotropy of the speed in vacuo
then you have an argument.

***{Nope. The equations of physics, and the experiments on which those
equations are based, indicate that clocks slow down in high-g fields, in
vacuo or not, and that lightspeed readings computed based on those
clocks--slow clocks--do not change. The inescapable implication is that
if those lighpath lengths were divided by the time elapsed on calibrated
clocks--clocks that were NOT slow--the conclusion would be that the
light had slowed down in the high-g field, EVEN IN VACUO. Since the use
of clocks calibrated to keep pace with an accepted standard clock is
generally accepted and reasonable good practice, and since the use of
slow clocks is NOT good practice, it follows that the speed of light in
vacuo is not constant, and that SR is blatantly and obviously wrong.

Let me say it again: none of the experimental results relevant to
determining lightspeed support the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo; and none of the relevant equations of physics support it, either.
All of the relevant data and equations agree with the gravitationally
entrained aether theory, and none are supportive of SR.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Until then it is all conjecture
and pretty nonsensical so far.

***{You are whistling in the graveyard at midnight, George. The jig is
up. :-) --MJ}***

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

On Mar 3, 7:04 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article . com,





" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:54 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article .com,

" wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:38 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article .com,

" wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:12 am, "George Dishman"
wrote:

[snip]

The observed amount of aberration is well
documented. What is in question is whether a dragged
aether predicts the obsereved aberration or not and my
take is that Maxwell's Equations would be the definitive
way to check that.

Yes, I am aware of Bradley's work which established that stellar
aberration exists. The experiment I was suggesting shows that a
dragged media could could account for the effect. You seemed
receptive to the idea, even suggesting what equipment should be used.
But now you want to revert to calculating a result. I'm not sure how
you intend to apply Maxwell's equations but would note that they are
in agreement with SR, and they were derived from a vortex aether
theory so they must be in agreement with that as well. If your
analysis some how comes up with the ather theory predicting a result
that differs from SR I would suggest looking at how things are
defined
in the two theories. As I have previously shown the dragged aether
definiton of abberation provided by Mitchell Jones causes the two
theories to not agree.

***{There is a huge difference between a gravitationally entrained
aether theory and an aether drag theory. Drag would reflect a tendency
of matter, which is porous with respect to the aether, to carry some
aether along with it when it moves, in much the same way that a sponge,
when moved through the air, carries some air along with it.
Gravitational entrainment, however, arises because the aether has
gravitational mass, and, in the zone of gravitational dominance of a
celestial body, is carried along with the body in the same way that the
Earth carries its atmosphere along as it moves around the Sun. Drag is
a
weak effect of the sort investigated by Fizeau, wherein there is a
constant flow of aether through the moving object that is dragging the
aether. In drag, aether pressure rises inside the moving object due to
a
Bernoulli type of effect in which kinetic energy is converted into
pressure energy. Entrainment, on the other hand, is a strong effect:
the
aether in the region of gravitational dominance of a body is attached
to
the body, and, save in the outer reaches of that region, is not
exchanged with external aether. In drag, there is significant flow of
aether through the moving object; in entrainment, flow through the
object is negligible.

You are just talking a matter of degree between no drag and full
drag. I say that either one and any in between can account for
abberation.

***{True. Aberration is a mechanical process, and ultimately depends on
nothing more than the component of velocity of the final receiver, the
telescope, perpendicular to the lightpath through the Solar System, and
the speed of light. In empty space (no aether), the change in lightpath
direction would occur all at once,

For some reason you don't seem to grasp the idea that there is no
change in direction.

***{It would be better for you to say that I am wrong than to say that I
"don't grasp" something. The former focuses on my reasoning, while the
latter, by focusing on my mental processes, verges on being ad hominem.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. No insult intended.

Anyway, leaving that aside, the answer is that I simply have a different
way of looking at things. My primary focus is on things that actually
exist in the real world, or that may exist, rather than on mathematical
abstractions that do not and cannot exist. When I talk about the pools
of aether gravitationally entrained by the Sun and by the Earth, I am
talking about things that at least arguably may be real. When I talk
about the Sun's frame and the Earth's frame, I am talking about fictive
mathematical constructs that do not exist and cannot exist. Given the
choice of stating my reasoning in terms of the former or the latter,
I'll choose the former every time.

Such a mindset means that in most circumstances I will reference motions
to the medium through which the motion is passing, and that when the
medium changes, the reference will also change. Since there is no
substantive difference between saying (a) that the line through the
Sun's pool is at a slight angle to the line through the Earth's pool, or
(b) that the line in the Sun's frame is at a slight angle to the line
through the Earth's frame, there is no reason to talk in terms of
"frames," in discussions of this sort.

A frame is the perspective you view something from. The measurements
may be different from one frame to another but that doesn't make them
any less real.

The advantage of thinking in terms of things that are real rather than
in terms of fictive constructs is clarity of thought. One consequence of
that would be noting that there is in fact a real turn in the lightpath
as it transitions from the Sun's pool to the Earth's pool. That change,
however, only becomes apparent when the focus is on real objects rather
than on "reference frames."

Imagine, for example, that a huge rectangular block of very light foam
is sitting on a railway car which is moving down the tracks at 60 mph,
and an identical block is sitting next to the tracks when the first
block passes by. If you fire a rifle bullet perpendicular to the tracks
and through both blocks, the bullet will follow a ballistic path
relative to the Earth's surface and, assuming the blocks have negligible
resistance, will continue on the other side of the tracks pretty much as
if they had not been there. . The cylindrical pathways cut by the bullet
through the two blocks will be virtually straight over short distances
involved (20 or 30 feet), but will be at different angles, a fact that
will become apparent if you reposition the blocks so that the holes join
up and then try to look through. There will be a kink in the channel at
the point where the bullet transitioned from the stationary block to the
moving block. If the bullet was moving at, say, 500 feet/sec, the angle
at the kink will be Tan^-1 [(60)(5280/3600)/500] = 9.98 degrees. Result:
you will not be able to see down the path when the blocks have been
joined back up at the transition point.

All you have done with your foam blocks is designated what frame you
will view that part of space from. Only one block can occupy a space
at a given time, so you are limiting yourself to that one perspective
in that area of space. Frames can overlap. The fact that you are
able to view an object from you vantage point does not exclude me from
viewing the same object while in a different state of motion. Both
observations can be made at the same time and are equally real.

The same reasoning applies to the transition of a photon from the Sun's
pool to the Earth's pool: there would be an apparent bend in the
lightpath, if the two pools could somehow be frozen into rigid solids,
their relative motion stopped, and they could be rejoined at the
original transition point. In that case, if the photon's path through
the stationary block (the Sun's pool) could be somehow marked off in red
ink and its path through the moving block (the Earth's pool) could be
marked in green ink, we would observe that there was a change in path
direction at the point where the color changed from red to green, due to
a change in angle of up to Tan^-1 (V1/V2) degrees.

On the other hand, if we think in terms of fictive mathematical
constructs we can correctly claim that there is no kink in the photon's
path relative to any one construct of that sort. For example, if we
think solely in terms of the photon's path "in the Sun's frame," it is a
straight line; and if we think solely in terms of its path in the
Earth's frame, it is also a straight line. It is only if we think in
terms of reality, that we note a kink in the path cut through the
objects which exist in that reality.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From beginning to end both coordinate systems
measure the path to be a straight line, but of different direction for
the entire passage.

***{The Sun's pool of entrained aether is an existent of finite extent,
a thing analogous to an immense cloud of transparent gas, and the
Earth's pool is another existent of the same sort, entrained around the
Earth and moving through the Sun's pool at 18 miles/sec. The lightpath
we are discussing is the path taken by the bundle of rays that passes
through the Sun's pool, enters the Earth's pool, and eventually falls
down the barrel of the telescope. It is analogous to the path that would
be taken by a very tight laser beam of the same diameter as the
telescope.

It is my contention that the lightpath through the Sun's pool will be at
an angle to the lightpath through the Earth's pool, in an amount
determined by Tan^-1 (V1/V2), as previously explained. That is a
statement about objects which exist--to wit: the Sun's pool and the
Earth's pool. What this means is that if we could freeze those two
objects into solid form, with the lightpath through the Sun's pool
marked in green and that through the Earth's pool marked in red, and
then move the Earth's pool back into the position where the green line
joins the red, we would observe a change in angle in the amount of
Tan^-1 (V1/V2).

You deny that, however, and here, again, are the words by which you
expressed that denial:

"For some reason you don't seem to grasp the idea that there is no
change in direction. From beginning to end both coordinate systems
measure the path to be a straight line, but of different direction for
the entire passage."

My response: your "coordinate systems" are fictive mathematical
constructs

You use them yourself when making measurements.

Bruce Richmond

On Mar 4, 8:31 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Jones wrote:

In article . com,
" wrote:

[snip]





In my previous post we looked at two observers with a cross wind
blowing perpendicular to their line of sight. In the real world if
one of them makes a noise the other will hear it coming straight from
the other reguardless of the wind.

***{True, as I noted earlier in a response to George. --MJ}***

This is true despite the fact that
the center of the circular wave reaching the receiver has drifted down
wind.

***{Yup. If the sound is a backfire from a parked car at A and an
observer is at B, with both points fixed relative to the ground, the
source of the sound in the air mass will be marked by a puff of smoke
that will drift downwind at the wind speed. The wave segment that is
destined to enter the ear of the observer will travel radially outward
from the puff of smoke. The angle between that radius and line AB will
be Tan^-1 (V1/V2)

***{Note: I have been using Tan^-1 (V1/V2), which works well enough as a
rule of thumb, but that's only because at very small angles tan x and
sin x are virtually identical. To be exact, you should use Sin^-1
(V1/V2), as indicated in my 2nd post to this thread (Feb. 17). In the
present case, assuming a 100 mph crosswind and a speed of sound of 770
mph, Tan^-1 (100/770) = 7.4 degrees, and Sin^-1 (100/770) = 7.46
degrees. It generally doesn't matter which you use, as a practical
matter, but in this case, where you are likely focused on the
mathematics as you try to evaluate the point about P moving along AB,
use of the arctangent may lead to confusion.

I would add that it is a simple matter to prove that the true path of
the sound is radially at the aberration angle rather than along the line
AB. If it were along AB, and AB had a length of one mile, the
propagation delay would be (1/770)(3600) = 4.68 sec. In fact, however,
the sound travels down the radius, the length of which is 5280/cos 7.46
= 5325 feet. At 770 mph, or 1129 ft/sec, it will therefore take
[(5325/5280)/770][3600] = 4.72 sec, rather than 4.68 sec, to reach B.

Bottom line: the stronger the crosswind, the greater the true distance
traveled by the sound and the larger the propagation delay; and if the
crosswind is strong enough--i.e., if it is not less than 770 mph--the
sound will never reach the observer at B.

--Mitchell Jones}***

I understand what you are saying, but you have chosen to view the path
of P from someone floating with the air rather than from the
stationary observers. As you said below, P travels along the line
AB. P is the energy that B will eventually detect as sound. The fact
that the air that P was once in has drifted down wind does not change
where P has been when viewed from B. P came straight across from A.
Yes, P had to travel through more air to get to B than it would have
in still air, but that didn't alter its path. If the sound came from
down wind as you say then you would be able to block it by placing
something in the way of the down wind path. But that wont work.
Reality is that you block it by placing something on the line AB.

Bruce Richmond

, and the point P on the expanding circular wave which
is destined to reach B will always remain over the line AB as the circle
expands. Why? Because for a radius expanding at that angle, the downwind
velocity of the puff of smoke is exactly canceled by the upwind
component of motion of P. The true path of P (i.e., radially outward
through the air mass from the puff of smoke) will thus deviate from the
apparent path (AB) by the aberration angle. --MJ}***

[snip]

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article om,
" wrote:

On Mar 3, 7:04 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article . com,





" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:54 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article .com,

" wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:38 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article .com,

" wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:12 am, "George Dishman"
wrote:

[snip]

The observed amount of aberration is well
documented. What is in question is whether a dragged
aether predicts the obsereved aberration or not and my
take is that Maxwell's Equations would be the definitive
way to check that.

Yes, I am aware of Bradley's work which established that stellar
aberration exists. The experiment I was suggesting shows that a
dragged media could could account for the effect. You seemed
receptive to the idea, even suggesting what equipment should be
used.
But now you want to revert to calculating a result. I'm not sure
how
you intend to apply Maxwell's equations but would note that they
are
in agreement with SR, and they were derived from a vortex aether
theory so they must be in agreement with that as well. If your
analysis some how comes up with the ather theory predicting a
result
that differs from SR I would suggest looking at how things are
defined
in the two theories. As I have previously shown the dragged
aether
definiton of abberation provided by Mitchell Jones causes the two
theories to not agree.

***{There is a huge difference between a gravitationally entrained
aether theory and an aether drag theory. Drag would reflect a
tendency
of matter, which is porous with respect to the aether, to carry
some
aether along with it when it moves, in much the same way that a
sponge,
when moved through the air, carries some air along with it.
Gravitational entrainment, however, arises because the aether has
gravitational mass, and, in the zone of gravitational dominance of
a
celestial body, is carried along with the body in the same way that
the
Earth carries its atmosphere along as it moves around the Sun. Drag
is
a
weak effect of the sort investigated by Fizeau, wherein there is a
constant flow of aether through the moving object that is dragging
the
aether. In drag, aether pressure rises inside the moving object due
to
a
Bernoulli type of effect in which kinetic energy is converted into
pressure energy. Entrainment, on the other hand, is a strong
effect:
the
aether in the region of gravitational dominance of a body is
attached
to
the body, and, save in the outer reaches of that region, is not
exchanged with external aether. In drag, there is significant flow
of
aether through the moving object; in entrainment, flow through the
object is negligible.

You are just talking a matter of degree between no drag and full
drag. I say that either one and any in between can account for
abberation.

***{True. Aberration is a mechanical process, and ultimately depends on
nothing more than the component of velocity of the final receiver, the
telescope, perpendicular to the lightpath through the Solar System, and
the speed of light. In empty space (no aether), the change in lightpath
direction would occur all at once,

For some reason you don't seem to grasp the idea that there is no
change in direction.

***{It would be better for you to say that I am wrong than to say that I
"don't grasp" something. The former focuses on my reasoning, while the
latter, by focusing on my mental processes, verges on being ad hominem.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. No insult intended.

Anyway, leaving that aside, the answer is that I simply have a different
way of looking at things. My primary focus is on things that actually
exist in the real world, or that may exist, rather than on mathematical
abstractions that do not and cannot exist. When I talk about the pools
of aether gravitationally entrained by the Sun and by the Earth, I am
talking about things that at least arguably may be real. When I talk
about the Sun's frame and the Earth's frame, I am talking about fictive
mathematical constructs that do not exist and cannot exist. Given the
choice of stating my reasoning in terms of the former or the latter,
I'll choose the former every time.

Such a mindset means that in most circumstances I will reference motions
to the medium through which the motion is passing, and that when the
medium changes, the reference will also change. Since there is no
substantive difference between saying (a) that the line through the
Sun's pool is at a slight angle to the line through the Earth's pool, or
(b) that the line in the Sun's frame is at a slight angle to the line
through the Earth's frame, there is no reason to talk in terms of
"frames," in discussions of this sort.

A frame is the perspective you view something from. The measurements
may be different from one frame to another but that doesn't make them
any less real.

***{In the example below, involving the foam blocks, it seems obvious
that talking about the holes through the blocks, and the respective
angles of the holes in one block to that of the other, is closer to
reality than talking about "frames." You can go out and put your hands
on foam blocks, and you can peer through any bullet holes that may have
been made in them. You can't do either of those things to "frames." They
are, as I said, mathematical constructs that exist only in the world of
the mind. And the verisimilitude of a description is an advantage, both
for its benefits to one's own thinking and to one's ability to
communicate one's ideas to others. Of course, I realize that in talking
about this we are straying into heuristics, but I think many of the
seemingly intractable disagreements that take place in these groups have
their ultimate roots in the way people approach problem solving. As
such, these matters are not really off topic; and they are unarguably
important. --MJ}***

The advantage of thinking in terms of things that are real rather than
in terms of fictive constructs is clarity of thought. One consequence of
that would be noting that there is in fact a real turn in the lightpath
as it transitions from the Sun's pool to the Earth's pool. That change,
however, only becomes apparent when the focus is on real objects rather
than on "reference frames."

Imagine, for example, that a huge rectangular block of very light foam
is sitting on a railway car which is moving down the tracks at 60 mph,
and an identical block is sitting next to the tracks when the first
block passes by. If you fire a rifle bullet perpendicular to the tracks
and through both blocks, the bullet will follow a ballistic path
relative to the Earth's surface and, assuming the blocks have negligible
resistance, will continue on the other side of the tracks pretty much as
if they had not been there. . The cylindrical pathways cut by the bullet
through the two blocks will be virtually straight over short distances
involved (20 or 30 feet), but will be at different angles, a fact that
will become apparent if you reposition the blocks so that the holes join
up and then try to look through. There will be a kink in the channel at
the point where the bullet transitioned from the stationary block to the
moving block. If the bullet was moving at, say, 500 feet/sec, the angle
at the kink will be Tan^-1 [(60)(5280/3600)/500] = 9.98 degrees. Result:
you will not be able to see down the path when the blocks have been
joined back up at the transition point.

All you have done with your foam blocks is designated what frame you
will view that part of space from.

***{No, Bruce: the blocks are real; the "frames" are unreal. By speaking
in terms of the real, where possible, one grounds one's thinking in
reality, enhances one's clarity of thought, improves one's ability to
communicate, and so on. It is a habit with huge personal benefits.
--MJ}***

Only one block can occupy a space
at a given time, so you are limiting yourself to that one perspective
in that area of space. Frames can overlap. The fact that you are
able to view an object from you vantage point does not exclude me from
viewing the same object while in a different state of motion. Both
observations can be made at the same time and are equally real.

***{Both approaches are valid, in the sense that when properly applied
they yield true answers. I believe, however, that the approach with the
higher verisimilitude has a greatere probability of yielding the correct
answer, because Darwinian natural selection has geared the human mind to
function most efficiently when thinking about things that are real.
Images that are wholly made up tend to lack clarity, and make it easier
for one's thoughts to stray into error. There is, of course, no way for
me to "prove" this. It is a judgment call, ultimately; but I
nevertheless offer it up for your consideration. --MJ}***

The same reasoning applies to the transition of a photon from the Sun's
pool to the Earth's pool: there would be an apparent bend in the
lightpath, if the two pools could somehow be frozen into rigid solids,
their relative motion stopped, and they could be rejoined at the
original transition point. In that case, if the photon's path through
the stationary block (the Sun's pool) could be somehow marked off in red
ink and its path through the moving block (the Earth's pool) could be
marked in green ink, we would observe that there was a change in path
direction at the point where the color changed from red to green, due to
a change in angle of up to Tan^-1 (V1/V2) degrees.

On the other hand, if we think in terms of fictive mathematical
constructs we can correctly claim that there is no kink in the photon's
path relative to any one construct of that sort. For example, if we
think solely in terms of the photon's path "in the Sun's frame," it is a
straight line; and if we think solely in terms of its path in the
Earth's frame, it is also a straight line. It is only if we think in
terms of reality, that we note a kink in the path cut through the
objects which exist in that reality.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From beginning to end both coordinate systems
measure the path to be a straight line, but of different direction for
the entire passage.

***{The Sun's pool of entrained aether is an existent of finite extent,
a thing analogous to an immense cloud of transparent gas, and the
Earth's pool is another existent of the same sort, entrained around the
Earth and moving through the Sun's pool at 18 miles/sec. The lightpath
we are discussing is the path taken by the bundle of rays that passes
through the Sun's pool, enters the Earth's pool, and eventually falls
down the barrel of the telescope. It is analogous to the path that would
be taken by a very tight laser beam of the same diameter as the
telescope.

It is my contention that the lightpath through the Sun's pool will be at
an angle to the lightpath through the Earth's pool, in an amount
determined by Tan^-1 (V1/V2), as previously explained. That is a
statement about objects which exist--to wit: the Sun's pool and the
Earth's pool. What this means is that if we could freeze those two
objects into solid form, with the lightpath through the Sun's pool
marked in green and that through the Earth's pool marked in red, and
then move the Earth's pool back into the position where the green line
joins the red, we would observe a change in angle in the amount of
Tan^-1 (V1/V2).

You deny that, however, and here, again, are the words by which you
expressed that denial:

"For some reason you don't seem to grasp the idea that there is no
change in direction. From beginning to end both coordinate systems
measure the path to be a straight line, but of different direction for
the entire passage."

My response: your "coordinate systems" are fictive mathematical
constructs

You use them yourself when making measurements.

***{Of course I do, when necessary. But you would be surprised how
seldom it is really necessary, were you to practice the alternative
approach for awhile. The way to do that would be to force yourself to
use the expression "Let's get concrete," when responding to vague
mathematical constructs, and to follow up by creating a specific,
detailed example of what you take that construct to mean. Such a
procedure will often yield rapid progress on topics about which two
people have been at loggerheads for days. For those such as yourself who
are here to improve their understanding rather than to broaden their
repertoire of insults and put downs, it is strongly to be recommended.
--MJ}***

Bruce Richmond

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ