Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[Zyxzevn]

I didn't have a problem following his logic.

Miles is mixing up different things.
In this case he mixes up light and gas.

Photons do not collide with each other, so in a vacuum where photons
move at speed c, this all has no meaning.
They all move at one speed, no photons lag behind or something.
Yet, miles is talking about zero speed and different speeds.

The total speed has still no meaning as the summed velocities of all photons,
nor as the average speed of all photons.

With these wrong initial ideas, he adds all kinds of logic things that seem to fit.
Like zero speed is zero motion. And we can use statistics when there are a lot of photons.
When there is no zero motion, then it must move.

Now lets move to his conclusion:
"The actual speed is determined by density of photons and initial motion".
In reality we see no change in speed of photons when we have more photons.
And the initial speed/motion of photons is always c.
In Einstein's relativity, this speed is even c when the sender or receiver of the photon are moving.

Prior to this paragraph he had just explained why we should be presuming that photons have spin as a default, and this paragraph followed to show a velocity is also the default state. Maybe it needs to be read in context.

But even with this context, what miles is claiming is simply wrong.
The speed of light does not change with more photons,
nor does it bump into each other, except when photons temporary create matter.

As I understand it, does Miles see light as photon-particles that have all kinds of interactions.
In this case it interacts like a gas.
He uses all kinds of logic to supports that idea, but uses logic in a wrong way.
He adds statements that are not true,
(photons bump into each other, photons-speed depends on density of photons)
or not relevant,
(photons-speed depends on initial motion)
and then adds some logical statements.
(Like zero motion is no speed, no chance on zero motion is always speed,
so this speed must be x, and x must be c).
and then combines them into something that seems right.
But in practice it is simply not true.

He uses that weird logic in all of his writings.
Like when he explains how PI changes to 4 when an object is rotating.
That is simply not true, because PI is a mathematical constant.

But this demonstrates how "logic" can be wrong, even when it seems right.
Example:
I fit in my coat,
and my coat fits in my bag,
so I fit in my bag.

If we apply logic to the speed of light, we get something similar.

If the speed of light is constant in all directions,
(see Michelson–Morley experiment)
Einstein says that it is constant relative to the observer,
from there he concludes that speed affects our time and length.
(length in direction of our speed)
He came to this conclusion from the Maxwell equations, that showed that
these equations were correct when light always moved at speed c.

But we sometimes ask ourselves, what if it is slightly different.

Is the speed of light constant, relative to earth,
relative to the medium,
relative to the sender,
relative to the observer,
relative to the light itself?

Or can it vary with gravity or in time as some other scientists claim.

And if Einstein is right:
Does it affect all our time, or just the speed of our time,
or only our clocks, or is time an illusion coming from the interaction with light?
And how do we compute speed when our length is affected?
And can we see changes in distances in the universe, because our length is moving
depending on in which direction Earth is moving?

[Zyxzevn]

One easy step would be if you looked at magnetic reconnection,

..What is it you are suggesting I do?

If you like the subject, and if you know how magnetism works,
you can look into magnetic reconnection, which is currently the basis of
the mainstream science of the Sun.
The idea that a magnetic field has real flux-lines is simply wrong, because a field is continuous.
But they use a model of the sun in which flux-lines are bumping into each other,
causing a lot of energy.

I am also puzzled by his suggestion that the photon would lose energy both on absorption and re-emission as he really doesn't give a rationale for this.

It is very common for light to interact with an electrically active medium.
Electrons get into an excited state and fall back to their original state.
In the case of redshift (or blueshift), the original state has moved a bit.
There was a laboratory experiment in which they tested redshift on plasma.
See forum post

Anyway, IF such an interaction is possible, it will certainly affect the relationship between
redshift and speed.
It may be used to explain "dark energy".
It may explain some quasars (See Halton Arp).
And if Hubble's constant is indeed caused by this as the paper shows, it means that there is no inflation.

[Zyxzevn]

Robitaille is a specialist in radio systems.With a very high level of practical knowledge.

Is he? I thought he was an expert in medical radiology?

Medical Radiology with MRI

Youtube (Kirchhoff's law):
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998.


Wikipedia:
MRI is based upon the science of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Certain atomic nuclei can absorb and emit radio frequency energy when placed in an external magnetic field. In clinical and research MRI, hydrogen atoms are most-often used to generate a detectable radio-frequency signal that is received by antennas in close proximity to the anatomy being examined.

So he IS actually a specialist in the area of signal processing and antenna technology, which is used for
producing accurate 3D MRI images of the subjects.

[sketch1946]

I saw this guy's letter in a comments section, it's interesting for more than one argument:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... _universal

Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
Open letter.
Dear Prof. Matts Roos,
I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”.

This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention.

The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available.

The assumptions are as follows.
(i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington);
(ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington);
(iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity);
(iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR).
None of these assumptions was proved.

The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas.

Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc.

Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them?

As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it.

The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation.

We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons:

(x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.

(y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.

(z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.

We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down.

Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered.

At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it.

The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object.

It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies.
The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.)

Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time.

May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes.

Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation).

Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it.

Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation.
This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies.

Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space.

We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them.
(1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements?
(2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma?
(3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe?
(4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe?

We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications.

And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless.

The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things.

Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism.

The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics.

Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws.

This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question:
(5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang?

Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question:

(6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections?
I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive.

I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease.

In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs.

The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there.

The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars.

The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows.
The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings.

In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications.

I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers.

The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored.
Sincerely,
Victor

[Higgsy]

Robitaille is a specialist in radio systems.With a very high level of practical knowledge.

Is he? I thought he was an expert in medical radiology?

Medical Radiology with MRI

Youtube (Kirchhoff's law):
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998.


Wikipedia:
MRI is based upon the science of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Certain atomic nuclei can absorb and emit radio frequency energy when placed in an external magnetic field. In clinical and research MRI, hydrogen atoms are most-often used to generate a detectable radio-frequency signal that is received by antennas in close proximity to the anatomy being examined.

So he IS actually a specialist in the area of signal processing and antenna technology, which is used for
producing accurate 3D MRI images of the subjects.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. He is not an expert in cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics or, indeed, in microwave sensing, which is what is relevant here and is at a different wavelength altogether. But anyway, it's not his expertise that makes me doubt what he says, but some of the odd ideas that he has.

In a previous post you said this:

He explains how one satellite had a wrong designed antenna, and might have easily picked up radiation
from earthly source. As I know antenna technology, I fully agree with this observation.

It would be really good if you could expand on that, as what could be more productive on the forum than a discussion with someone who has a view based on his own expertise, rather than on something he has read? So I asked: which satellite and what was wrong with the antenna design? It would be good if you could follow up.

[Higgsy]

Hi Sketch,

free electrons cannot absorb a photon

Reading that paper by Lyndon Ashmore
suggests to me the author's English is not his first language,

It doesn't matter whether English is his first language or not. Planck is not 'plank', and Stark is not 'Starky'. And if you publish a paper you expect that it should be proof read. And I don't know for sure, but I think Ashmore is British.

but he is definitely talking about electrons within molecules

No, he is definitely not and that is clear from his own writing. Neither in atoms nor molecules.

from page 16 of the pdf, link below, Appendix A:

---------------------------------------quoted-----------------------------------
"When light travels through a transparent medium it does so by being constantly absorbed and
re-emitted by the electrons in the atoms of that medium..."
A Relationship between Dispersion Measure and Redshift Derived in Terms of New Tired Light
Lyndon Ashmore
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JHEPGC_2016082515515600.pdf
-----------------------------------end-quoted-----------------------------------

Yep, he's just setting the scene there for the main course: "However, since the IGM is sparsely populated, the electrons in the plasma absorb the photon...". Which makes sense as the IGM is populated mainly by plasma where the electrons are free. If he was relying on atoms, he'd be even more wrong than he is, because there aren't many atoms in the IGM for his process. And reading the whole paper with a modicum of understanding, it's clear that he is referring to free electrons in a plasma.

Ashmore then goes on talking about electrons, and the interaction with photons....

Below is a paper on the IGM, which talks about the physics of the IGM,
clearly talks about molecules of hydrogen, helium and metals in the IGM
so plasmas are not just free electrons, but can be ionised molecules

No, there isn't much atomic hydrogen in the IGM, there is very very little molecular hydrogen and there certainly isn't any molecular helium. There are some atomic metals but that is not what Ashmore is talking about. The absorption and re-emission of photons by atoms cannot be a red-shift mechanism because the emission is at the species transition energy, not at the original photon energy or something near it. And Ashmore's process cannot work because it violates either conservation of energy or conservation of momentum.

[Higgsy]

One easy step would be if you looked at magnetic reconnection,

..What is it you are suggesting I do?

If you like the subject, and if you know how magnetism works,
you can look into magnetic reconnection, which is currently the basis of
the mainstream science of the Sun.

I'm still puzzled - I thought hydrogen fusion by the proton-proton chain is the basis of the science of the Sun? As far as I know, some reconnection occurs in the corona and has been observed, but it's not the basis of Sun science.

The idea that a magnetic field has real flux-lines is simply wrong, because a field is continuous.
But they use a model of the sun in which flux-lines are bumping into each other,
causing a lot of energy.

Even more puzzled - isn't magnetic reconnection a perfectly accepted part of plasma physics with even a major experiment dedicated to investigating it at PPPL? Are you saying magnetic reconnection doesn't occur? Is this your idea or part of EU/PC? You'll have to tell me more.

I am also puzzled by his suggestion that the photon would lose energy both on absorption and re-emission as he really doesn't give a rationale for this.

It is very common for light to interact with an electrically active medium.

What's an electrically active medium?

Electrons get into an excited state and fall back to their original state.

Only bound electrons in atoms, and then only in discrete energies given by the atomic transitions.

In the case of redshift (or blueshift), the original state has moved a bit.

That doesn't work for atoms and it's not what he is claiming. He is claiming that the absorption/emission takes place in free electrons which also doesn't work for other reasons.

There was a laboratory experiment in which they tested redshift on plasma.
See forum post

Well, I'll need to read that, but my guess is that it'll be caused by a different mechanism as the absorption of photons by free electrons can't happen.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Zyxzevn.

Miles is mixing up different things.
In this case he mixes up light and gas.

By saying this you are just showing you don't know his theory.

Photons do not collide with each other, so in a vacuum where photons
move at speed c, this all has no meaning.
They all move at one speed, no photons lag behind or something.
Yet, miles is talking about zero speed and different speeds.

In Mathis model there are not just photons, but photons and baryons.

Even so, how do we know photons never collide? Because no one has observed a photon collision?
Nobody has observed a photon yet.
Collisions rarely happen in the Oort cloud too, even though the "particles" are macro particles up to sizes bigger than Pluto. The volume is so great relative to particle size that collisions are rare. Yet they do occasionally occur, and that's what causes comets to fall Sunwards, apparently. Why couldn't the same apply to the photon field?

You might have a million photons going in all directions in a cubic centimeter, but because photons are so tiny, collisions will be extremely rare. But an ion passing through that same cubic centimeter will get bombarded by many photon collisions.

The total speed has still no meaning as the summed velocities of all photons,
nor as the average speed of all photons.

Since we don't know the total volume of the Universe, nor the average density of the photon field across the whole Universe, c is just a meaningless constant. No one else, as far as I know, can say why c is the number it is, and not some other number.

With these wrong initial ideas, he adds all kinds of logic things that seem to fit.
Like zero speed is zero motion. And we can use statistics when there are a lot of photons.
When there is no zero motion, then it must move.

It's a funny thing. EU advocates are often accused of wanting to dump Newton, or something like that. But when it comes to photons, Newtonian mechanics is never applied. Laws such as equal and opposite forces, and the normal laws of motion, are denied. Radius and mass are jettisoned from explanations. Everything seen at the macro level is explained by collisions and explosions, but collisions can't happened at the quantum scale of things?

I'm skeptical.

Now lets move to his conclusion:
"The actual speed is determined by density of photons and initial motion".
In reality we see no change in speed of photons when we have more photons.
And the initial speed/motion of photons is always c.
In Einstein's relativity, this speed is even c when the sender or receiver of the photon are moving.

We don't know a photon is there until it collides with our detector. By then it too late to measure it's speed. We get c from measuring photons that traveled across the Solar system, after they collided with and bounced off another body.

But even with this context, what miles is claiming is simply wrong.
The speed of light does not change with more photons,
nor does it bump into each other, except when photons temporary create matter.

I see you read it wrong. Miles is not claiming the speed ever changes.
He proposed zero speed, and speed x, only for his argument.

As I understand it, does Miles see light as photon-particles that have all kinds of interactions.
In this case it interacts like a gas.
He uses all kinds of logic to supports that idea, but uses logic in a wrong way.
He adds statements that are not true,
(photons bump into each other, photons-speed depends on density of photons)
or not relevant,
(photons-speed depends on initial motion)
and then adds some logical statements.
(Like zero motion is no speed, no chance on zero motion is always speed,
so this speed must be x, and x must be c).
and then combines them into something that seems right.
But in practice it is simply not true.

I see you are making some wrong presumptions about what Mathis is saying to make him wrong. Miles doesn't rule out collisions between photons, but recognizes that such collisions would be rare, due to their size relative to the volume of space.

But in Mathis' Universe, there are also baryons, and again, due to relative sizes, baryons can't avoid being struck by lots of photons continuously. I believe this is what Mathis is referring to when he says photon collisions.

He uses that weird logic in all of his writings.
Like when he explains how PI changes to 4 when an object is rotating.
That is simply not true, because PI is a mathematical constant.

We may be jumping off topic here, but I managed to follow his logic in his PI papers too, though it took me a bit.

Even if he is wrong on other topics, that doesn't necessarily make his logic wrong here.

But this demonstrates how "logic" can be wrong, even when it seems right.
Example:
I fit in my coat,
and my coat fits in my bag,
so I fit in my bag.

This demonstrates how logic can be wrong, but not how Mathis' logic here is wrong.

If the speed of light is constant in all directions,
(see Michelson–Morley experiment)
Einstein says that it is constant relative to the observer,
from there he concludes that speed affects our time and length.
(length in direction of our speed)
He came to this conclusion from the Maxwell equations, that showed that
these equations were correct when light always moved at speed c.

Light goes c in the local coordinate only.
If you are travelling in a spaceship at 1/2 c relative to coordinate B, and emit a beam of light forwards, then to someone observing from coordinate B, the light is travelling at 1 & 1/2 c.
But there is no way for the observer at coordinate B to measure it.

But we sometimes ask ourselves, what if it is slightly different.

Like when light travels through water, or air?

Is the speed of light constant, relative to earth,
relative to the medium,
relative to the sender,
relative to the observer,
relative to the light itself?

Relativity causes time to dilate, etc.
Of course, time isn't really dilated in the distant coordinate, but this effect is caused by relativity, because this information comes to us by light, and light has a speed limit. Transforms are now required to get the actual velocities in that far coordinate.

Or can it vary with gravity or in time as some other scientists claim.

We know that the medium effects the speed of light.
Space is thought of as a vacuum, but EU knows better.

From those two statements, logic tells me there will be variations in the speed of light. It probably goes a little faster between galaxies, than it does when travelling through a galaxy. And it should go a little faster in the Solar system versus when travelling in the IGM, because the IPM is less dense than the IGM (I was surprised to learn).

And if Einstein is right:
Does it affect all our time, or just the speed of our time,
or only our clocks, or is time an illusion coming from the interaction with light?
And how do we compute speed when our length is affected?
And can we see changes in distances in the universe, because our length is moving
depending on in which direction Earth is moving?

Time and length are not effected.
It is our measurements of time and length that are effected because we use light to measure, and light has a speed, which over long distances, effect our measurements.

Hence the need to do transforms.

Mathis helped me to unwind relativity too.
~Paul

[Higgsy]

new topic about measurement problems and data photoshopping in Planck:

Below is a paper on the 2015 results of Planck, which talks about the problems of data,
such as 'more than two orders of magnitude' of 'improvement' in the data massage since 2013
this paper clearly talks about how the data is manipulated:

I separated them into single statements to make it easier to follow:

quoted snippets follow between the dotted lines:

So you posted "snippets" from the Introductory paper to the Planck 2015 data release, which consists of another 15 - 20 more detailed papers. These snippets are about all sorts of aspects of the Planck data, the data reduction and the conclusions, and I am not sure what point you are making. Are you asking me to go through each snippet and explain what it refers to and what it means, because simply listing these unrelated statements seems very undiscriminating and doesn't seem to make a point.

---------------------------------------quoted-----------------------------------Planck paper:
The data show that there are no windows in the sky where primordial CMB B-mode polarization can be measured without subtraction of polarized dust emission.

SNIP to save space

Users of the Planck CMB maps are warned that they are not useable for cosmological analysis at
<symbol for wavelength and inverted exclamation mark, I suspect a typo>30.
wavelength smaller than 3 mm ?
Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01582.pdf
-----------------------------------end-quoted-----------------------------------Planck paper

[webolife]

In another thread based on M. Mathis's writings, I mentioned this, but am thinking it may help solve some consternation here:
Pi is the well known [~3.14159265...] ratio for the two dimensional relationship between the 1D circumference and 1D diameter of a circle. But in the 3D world of spin, the relevant ratio is taken from the relation of 2d surface area and 2D circular area of the sphere, which ratio is 4.

[Higgsy]

In another thread based on M. Mathis's writings, I mentioned this, but am thinking it may help solve some consternation here:
Pi is the well known [~3.14159265...] ratio for the two dimensional relationship between the 1D circumference and 1D diameter of a circle. But in the 3D world of spin, the relevant ratio is taken from the relation of 2d surface area and 2D circular area of the sphere, which ratio is 4.

Yes, but what relevance does that have to Mathis's claim that pi can be or is 4? Pi is defined as the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference in Euclidean space and that's all there is to it. And what is the "world of spin"?

[willendure]

In another thread based on M. Mathis's writings, I mentioned this, but am thinking it may help solve some consternation here:
Pi is the well known [~3.14159265...] ratio for the two dimensional relationship between the 1D circumference and 1D diameter of a circle. But in the 3D world of spin, the relevant ratio is taken from the relation of 2d surface area and 2D circular area of the sphere, which ratio is 4.

Yes, but what relevance does that have to Mathis's claim that pi can be or is 4? Pi is defined as the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference in Euclidean space and that's all there is to it. And what is the "world of spin"?

I guess he is just messing with you to get your attention and maybe read his paper.

[comingfrom]

For more on magnetic reconnection.

Even more puzzled - isn't magnetic reconnection a perfectly accepted part of plasma physics with even a major experiment dedicated to investigating it at PPPL? Are you saying magnetic reconnection doesn't occur? Is this your idea or part of EU/PC? You'll have to tell me more.

Click here for the thread on magnetic reconnection.

[comingfrom]

And what is the "world of spin"?

Are you able to zoom out?
I like to zoom out, say halfway to Alpha Proxima, for example.

Looking back at the Solar system, we see that all bodies spin, and spiral.
The motions are not plain circles or ellipses, for the whole Solar system has linear motion also, so the tracked circular orbital motions of the planets stretch out into spirals.

Now speed up the motions, like as in time lapse, and what do you see? Wave motions.
So we see that even macro particles like planets have wave properties too.

Spins are what give particles their wave properties.

Now, to bring this back on topic.
We know c is the maximum speed of a photon.
So, if more energy is applied to the photon (it has just fallen into a star), it can't go any faster, so it stacks on more spin.
If the spin is at maximum, it has to put on another spin.
The axis of the new spin has to be outside the radius of existing spin (law of gyroscopes), which causes the wave in it's linear motion.
~Paul

[Higgsy]

And what is the "world of spin"?

Are you able to zoom out?
I like to zoom out, say halfway to Alpha Proxima, for example.

Looking back at the Solar system, we see that all bodies spin, and spiral.
The motions are not plain circles or ellipses, for the whole Solar system has linear motion also, so the tracked circular orbital motions of the planets stretch out into spirals.

Now speed up the motions, like as in time lapse, and what do you see? Wave motions.
So we see that even macro particles like planets have wave properties too.

Spins are what give particles their wave properties.

No

Now, to bring this back on topic.
We know c is the maximum speed of a photon.
So, if more energy is applied to the photon (it has just fallen into a star), it can't go any faster, so it stacks on more spin.

No. It increases its frequency. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Its spin is always 1. Just 1.

If the spin is at maximum, it has to put on another spin.

No - spin of photon is 1. Just 1.

The axis of the new spin has to be outside the radius of existing spin (law of gyroscopes), which causes the wave in it's linear motion.

No. Just no.