Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

For the at rest with the source observer:

1. The radius of each sphere successively emitted from said source remains unchanged.

2. There is no Doppler shift in the spectrum of the source.

3. The apparent size of the source is constant.

4. The apparent position of the source and observer does not change.

5. The latency, or time delay of the light signal does not change.

For the inertial changing distance with the source observer:

1. The radius of each sphere successively emitted from said source changes constantly; the radius decreasing upon approach, increasing upon recession.

2. There is Doppler shift in the spectrum of the source; the shift increasing upon approach (blue shift,) decreasing upon recession (red shift.)

3. The apparent size of the source is changing; the size increasing upon approach, decreasing upon recession. (The size varies inversely with the radius of the detected sphere, the smaller the radius of the sphere, the bigger the source object appears to be.)

4. The apparent position of the source to the observer does not change, unless the observer's path is parallel to the source, rather than head on. (The parallel path causes an apparent change in the rate of Doppler shift, giving the appearance of acceleration when there is none.)

5. The latency, or time delay of the light signal does change, the delay decreasing upon approach, increasing upon recession.

Relative motion, contrary to the Einsteinian theory, does not cause lengths to vary, or "time" to pass more slowly; the continuous change in the size of the observed sphere caused by said motion merely produces the changes in perspectives and latency of the signal.

.

[Goldminer]

For the at rest with the source observer:

1. The radius of each sphere successively emitted from said source remains unchanged.

2. There is no Doppler shift in the spectrum of the source.

3. The apparent size of the source is constant.

4. The apparent position of the source and observer does not change.

5. The latency, or time delay of the light signal does not change.

For the inertial changing distance with the source observer:

1. The radius of each sphere successively emitted from said source changes constantly; the radius decreasing upon approach, increasing upon recession.

2. There is Doppler shift in the spectrum of the source; the shift increasing upon approach (blue shift,) decreasing upon recession (red shift.)

3. The apparent size of the source is changing; the size increasing upon approach, decreasing upon recession. (The size varies inversely with the radius of the detected sphere, the smaller the radius of the sphere, the bigger the source object appears to be.)

4. The apparent position of the source to the observer does not change, unless the observer's path is parallel to the source, rather than head on. (The parallel path causes an apparent change in the rate of Doppler shift, giving the appearance of acceleration when there is none.)

5. The latency, or time delay of the light signal does change, the delay for the observer whose distance is decreasing upon approach, increasing upon recession.

Relative motion, contrary to the Einsteinian theory, does not cause lengths to vary, or "time" to pass more slowly; the continuous change in the size of the observed sphere caused by said motion merely produces the changes in perspectives and latency of the signal.

I should add (under 4. for moving observers) that for the observer passing at a right angle (transversely) to the source at relativistic speeds, aberration in the position of the source is involved, too. That is that the observed position leads the actual position of the source.

Gary N posted this link in The Boring Sun thread. (Thanks, Gary.)

It is a very interesting overview/introduction to the physics of light by MIT Professor Walter Lewin. Please note that he continually speaks of the expanding sphere of light that propagates from a given source. This direct spherical propagation from the source is primary. Why Einstein came up with a theory that denies this very fundamental, well known fact; and nobody objected, I don't know. (Plenty of thinking people have objected, they've just been shouted down.)

So, how can the source of light, whether it be an electron, a laser diode, a light bulb, or even the reflection off the primary source of light from secondary matter, loose its place as the center of the expanding sphere? Only Einstein knew for sure. Everyone else just gave up thinking for themselves. If one does away with Albert's silliness, the relativity of light, its sources, and its detection/observation become quite simple and easy to understand. Unfortunately for his True Believers, all the time and space warp-age, and confusion disappear.

[Goldminer]

While the "light century," "light year," "light day," "light second," etc. all have their place in planetary, galactic, and cosmic space measurements, IMHO, the light nanosecond should be used in discussing relativity.

I call this measurement the unit distance of light. It makes the unfathomably immense distances involved with the use of the afore mentioned terms completely manageable, and when discussing relativity, all the action can take place within a twenty foot cube of space.

The simple "unit distance of light" principle is that a light pulse travels about a foot in a nanosecond; one foot per (one) nanosecond.

The term "Frame of Reference" seems to be often misunderstood in discussions of relativity. The term arises from the surrounding of a picture. The picture itself is part of the term. The features of a picture, or photograph do not change position, within the photograph/picture. The frame and picture within can be moved however. Positions of points of interest within the reference frame are usually provided by an origin, which is the junction of three axes of a Cartesian coordinate system.

Inertia is the name of the property that matter possesses to resist acceleration, or change of state. While a frame of reference does not actually have this property, all the matter discussed as being "in a frame of reference" does have this property. The "frame of reference" is just a way of keeping our thoughts straight concerning said material points within said "frame of reference." Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" only considers inertial material. Indeed, there is something special about the inertial state of matter.

I have tried to convey the idea that within an inertial frame of reference, no material objects can change position. On the other hand, a light pulse can and does change it's state/position within said inertial reference frame. It does so at the rate of one foot per nanosecond. This fact alone produces an expanding sphere, or shell of light, with the source at the center. Einstein, and everyone else who has given this arena of thought some notice, knows that the source is the center of the sphere. Albert's ineluctable problem is that his second postulate denies this obvious truth.

In my drawings/graphings of relativity, through the use of the unit light distance, I show the uselessness of a fourth axis for time. In addition, such use allows manageable distances in the discussion, and how time and distance are related by the travel of a pulse of light. There are no paradoxes/contradictions with simultaneity, measurements between frames, etc.

I present experiments which can actually (theoretically) be carried out, to determine the position of the wavefront in both "at rest with the source", and "moving frames of reference."

Which brings up another familiar objection to the discussion. I was stopped in the middle of an explanation recently, with the retort "there is no such thing as "absolute rest." End of said discussion! Well, nobody knows whether said statement is true or false, that has never been answered. Nevertheless, there are objects "at rest with the source." Please do not confuse the two terms.

[Goldminer]

I may be mistaken, but these investigators show that the near field speed of propagation is faster than the speed of light, just as I have pointed out in earlier posts.

Why does EM wave equation not conform to relativity?

[Xantos]

Einstein...got it wrong. I will NEVER believe in time travel/time dilation as a consequence of high relativistic speeds in terms of slowing down ageing and so on. And that two rocket/two mirror and a photon...bollocks.

When we look at the stars through the telescope we are looking at the image of the star that was there 5 years ago for example. We never know the true position of the star or if it's still alive for that matter.

EM waves (see, WAVES) propagate with different speeds through different matter. We can slow it down, we can also speed it up. In space it generally moves with the constant 300000 km/s.

What I believe in, is what I call them, the information spheres which are made out of light waves. Information spheres are continuously propagating spherically from the source to the receiver. Just like the sound waves. It is also possible to break the information barrier (although you'd need enormous amounts of energy to do that) - that's when you hit the information barrier AND "time travel" occurs.
You see, let's imagine a nice, young woman walking towards you from about 2 light years away. You start speeding up in her direction and suddenly it looks like she started power walking towards you. When you're at the barrier, she disappears in a bright flash only to reappear again after the barrier, only this time, she's moving in reverse.

There is NO viable way to travel into the past or future just by moving fast/slow. That notion is absurd. To travel through time, you'd have to do an equivalent of electron changing the orbit in an atom.

[Goldminer]

Einstein...got it wrong. I will NEVER believe in time travel/time dilation as a consequence of high relativistic speeds in terms of slowing down ageing and so on. And that two rocket/two mirror and a photon...bollocks.

When we look at the stars through the telescope we are looking at the image of the star that was there 5 years ago for example. We never know the true position of the star or if it's still alive for that matter.

EM waves (see, WAVES) propagate with different speeds through different matter. We can slow it down, we can also speed it up. In space it generally moves with the constant 300000 km/s.

What I believe in, is what I call them, the information spheres which are made out of light waves. Information spheres are continuously propagating spherically from the source to the receiver. Just like the sound waves. It is also possible to break the information barrier (although you'd need enormous amounts of energy to do that) - that's when you hit the information barrier AND "time travel" occurs.
You see, let's imagine a nice, young woman walking towards you from about 2 light years away. You start speeding up in her direction and suddenly it looks like she started power walking towards you. When you're at the barrier, she disappears in a bright flash only to reappear again after the barrier, only this time, she's moving in reverse.

There is NO viable way to travel into the past or future just by moving fast/slow. That notion is absurd. To travel through time, you'd have to do an equivalent of electron changing the orbit in an atom.

Good to see some feed back! Stay tuned, I've been working on an essay about Einstein's "Light Clock," soon to post.

[Aristarchus]

It is not my intention to distract from the discussion already underway, but I thought the paper published in the journal, Nature, February 17, 1921 by Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., titled: The Geometrisation of Physics, and Its Supposed Basis on the Michelson-Morley Experiment. addresses topics regarding Einsteins concept of Relativity that have resurfaced today, at least in way that my research covered in light detail on this forum under the Future of Science thread under the topic heading: The conceptualization of science in civilizations

Recently I have read posts on this forum revisiting the idea of Aether, and thus thought linking this paper could be useful as a cross-reference and most pertinent to this particular topic:

The Relativity argument is based on a policy of exclusion. It rejects everything that seems unnecessary; it dispenses with many of our longstanding conceptions; and accordingly is hailed as a simplification. The first simplification was the denial of any test for motion through a continuous fundamental medium, and a consequent ignoring of such a medium. The second step was to eliminate gravitational and other forces, with further denial of a power of discrimination between different kinds of acceleration. A third simplification, and further introduction of coefficients, enabled electro-magnetic forces to be similarly eluded. And if our conceptions permit of any further simplification, perhaps the additional properties of matter studied by Chemists and Biologists and Artists may be extruded too, and the rich fullness of the universe be impoverished into a mental abstraction. p. 796

The paper is very guarded with any outright criticism of Einstein or as it relates to the Michelson-Morley experiment regarding the latter adding evidence for Relativity, but the author of the paper could foresee the dangers of pure quantitative abstractions that could place unneeded and even purely imagined aspects and concocted evidence projected unto the M.M. experiment that simply was not intended.

Please read the author's explanation on p. 797 before proceeding to the next quoted text from the paper:

It is well known that the simple interpretation above given of the M.M. experiment is not palatable to relativists; they consider that it is a forced and arbitrary explanation, and that they can account for the M.M. result more naturally by employing a geometrical device and by applying certain general hypotheses. The Principle of simple relativity is that a transformation to uniformly moving axes can make no difference to anything essential; and the accompanying obsession is that no observer can detect any apparent change in the velocity of light.

In order to apply these principles, the method adopted by a Relativist is to take two observers instead of one, to supply them with personal clocks and measuring rods, and then to make one of them fly through the laboratory at speed 1J; thus rendering accurate measurement rather difficult for him, and introducing some confusion into his ideas of space and time-especially as he is not to be allowed to know that he is moving. lie may be at rest in the aether, but everything not attached to him or to his medium will be rushing along; accordingly objects will appear to be contracted, and all clocks but his own will seem to go slow.1 p.797

If we could understand the structure of the particle, ill terms of the medium of which it is composed, and if we knew the structure of the rest of the medium also, so as to account for the potential stress at every point-that would be a splendid step, beyond anything accomplished yet. But that the particle is a singularity in the medium, and that its inertia and gravitational field are essential to, and part of, its very existence, must certainly be true; and this is what the Einstein theory, in its own peculiar geometrical unphysical way, has grasped. There are not half a dozen diverse but interlocked things in Nature: there is one definite quiescent medium, full of exceedingly fine-grained turbulent energy, with consequent properties which, when unravelled, will supply the key to all the non-mental phenomena occurring in it. Provided always that the locking up of small regions of this turbulence, not merely in the travelling form of light-waves, but in the potentially stationary form of electrons, can also be explained and understood.

Relativity, as a consecutive point-to-point method of arriving at results, is a first step towards this ideal, but it is not a Newtonian step; it is rather a blindfold method of investigation, like Entropy and Least Action.

Reading the last emphasis I placed in the above quoted material - very diplomatic - to say the Least. Isn't the blindfold the abstraction? The physical medium defies reductionism so that although one can observe probable path, but the very space of that transit must only be quantitatively constructed?

Perhaps, the more scientifically articulate can help me out here. It seems to me that this is all just philosophy.

[Goldminer]

The original purpose of the Michelson Morley experiment was to determine if the motion of the aether could affect the speed of light in the reference frame of the Earth. The source of the beam of light was mounted right on the interferometer. This precludes the experiment from measuring the speed of light in or from a separate "moving reference frame." They were looking for aether drift.

They found very little interference, none like they were expecting. The jump to the conclusion that light speed is constant whether measured in the "at rest with the source" reference frame or measuring the light from a "moving source" is unjustified.

This essay shows how to measure a pulse of light as it travels between two mirrors (an analysis of Einstein's Gedanken)

and here

I explain how the "Galilean Transform" which Voigt and Einstein use to extrapolate their formulas is faulty because they are only transforming the source/emitter and do not consider the finite speed of light itself in the diagram. (So, how in the world can his "math" formulate anything about the finite speed of light?)

I show where the idea of contracting space may have entered these early investigators' thoughts. I show that these early ideas have nothing to do with diagonal going "photons" and contracting space/dilating time. I show that a fourth axis for "time" is not needed and a silly proposal. In short, I am liable to be labeled a crackpot, except for the logic presented. Please do not hesitate to criticize the article.

Thanks, Aristarchus for your research presented in the above post! Indeed, we have to start somewhere, and philosophy filters out to be the basis for our thinking, IMHO.

.

[Goldminer]

A continuously emitting laser produces a continuous beam of light. Intercepting the beam at any time or distance from the laser will not reveal when that portion of the beam left the laser. Thus the need for a short pulse of light. For a moving detector to chance upon finding this pulse is like looking for a particular grain of sand on a beach. Hence the need to locate the pulse with at rest with the source detectors, and then set up the moving detector frame to increase the chance of the moving detector's locating the pulse. The pulse cannot be detected until it encounters the detector.

[Goldminer]

IMHO, it is Einstein's reification of "inertial frames" that is part of the slight of hand. Skewing coordinate systems and diagonal going "photons" do not happen. His explanation of "relativity of simultaneity" is ambiguous. The order of events that successively happen in one place in space never change, no matter the speed of any observer, anywhere. If one considers two strobe lights separated by a given distance, that emit a light pulse simultaneously (easily done by sending a signal from a location half way between); an observer at either strobe location will see the other strobe emit its pulse after the local emission. This observed disagreement in the order of events happens with no motion of observers or emitters.

Most people fail to understand that we experience "relativity of simultaneity" all the time in everything we see: Distant events arrive at our eyes simultaneously with the local events, even though the distant events are older, past events delayed by the latency of light at a foot per nanosecond. Once you understand these basic principles, Einstein's theory becomes merely a sophomoric fantasy.

Here is a quote from a University syllabus about "relativity of simultaneity":

"Events are any physical occurrence that happens at a specific location at a specific time.
This a definition.

Two events which appear to be simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first."

The professor who wrote the above quote makes this conclusion:
"Time is Relative: Time interval measurements depend on the frame in which they are measured."

Hopefully you can see the silliness and ambiguity of the above quote, when you understand that the discrepancy in order of events is caused by location of the observers, not their motion. Motion merely changes location. The "time interval" does not depend upon the "frame in which they are measured," It depends upon the distance between observer and event.

[Goldminer]

From this thread: Here

Quantum Mechanics is a way to explain the universe without having to explain anything at all. Virtual particles, particles in two places at once until you look for them. Some things about it I like, but overall it is just a cop-out, a way to say we have no idea without admitting we have no idea.

Virtual particle theory is hardly indicative of the success of quantum mechanics. I would start with the photoelectric effect, predicting atomic emission lines, blackbody radation (the "ultraviolet catastrophe") and the utility of the Schrodinger equation. The description of available electron energies in a semiconductor is also a relevant success.

There may be much to quibble with how it is taught, interpreted, and reported on, but it will be more productive to point out your objections directly rather than to suggest that quantum mechanics and all that entails is flawed.

Are there even any scientists trying to figure out what causes what we term electricity since Einstein said not to bother to look?

Yes to the first, and I'm pretty sure that is not a proper paraphrase of Einstein's view.

You are quoting sjw40364 here, so I'll let him answer your criticism and comments on the above.

Here is an out take from an editorial in Science and Technology Magazine that makes your point about Einstein and Maxwell:

Maxwell’s Fraud Summarized
[...]

Enter Einstein

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?


—Laurence Hecht

Thanks for the interesting article. However I'm not sure what the physical anomaly you refer to is. I don't think Einstein is saying there is no need to look further, but rather that the forces, charges, fields, are part of the same package. None is more "fundamental" than another at this level.

I am not making the reference, Laurence Hect is. He is referring to the homopolar motor/generator anomalies. These concepts are prominent in the EU theory elucidated at this site. He is pointing out that these anomalies have been buried under the carpet by Einstein's reification of the idea of "inertial frames."

Most people fail to understand that we experience "relativity of simultaneity" all the time in everything we see: Distant events arrive at our eyes simultaneously with the local events, even though the distant events are older, past events delayed by the latency of light at a foot per nanosecond. Once you understand these basic principles, Einstein's theory becomes merely a sophomoric fantasy.

I disagree. The delay of light travel time is included in our determination of "when" an even occurred. The relativity theory is less of a theory and more of a protocol that gives us a clear and direct definition of how to measure distance and time intervals, namely, with electromagnetic fields. One need only to look up "meter" in the dictionary to see the fundamental premise of special relativity. The rest of special relativity follows as a consequence of following this protocol.

OK. Your reasoning is definitely Einsteinian consensus by the book. Hold still while I suggest some alternate ideas.

As you suggest here is a "dictionary" definition:
me·ter
1    [mee-ter] Show IPA
noun
the fundamental unit of length in the metric system, equivalent to 39.37 U.S. inches, originally intended to be, and being very nearly, equal to one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole measured on a meridian: defined from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the “International Prototype Meter”) preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris; from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; and now defined as 1 / 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a vacuum in one second. Abbreviation: m

As you can see, originally the meter was a very short length, being a tiny fraction of the distance from the equator to one of the poles. Now, it is the tiny fraction of the wave length of orange red light. What is assumed in the definition is that this measurement is made in the rest frame of somewhere on Earth. (the specified conditions)

Einstein's first "Postulate" says that this length will be the same in any other rest frame, as measured by those technicians in said reference frame. (A postulate is just an opinion) However, I have no quibble with this first postulate.

His second postulate is the problem. (Do some research on the Hafele-Keating experiment. I have referenced this several times. It is a bogus experiment. The clocks used were nowhere near accurate/stable enough for the job. In fact the one clock that was stable showed no "dilation.") The data was "cherry picked" to show the results they expected.

Here is a quote from a University syllabus about "relativity of simultaneity":

"Events are any physical occurrence that happens at a specific location at a specific time.
This a definition.

Two events which appear to be simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first."

The professor who wrote the above quote makes this conclusion:
"Time is Relative: Time interval measurements depend on the frame in which they are measured."

Hopefully you can see the silliness and ambiguity of the above quote, when you understand that the discrepancy in order of events is caused by location of the observers, not their motion. Motion merely changes location. The "time interval" does not depend upon the "frame in which they are measured," It depends upon the distance between observer and event.

The time interval indeed does depend on relative motion. We don't order events by when light from the event reaches us, but by when we believe the event occurred. And this ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed on by observers in relative motion. Take a look at the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Sorry my friend, how on earth do you intuitively "know" when the event occurred? We are dealing with nanoseconds here. There is no way I can sense so short a duration of time. I doubt you can either. The only way you can sense that an event occurred is when the light from that occurrence reaches you. (or else you explain how you do it.) I am not saying that observers in motion do agree! I am saying that the reason they don't agree is that their location, and therefore the latency of the view of the event is constantly changing due to the motion. It has nothing to do with shrinking distance and time running slower. The "time interval" of which you speak is merely the latency of the signal due to the actual distance.

The more distant events we see arrive each instant along with the close by events, simultaneously. You have no way of knowing this except that it has just been pointed out to you. We all assume that just because we see distant events at the same time as close events; that they all happen at the same time. They don't. But the time lag for distant events locally is just nanoseconds. Events on the Sun are known to take 8 seconds to get here, but you wouldn't know this either; because you still see local events at the same time as the events arriving from the Sun.

If you were to download my essay here and follow the diagrams, I think you will see what I am going on about.

[saul]

I am not making the reference, Laurence Hect is. He is referring to the homopolar motor/generator anomalies. These concepts are prominent in the EU theory elucidated at this site. He is pointing out that these anomalies have been buried under the carpet by Einstein's reification of the idea of "inertial frames."

Thanks for your reply. OK, I will look around more. I was not aware that the behavior of these devices was anomalous.. I thought it was explained by standard electromagnetism.

As you suggest here is a "dictionary" definition:
me·ter
1    [mee-ter] Show IPA
noun
the fundamental unit of length in the metric system, equivalent to 39.37 U.S. inches, originally intended to be, and being very nearly, equal to one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole measured on a meridian: defined from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the “International Prototype Meter”) preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris; from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; and now defined as 1 / 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a vacuum in one second. Abbreviation: m

As you can see, originally the meter was a very short length, being a tiny fraction of the distance from the equator to one of the poles. Now, it is the tiny fraction of the wave length of orange red light. What is assumed in the definition is that this measurement is made in the rest frame of somewhere on Earth. (the specified conditions)

Einstein's first "Postulate" says that this length will be the same in any other rest frame, as measured by those technicians in said reference frame. (A postulate is just an opinion) However, I have no quibble with this first postulate.

Even if we take the platinum-iridium bar, it is important to note that the intermolecular forces that hold the crystaline solid bar together are electromagnetic in nature. They depend on local properties of the space-time (OK, maybe in this forum I can use the word aether). It is recognition that our concepts of distance and time are actually dependent on local properties of the space-time, which will change when we are in motion with respect to this medium, that underlies the conclusions first discussed by many others but popularized by Einstein.

His second postulate is the problem. (Do some research on the Hafele-Keating experiment. I have referenced this several times. It is a bogus experiment. The clocks used were nowhere near accurate/stable enough for the job. In fact the one clock that was stable showed no "dilation.") The data was "cherry picked" to show the results they expected.

Perhaps a more clear experimental proof of time dilation is the observation of cosmic ray produced muons which appear in the rest frame of the Earth to survive much longer than they should. Time dilation due to motion as well as due to the gravitational well of the Earth is also important in high precision GPS localization. This time dilation is a consequence of choosing coordinate systems under the protocol / postulates you have outlined.

Sorry my friend, how on earth do you intuitively "know" when the event occurred? We are dealing with nanoseconds here. There is no way I can sense so short a duration of time. I doubt you can either. The only way you can sense that an event occurred is when the light from that occurrence reaches you. (or else you explain how you do it.) I am not saying that observers in motion do agree! I am saying that the reason they don't agree is that their location, and therefore the latency of the view of the event is constantly changing due to the motion. It has nothing to do with shrinking distance and time running slower. The "time interval" of which you speak is merely the latency of the signal due to the actual distance.

Well you're certainly right I can't count nanoseconds in my head. However with 1 foot of cable I can see 1 nanosecond delay on my oscilloscope. If you want to know when an event occurred, it is not too difficult to subtract the propagation time of the light. The key is that even after this subtraction to determine the actual moment of emission, two observers in relative motion will not always agree about which event occurs first. This is a consequence of a method of counting time and distance that is not absolute, i.e. relies on local properties of electromagnetism.

The more distant events we see arrive each instant along with the close by events, simultaneously. You have no way of knowing this except that it has just been pointed out to you. We all assume that just because we see distant events at the same time as close events; that they all happen at the same time. They don't. But the time lag for distant events locally is just nanoseconds. Events on the Sun are known to take 8 seconds to get here, but you wouldn't know this either; because you still see local events at the same time as the events arriving from the Sun.

8.37 minutes

[sjw40364]

I have a huge quibble with his first postulate. He is assuming that light measured here on earth is the same as measured anywhere else in the universe. If velocity = redshift, then the velocity of an object DOES matter to the wavelength of the light and there is NO one set standard that one may measure by, as all objects are in motion.

The second is that there is NO such thing as a rest frame. Even if you take a snap shot at a specific point in time, it was taken while the frame was in motion, not at rest. You are measuring and trying to convert something which is moving into something which is not. Only by considering one frame at rest can you determine the relative velocity of any other frame to convert to yours. But since all frames are in motion there is no base measurement in which to determine any motion of any object, exc ept in relative relationship to each other. But there is no base rest frame in which to convert any of the mesurements to, only other moving frames.

In section 8 of his paper he states:

All problems of optics of moving bodies can be solved after the method used here. The essential point is, that the electric and magnetic forces of light, which are influenced by a moving body, should be transformed to a system of co-ordinates which is stationary relative to the body. In this way, every problem of the optics of moving bodies is reduced to a series of problems of the optics of stationary bodies.

Yet light is never stationary to any body at any time, and converting it to a stationary frame (which does not exist) skews all measurements. You are pretending the earth is stationary in respect to the source, yet this is not true. You are assuming light possesses both electric and magnetic forces, then tell me light has no mass. Yet in chapter six and eight I am told that the EM force has no existence apart from the movement of a "body" and that looking for the source of the EM field apart from a moving body is meaningless.

So when I say virtual photons are fudges I mean just that. If only movement of a body produces electric and magnetic forces and these forces of light are influenced by other moving bodies, then light can NOT be virtual, as it must be a body moving to exist as an EM phenomenon, since it can not exist seperately from a moving body.

So which is it?

[Goldminer]

I have a huge quibble with his first postulate. He is assuming that light measured here on earth is the same as measured anywhere else in the universe. If velocity = redshift, then the velocity of an object DOES matter to the wavelength of the light and there is NO one set standard that one may measure by, as all objects are in motion.

The second is that there is NO such thing as a rest frame. Even if you take a snap shot at a specific point in time, it was taken while the frame was in motion, not at rest. You are measuring and trying to convert something which is moving into something which is not. Only by considering one frame at rest can you determine the relative velocity of any other frame to convert to yours. But since all frames are in motion there is no base measurement in which to determine any motion of any object, except in relative relationship to each other. But there is no base rest frame in which to convert any of the measurements to, only other moving frames.

In section 8 of his paper he states:

All problems of optics of moving bodies can be solved after the method used here. The essential point is, that the electric and magnetic forces of light, which are influenced by a moving body, should be transformed to a system of co-ordinates which is stationary relative to the body. In this way, every problem of the optics of moving bodies is reduced to a series of problems of the optics of stationary bodies.

Yet light is never stationary to any body at any time, and converting it to a stationary frame (which does not exist) skews all measurements. You are pretending the earth is stationary in respect to the source, yet this is not true. You are assuming light possesses both electric and magnetic forces, then tell me light has no mass. Yet in chapter six and eight I am told that the EM force has no existence apart from the movement of a "body" and that looking for the source of the EM field apart from a moving body is meaningless.

So when I say virtual photons are fudges I mean just that. If only movement of a body produces electric and magnetic forces and these forces of light are influenced by other moving bodies, then light can NOT be virtual, as it must be a body moving to exist as an EM phenomenon, since it can not exist separately from a moving body.

So which is it?

Who are you quoting? It certainly isn't me! I'll have to get back to your post here, later.

[sjw40364]

I have a question for anybody.

If two cars are approaching each other how would you determine the velocity of either if neither velocity is known, and all landmarks (such as trees, etc) are also in motion at unknown velocities?