Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[Justatruthseeker]

As for the speed of light the speed of light remains the same in all frames due to the energy content of each frame.

...

I would agree. A summary of what Einstein did is: he came up with thought experiments that lead to inconsistent or paradoxical results when applied to a non-relativistic universe, then came up with a mathematical descritpion that resolved those issues which form the theories of relativity. Well, it took a lot of hard work to do it, and it is difficult to understand it, but it is hard to disagree with such a logically consistent description of nature.

But every theory needs to be proved through experiment, and the way Miller's work has been discredited is dishonest science.

Not sure how we got onto the subject of CMBR on this thread?

You all were discussing it earlier in the thread, so thought I would throw in my two cents

I've actually not got much against Relativity except they keep trying to apply it where it doesn't apply. Gravitational theory only applies to .1% of the universe, planetary systems, non ionized matter. The other 99.9% of the universe is plasma and particle physics and electromagnetic theory must be used like we do in every single laboratory.

The problem is they keep trying to sledgehammer the theory to fit a state of matter it simply does not apply to. Just as Newtons laws do not need modified, but likewise confined to the .1% of the universe to which it is applicable. But since they continue to sledgehammer gravitational theory to the wrong state of matter, they continue to get the wrong answers and then have to add epicycles in an attempt to fudge the math back to a semblance of reality. The same thing that would be required if we tried to apply plasma physics to planetary (non ionized matter) motions.

[Zyxzevn]

(back to the speed of light)

So it seems Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated several times in the last 20 years, to very high degrees of precision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210049
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401017
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504109

I have found also many other very accurate measurements in a vacuum.
Most are performed from ground level, in a laboratory.
There also have been long-distance measurements of the speed of light, using lasers on Earth reaching Venus.
The scientists involved are usually assuming the original static Aether alternative, not all other alternatives.

Because the measurements are not dynamic, I think that some forms of dynamic Aether might still be valid.
Wikipedia disagrees, but still assumes that Aether works in a certain way.
There are also alternative ideas that assume that the speed of light is not constant, but I do not know if that
would be visible in the long-distance measurements.

But even in the case the speed of light is always constant, it is also possible that the light itself
is experiencing a time/space change instead of the source and destination.
This is similar to what we see in quantum mechanics.
As far I know, this extremely simple alternative has never tested.

The visible problem with Special relativity is that a change in speed will change the length-contraction.
And this will make things appear farther or nearer, depending on the direction that you go.
This means that any change in speed, like the rotation of the earth around the sun, might give
a different perspective on the universe around us.

[sketch1946]

@willendure Einstein insisted space is a vacuum, and his theory is tied to a gravity only model ignoring plasma and electricity... so Einstein's electromagnetic waves propagate themselves through emptiness....I guess to me the importance of the CMBR is related to how accurate is our understanding of electromagnetic waves as they move through the cosmos... if the CMBR is indeed the remnant radiation from the big bang, and many calculations about dark energy and dark matter depend on this expanding-universe assumption, and from this assumption came the need to prove anisotropy in the initially-claimed isotropic cosmic background radiation in order for primordial differentiation of matter into galaxies etc, so all these assumptions are related to our understanding of the behaviour of light in the universe, ...crucial to our understanding, so then an issue that points out another possible source of the CMBR becomes something to consider? If space is filled with plasma, then light must interact with it, and the universe is not a vacuum, so all the calculations about the physics of of the cosmic are affected..

[sketch1946]

Plasma Theory of 'Gravitational Lensing' of Light

The bending of light around massive astronomical objects is generally thought to be a gravitational effect and considered as a proof for Einstein's General Relativity.

Examples for 'gravitational lensing' range from the apparent shift of star positions close to the sun to the lensing effects observed around clusters of galaxies.

General Relativity describes this phenomenon through the concept of a distorted space around the object rather than a physical interaction with the light wave.

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/lensing.htm

[kiwi]

Hi Truth-seeker

But the question remains, where is the radiation that must be emitted as those charged particles are decelerated? This is a basics of electrodynamics. No other radiation signals have even been hinted at from all directions in space, as is the CMBR.

Because as you pointed out from Robataille, if the CMBR is from the oceans, then where is the signal from the deceleration of the solar wind from the cosmos? When Robataille formulated his hypothesis, the deceleration of the solar wind was not known about at that time.

Further reading shows that Solar MW emission is in discrete bands and not the Thermal curve we get from the Sun ... do you have a recent paper on the claim that deceleration has a thermal profile?.. and shows a continuous spectrum? ... the Monopole has a thermal appearance also.. and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

After reading the analysis done on the CMBR "maps" by Robataille it seems pretty apparent they are not worth the ink used ... so any call to the Multipole data is also a patent waste of time ....

Published on Apr 25, 2014
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it will be demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP will be presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings will be discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.

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. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

Cheers

[Justatruthseeker]

(back to the speed of light)

So it seems Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated several times in the last 20 years, to very high degrees of precision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210049
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401017
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504109

I have found also many other very accurate measurements in a vacuum.
Most are performed from ground level, in a laboratory.
There also have been long-distance measurements of the speed of light, using lasers on Earth reaching Venus.
The scientists involved are usually assuming the original static Aether alternative, not all other alternatives.

Because the measurements are not dynamic, I think that some forms of dynamic Aether might still be valid.
Wikipedia disagrees, but still assumes that Aether works in a certain way.
There are also alternative ideas that assume that the speed of light is not constant, but I do not know if that
would be visible in the long-distance measurements.

But even in the case the speed of light is always constant, it is also possible that the light itself
is experiencing a time/space change instead of the source and destination.
This is similar to what we see in quantum mechanics.
As far I know, this extremely simple alternative has never tested.

The visible problem with Special relativity is that a change in speed will change the length-contraction.
And this will make things appear farther or nearer, depending on the direction that you go.
This means that any change in speed, like the rotation of the earth around the sun, might give
a different perspective on the universe around us.

The problem is that light is a two way measurement, so even if it was c+v or c-v, we would never know it.

[Justatruthseeker]

Plasma Theory of 'Gravitational Lensing' of Light

The bending of light around massive astronomical objects is generally thought to be a gravitational effect and considered as a proof for Einstein's General Relativity.

Examples for 'gravitational lensing' range from the apparent shift of star positions close to the sun to the lensing effects observed around clusters of galaxies.

General Relativity describes this phenomenon through the concept of a distorted space around the object rather than a physical interaction with the light wave.

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/lensing.htm

And within the last decade we have found giant halos of "gas", cosmologists have an aversion to the word plasma. It is those IMO that cause what is termed gravitational lending by simple refraction.

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi Truth-seeker

But the question remains, where is the radiation that must be emitted as those charged particles are decelerated? This is a basics of electrodynamics. No other radiation signals have even been hinted at from all directions in space, as is the CMBR.

Because as you pointed out from Robataille, if the CMBR is from the oceans, then where is the signal from the deceleration of the solar wind from the cosmos? When Robataille formulated his hypothesis, the deceleration of the solar wind was not known about at that time.

Further reading shows that Solar MW emission is in discrete bands and not the Thermal curve we get from the Sun ... do you have a recent paper on the claim that deceleration has a thermal profile?.. and shows a continuous spectrum? ... the Monopole has a thermal appearance also.. and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

After reading the analysis done on the CMBR "maps" by Robataille it seems pretty apparent they are not worth the ink used ... so any call to the Multipole data is also a patent waste of time ....

Published on Apr 25, 2014
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it will be demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP will be presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings will be discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.

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. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

Cheers

There is very little research done on electrons decelerated by electric fields. Most of it concerns braking radiation from interaction with matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Although some supporting data can be found.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 ... 4206050069

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/ ... _Vol31.pdf

And Marmet has another theory I find a lot of validity in as well.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/cosmic/index.html

Oh, and what makes you believe it is a thermal signature? The plasma surrounding our galaxy is measured at 2 million kelvin, despite it being far removed from any source of heat. IMO it is more a measurement of energy content than thermal heat.

[sketch1946]

"....interstellar space is not completely empty - it contains plasma (ionised gas), neutral atoms, even molecules and dust. Even between galaxies, in huge voids, there exist "filaments" of hot plasma. Temperature of this interstellar medium vary; for example, in intergalactic filaments it is about million kelvins. Note that this temperature is defined by speed (kinetic energy) of particles in plasma; if you found yourself in a poorly insulated spaceship there, you would still freeze: radiative heat losses from your craft would be much larger that energy imparted by those few very hot ions you would encounter."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-tempe ... ween-stars

[Justatruthseeker]

"....interstellar space is not completely empty - it contains plasma (ionised gas), neutral atoms, even molecules and dust. Even between galaxies, in huge voids, there exist "filaments" of hot plasma. Temperature of this interstellar medium vary; for example, in intergalactic filaments it is about million kelvins. Note that this temperature is defined by speed (kinetic energy) of particles in plasma; if you found yourself in a poorly insulated spaceship there, you would still freeze: radiative heat losses from your craft would be much larger that energy imparted by those few very hot ions you would encounter."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-tempe ... ween-stars

My problem is with their assumptions of the quantity of matter in the universe based upon faulty reasoning. Marmet says it quite well.

"It is well known in basic physics and chemistry that atomic hydrogen H is quite unstable. Spectroscopy reveals that when one has a given quantity of atomic hydrogen in a given volume, these atoms react between themselves to form molecular hydrogen (H2). This is unlike helium and other inert gases that remain mono-atomic. Atomic hydrogen reacts so readily, that it is impossible to buy or keep any quantity of stable atomic hydrogen, because atoms of atomic hydrogen combine in pairs, to produce very stable bound H2 molecules. Molecular H2 is extremely stable at normal pressure down to the most extreme vacuum. One can expect that, after billions of years, an important fraction of atomic hydrogen H in the universe is already combined to form the extremely stable molecular hydrogen (H2). The recombination mechanisms will be discussed below. One might then ask why we do not report the detection of a large amount of molecular hydrogen H2 in space. We are told that it is simply because it does not exist. Such a naive answer requires further study.
Let us examine how molecular hydrogen H2 can be detected in space. In molecular hydrogen, there are two protons and two electrons bound together. The bounding of those particles is such that interaction with visible or infrared light cannot break or even excite that bounding. The transition is forbidden for a dipole transition. Molecular H2 is among the most transparent gases in the universe. Consequently, one cannot hope to detect free H2 in space by usual spectroscopic means.
We will see now, that the presence of ionizing radiation cannot explain a serious decrease of concentration of H2. It has been claimed that H2 cannot exist in space, because it would dissociate due to space radiation. Such an assertion is not acceptable prior to a serious evaluation of the probability of reaction of the H2 molecule with the ionizing radiation of space.
Astrophysicists argue that not long after the Big Bang, radiation was decoupled with matter and the density of the universe was so low, that E-M radiation could travel through most of the universe without being absorbed. If that radiation is decoupled with matter, there is no reason that this radiation could ionize or dissociate so much H2. The decoupling of radiation in the universe is contradictory with the hypothesis of dissociation or ionization of matter in space.
A second argument appears when one compares the probability of ionizing H with H2 due to the ionizing radiation in space. Ionizing radiation in space, can ionize atomic H, at least as easily as it can ionize molecular hydrogen H2. In fact, atomic H is somehow easier to ionize than H2, since it takes only 13.6 eV to ionize H and 15.4 eV to ionize H2. All the photons in space between 13.6 and 15.4 eV can ionize H without ionizing H2. This leaves molecular hydrogen without being disturbed.
One knows that an important amount of atomic hydrogen H is actually observed in space. This proves that the amount of radiation in space is insufficient to ionize a too large proportion of H. This is quite in agreement with the argument that radiation is decoupled with matter as seen above. Since there is not enough radiation to ionize (destroy) atomic hydrogen H in space, one must conclude that the same amount of radiation is insufficient to ionize (or dissociate) H2.". http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/cosmic/index.html

[balsysr]

R. Cahill recently (2006) reports on eight different methods for determining the speed of light (Michelson-Morley is one method) that all show an effect due to an "aether". See Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. Abstract follows.

"Data from a new experiment measuring the anisotropy of the one-way speed of EM waves in a coaxial cable, gives the speed of light as 300,000±400±20km/s in a measured direction RA=5.5±2 hrs, Dec=70±10◦ S, is shown to be in excel- lent agreement with the results from seven previous anisotropy experiments, particularly those of Miller (1925/26), and even those of Michelson and Mor- ley (1887). The Miller gas-mode interferometer results, and those from the RF coaxial cable experiments of Torr and Kolen (1983), De Witte (1991) and the new experiment all reveal the presence of gravitational waves, as indicated by the last ± variations above, but of a kind different from those suppos- edly predicted by General Relativity. Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley 1887 gas-mode interferometer experiment and again detected the anisotropy of the speed of light, primarily in the years 1925/1926 atop Mt.Wilson, Cali- fornia. The understanding of the operation of the Michelson interferometer in gas-mode was only achieved in 2002 and involved a calibration for the interfer- ometer that necessarily involved Special Relativity effects and the refractive index of the gas in the light paths. The results demonstrate the reality of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction as an observer independent relativistic ef- fect. A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz symmetry — this is explained. All eight experiments and theory show that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists — that absolute motion through that space has been repeat- edly observed since 1887. These developments completely change fundamental physics and our understanding of reality. “Modern” vacuum-mode Michelson interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by de- sign flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational waves."

[willendure]

and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

So that is why my cup of tea gets hot in a micro-wave oven...

[willendure]

R. Cahill recently (2006) reports on eight different methods for determining the speed of light (Michelson-Morley is one method) that all show an effect due to an "aether". See Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. Abstract follows.

"Data from a new experiment measuring the anisotropy of the one-way speed of EM waves in a coaxial cable, gives the speed of light as 300,000±400±20km/s in a measured direction RA=5.5±2 hrs, Dec=70±10◦ S, is shown to be in excel- lent agreement with the results from seven previous anisotropy experiments, particularly those of Miller (1925/26), and even those of Michelson and Mor- ley (1887). The Miller gas-mode interferometer results, and those from the RF coaxial cable experiments of Torr and Kolen (1983), De Witte (1991) and the new experiment all reveal the presence of gravitational waves, as indicated by the last ± variations above, but of a kind different from those suppos- edly predicted by General Relativity. Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley 1887 gas-mode interferometer experiment and again detected the anisotropy of the speed of light, primarily in the years 1925/1926 atop Mt.Wilson, Cali- fornia. The understanding of the operation of the Michelson interferometer in gas-mode was only achieved in 2002 and involved a calibration for the interfer- ometer that necessarily involved Special Relativity effects and the refractive index of the gas in the light paths. The results demonstrate the reality of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction as an observer independent relativistic ef- fect. A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz symmetry — this is explained. All eight experiments and theory show that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists — that absolute motion through that space has been repeat- edly observed since 1887. These developments completely change fundamental physics and our understanding of reality. “Modern” vacuum-mode Michelson interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by de- sign flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational waves."

I don't get how the effect is only seen in gas-mode and not in a vacuum. I think what is being said here is that the experiment is difficult to interpret. Sounds like the full paper is worth a read though.

[willendure]

“Modern” vacuum-mode Michelson interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by de- sign flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational waves."

I don't get how the effect is only seen in gas-mode and not in a vacuum. I think what is being said here is that the experiment is difficult to interpret. Sounds like the full paper is worth a read though.

Ok, I get the difference. The light has to travel slower than c for the effect to be seen. So in air or helium or in a coaxial cable where light travels a little bit less than c, the effect will be seen, but in a vacuum it will not.

[willendure]

“Modern” vacuum-mode Michelson interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by de- sign flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational waves."

Never heard of Reginald T Cahills work until now, but I will definitely be reading more.

Another consequence of the above of course, is that the LIGO set-up is also flawed and will not work. As others have already pointed out, if a light wave travels a shorter or longer path due to deformation of space-time, so will the entire measuing aparatus, therefore no effect will be measured since from the point of view of the measuring aparatus nothing appears any different to what would be seen in a perfectly flat or un-changing space-time.