a-cosmology-group/acg#215

Hi, Francois!

This is a very interesting observation indeed, which points straight back to the equivalence principle.

Because “escape velocity” is defined as the speed needed to leave a planet without ever falling back, people often forget that it is also the speed at which a free-falling object will reach the planet if dropped from a theoretically infinite distance. And that at any altitude during such a fall, the velocity of the object will be the escape velocity at that altitude.

As for the equivalence principle, it says that there is no way that an observer can distinguish between him floating in outer space, or free-falling in a gravity well. In the latter case, an earth-bound clock would appear to him to slow down because of their relative speed increasing according to SR, BUT ALSO accelerate because of the decreasing difference in their gravitational potentials according to GR. Both effects have to be equal and opposite, because otherwise, the observer could figure out that he is free-falling in a gravity well just by looking at the rate of a clock at the surface of the earth.

@Francois-Zinserling

For the clock itself, (observer no.2 riding on the clock) if its clock is slowed (which we know it is), it doesn’t see itself as slowed, but therefore it must see all other clocks to be faster. This would be - in my opinion - the biggest paradox of SR, since SR proposes both clocks see each other as slowed, because you cannot determine who is actually moving. Impossible. This is a real problem though because as Michelson and Morley showed, we cannot determine who is moving!

I disagree. Physicists fell into that same trap 100 years ago and keep using $\vec{v} = \int \vec{a} \mbox{\ d}t$ as the only physical representation of the total history of accelerations experienced by the clock. Why would something as simple as the “velocity” $\vec{v}$ cause the ruler-clock effects? We have to be clever and formulate the “total history” of “accelerations” experienced by the clock through a more complicated process that likely includes energy as well; something like that

$$ \bar{S}(t) = \int_{t0}^t f(\vec{a}, E) \mbox{\ d}\tau + \bar{S}(t_0) $$

You cannot tell who is moving because the properties of clock1 vs clock2 are hidden inside the function $f(…)$ that creates a constant measured speed-of-light.

I believe this $\bar{S}$ describes a “physical property” of each clock that is not the same as $\vec{v}$ after a different history of accelerations. Remember what I wrote in the case of GR for pushing clockA uphill toward clockB: “you’ve ruined the cesium by moving it up 1500 meters in Earth’s gravity”. We know because we can bring clockA and clockB next to each other, the only valid way to compare them. Similarly, for the special-relativity case without gravity, clock1 and clock2 are initially the same when they are built beside each other, but when clock2 is accelerated it acquires a velocity and a $\bar{S}(t)$ that no longer allows unambiguous timing comparisons. However, if clock2 returns to clock1, $\vec{v}_1 = \vec{v}_2$ but it will indeed measure that clock1 was ticking faster (the older twin!) because $\bar{S}_1 \ne \bar{S}_2$.

However, by fixing this, you have to acknowledge that there is an absolute frame - an aether.

No, that’s the 19th century trap physicists keep falling into. The ‘physical property’ is not that of aether but that of real objects like rulers and clocks.

There is another way to do this.

• First stop considering ‘time’ like something surreal, aetheral, outside matter (or true @budrap00). There is no time, only devices that evolve in synchronicity.
• Realize that when these devices are accelerated, they no longer evolve in synchronicity with the others ‘left behind’.
• You have to abandon Einstein synchronization method of clocks that are moving relative to each other. The synchronization method has a loophole because the speed-of-light is measured with moving clocks that are no longer synchronous. Experimentally, we know the speed-of-light is constant when it is assumed that clocks and rulers are the same in any constant relative motion, but clocks and rulers in motion are not the same after a different history of accelerations, even if those two histories bring them to the same speed. Clocks can only be compared when they are at rest relative with each other and at the same place. Their ticking rate will be the same but they will show a relative offset that can be calculated based on their acceleration histories since they were separated - hence the “twin time offset”, the different time indicated by the two, becomes the way we can tell the past history of the matter in the device we call ‘a clock’.
• You also have to abandon the assumption that the speed-of-light is constant as a fundamental assumption, and instead find the physical property that produces a constant measured speed-of-light, as is observed experimentally.

Note that the same ‘twin paradox’ effect happens to rulers: start with twins ruler1 and ruler2 at the same place, accelerate and decelerate ruler2 so their relative velocity is null again: you end up with ruler1 and ruler2 having a “twin space offset”, they are at different positions! Now this doesn’t surprise anyone because we do this all the time, but it is no more surprising than getting two clocks becoming asynchronized after a series of accelerations.

We cannot determine who is moving, but neither ‘aether’ nor ‘SR’ gives the reason why.

I worked on these ideas with the late Hilton Ratcliffe in ~2007-8. If you are interested in these ideas, maybe I can find the (few) emails I exchanged with him, and you can read his books and find the page where he explains his views. I had hoped he would develop these thoughts, but he never did and I spent my time on tired-light instead. Rebuilding SR from sound first-principles should not be that hard, the maths are easy. I suspect a link with the de Broglie wavelength which could give us a clue, which is why I mentioned it in my post.

However, finding the correct fundamental description of how acceleration changes rulers and clocks is the hard part, it will require good intuitive guesswork and a lot of time. In the end the result will be the same “Lorentz transformations”, but perhaps the new fundamental principles will help us understand the “constant speed-of-light” and the “equivalence principle” from first principles, instead of assuming them.

No experiment has ever measured a consistent (and therefore constant) value for the speed of light. In this table of historical measurements the final value is defined not measured. That is the “official” value of c as defined by the orthodoxy. In Einstein’s Relativity Theory c is only a constant under SR conditions and SR conditions are at best only approximated in physical reality. Why? Because gravity and acceleration are integral parts of physical reality and cannot be ignored when precision measurements are being attempted and therefore the SR inertial state which excludes gravity and acceleration is not relevant. As Einstein explicitly stated the SOL varies with position in a gravitational field.

In theory in a gravitational equipotential the measured value would be constant but that value would not be “universal” since it would only apply across the equipotential. In an experimental setup on the surface of the Earth an equipotential does not exist due to the constantly varying relative positions of the Sun and Moon and any internal turbulence of the Earth’s core. So a constant value for the SOL cannot be measured on the Earth and therefore the defined value of c is only a universal constant in theory not in physical reality. This is just one more example of modern theoretical physics’ divergence from - actual physics.

The common rejoinder to these factual statements is to assert the conjecture of mathematical convenience disingenuously-named Einstein’s Equivalence Principle. Einstein himself had nothing to do with the derivation or promulgation of the EEP. This extension of the empirically-based Equivalence Principle that Einstein employed in developing GR (now called the Weak Equivalence Principle), has no coherent scientific argument(s) supporting it. It apparently sprang whole-cloth from the hive-mind of the mid-20th century mathematicist community centered around Princeton. They slapped Einstein’s name on it to give it an undeserved aura of scientific respectability. In other words it is just more mathematicist drivel posing as science.

@Francois-Zinserling . >No.2 has nothing to do with velocity. It is an effect of gravity.

On the contrary, No.2 has everything to do with No.1. Because gravity potential is linked to escape velocity $v_e$ via kinetic energy:

$$ \frac{GMm}{R_e} = \frac{1}{2}mv_e^2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad v_e^2 = \frac{2GM}{R_e} $$

where $R_e$ is e.g the earth’s radius, $M$ its mass and $G=$ gravitational constant. The corresponding SR/GR dilated time is

$$ t’ = \frac{t}{\gamma} = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1-(v_e/c)^2}} = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1-2GM/(R_e c^2)}} $$

The latter is precisely the formula for time dilation as found in Gravitational redshift for a Spherically symmetric gravitational field.

@HanDeBruijn I think that’s pretty much what I said above, or at least intended to. You said it nicer though. I need to practice my equations so I can also roll them out like you do!

But then you’ll have to explain to me how a clock in gravity would know what its escape velocity is. Yes, yes, I know, it ‘feels’ the gravitational potential. Not good enough though. What is it feeling?

Let me throw a curve-ball. And I’m going to reach far with this one. Hear me out. If you were to jump off a cliff into a pool below, and then later out of a high hot-air balloon into the same pool, (and let’s ignore friction, because we can) your velocity when you reach the water will be higher and higher, as you jump from a higher point each time. Basic stuff, yes. But your velocity will never be as high as the escape velocity. (I say never, because it will take you forever to go infinitely far, and then return as well. (Like There and back again, by Billbo Baggins) :)

But let’s say you can go that far, and come back again. Then, for your entire journey to the surface of the earth, you are travelling at the escape velocity as it would be at each point in your approach. Yes, it’s already in your equation in the $R_e$ component. It works from any radius, not just from the surface.

Then, by this long reach of mine - what if gravity is just an attempt of space to accelerate us to the (minus value of) local escape velocity. In the case above gravity had infinite time to do it in so actually gets it right. But you are never infinitely far away, so cannot reach escape velocity because you will always crash before you do, and you also cannot reach it instantly because, well, mass is a resistance to acceleration, and acceleration takes time.

In other words - gravity is a ‘velocity push’ downward, which only appears to us like a force, because there is a $dv/dt$, an acceleration that ensues. Then we can say a clock can ‘feel’ that velocity, as if it were at the same SR velocity in open space.

Am I saying space is flowing into earth at $V_e$? No, others do but I don’t. I maintain; If space is energy (with zero mass) then it must move at c.

Just a note that this is not some quackery or pseudoscience I’m selling. Mansuripur and Pfeiffer (independent from each other) derived that a beam of photons do not exert a continuous force on glass while it travels through, but a stream of photons will try to accelerate the glass up to a fixed (low, limited, << c) velocity.

@Francois-Zinserling

I maintain; If space is energy (with zero mass) then it must move at c.

Energy with zero mass moving at c is a good definition of electromagnetic radiation. So, you’ve discovered for yourself that what everybody calls space is just all the ambient electromagnetic radiation moving between massive bodies. That’s what’s there. That’s what we observe. Unfortunately modern theoretical physicists don’t care about what’s there. They’re much more interested in things that aren’t there like dark matter, etc.

There’s a bit of an elaboration on this point here.

@budrap00 I agree with your conclusion (on the link), as to the curving of light around large masses. On the other hand, once we can show that ‘space’ is electromagnetic, then we can answer to both sides - GR and Electrodynamics.

Some points to consider though

• Gravity cannot be a direct result of electromagnetic radiation: (and hereby I mean EM as spin=1 photons)

1. EM radiation does not have enough penetration into matter, and e.g. most of it will be absorbed in the surface of an object. Even X-Rays have limited penetration, and at even higher energies the collisions would be catastrophic and very visible. If gravity were to be of pure EM origin, it’s force effect would drop off rapidly underground.
2. A very very low frequency has some promise, but just not enough energy to actually cause what we know as gravity. Also, gravity is very predictable, and varying frequencies of photon energies would cause measurable fluctuations in gravity, e.g. it should be noticeably different during day or night.
3. An EM wave can only push - as far as I know. I know of no mechanism where a single wave exerts a pull, as if a photon can transfer negative momentum. Then by extension ‘primordial’ gravity as a pure EM wave cannot be emitted by e.g. the sun, or even earth, as we would be pushed away, and not attracted.

This does not mean that I think EM waves are not involved in gravity, but the properties would have to be different. I propose the primordial aether to be such ‘different’ waves, as others e.g. Arto Anilla, Wolfgang Bentz, Rueda and Haisch, and Matt Edwards have already proposed for the ZPF or the Quantum Vacuum. (why can’t I link Matt?) @expearth? One relatively simple solution may be ‘coupled photons’ - 2 photons with same vector but out of phase - which present as a spin=2 photon-like particle but appears to have 0 energy. Because the waves interfere destructively, the coupled pair does not interact as EM, but can travel right through mass, unless it actually collides with a particle of mass at which point it disassembles into 2 x spin =1 electromagnetic waves. In the ‘empty space of an atom’ scenario, vast majority of these pairs go right through matter, and we have the makings for the mechanics of gravity.

@Francois-Zinserling >… once we can show that ‘space’ is electromagnetic…

There is no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, showing that ‘space’ is anything but EMR. That claim is based strictly on observations. The onus of demonstrating the existence of an independently existing ‘space’ falls solely on those who believe it exists. Non-believers do not have to demonstrate space’s non-existence.

I agree that EMR by itself cannot account for all gravitational effects but I think it is likely that all gravitational effects can be explained by various aspects of EMR-matter interactions. For one example we both agree on the radiation density gradient account of gravitational behavior in the vicinity of a gravitating body.

On a cosmological scale it is possible to account for the cosmological redshift of a galaxy by simply calculating the gravitational redshift for an expanding spherical wavefront of light emitted by a galaxy using a mass term calculated from a realistic value of mass-density for the Cosmos. Repeated calculations at increasingly larger radial distances will yield a redshift-distance correlation. An elaboration can be found here.

@genotics I think there might be a mismatch in the proposed properties of A and B by Phipps, or maybe I tried to read too fast, but the main point is taken.

It seems for all of us the discrepancies arise in SR, not so much GR (if we can agree about A and B)

However, the GPS corrections are real, not just GR corrections, but also SR corrections. We also have an ISS, with observers on board. To further illustrate this point, the ISS clocks are adjusted to be in sync (1) with earth clocks, and corrections match calculations, as they do for GPS clocks, with a GR and SR component. But for the astronauts on the ISS, they agree to the GR correction, but according to SR they should see earth clocks slowed due to our relative velocity. This is not the case, and no further corrections are needed to remain synced (as per 1) from them or from earth. That is simply explained because they are moving, and we are not. This confirms: A clock in a gravity well is slowed. This is agreed by all clocks A clock in motion will be slowed. A stationary clock is unaffected. According to SR the clocks do not agree on who is moving, but ISS shows that at least a part of SR is incorrect because a moving clock can be synced with a stationary clock.

Then we have to acknowledge that all our clocks are already skewed by our local gravity and our velocity through space. Problem is, we don’t know what our gamma is, and M&M have shown it is not possible to measure it. <- This is not a proof of non-existence though. It’s merely a failure to measure. So we carry on and set our own gamma = 1.

@RedshiftDrift part of my next answer was presented by @budrap00 above, and I also don’t think the answer to SR lies in the acceleration. Let’s say it is correct that the clock slows during the acceleration, and then remains slowed there-after during constant velocity. Being in a ‘new’ frame of reference, the next acceleration must slow the clock again, but what if it is a deceleration back to the initial frame? It’s still an acceleration from the new frame, but a deceleration from the old frame, so what must the clock do? See the problem here? By rules the clock must keep on slowing down. (Yes, this was already said above, but I think this is crucial to rule out acceleration from SR)

@genotics

I’m curious what you mean when you say SR is not physics. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

@HanDeBruijn

And if time is certainly not what a clock displays, then what is it?

Time is a relational concept that humans employ when discussing the behavior of observable objects and events. In that regard it is just like the concept of distance but whereas there is no ontological angst with regard to the nature of distance there is a great deal of confusion about the nature of time (and space). For this we can thank the same mid-20th century mathematicists who also gave us a fictitious, universally constant, light speed. Wheeler’s empirically baseless aphorism regarding the causal interaction between spacetime and matter and energy is at the root of the confusion.

Nobody wonders how distance manages to keep things separated but thanks to Wheeler and his cohort we are left with the queasy notion that something that cannot be directly observed or detected (spacetime) can nonetheless affect the behavior of observable objects and events.

If you simply discard Wheeler’s quaint aphorism as unscientific nonsense you can revert to viewing spacetime in the same way you do distance and temperature - as ways of describing the behavior of observable entities and events - as relational concepts. As long as you do not attempt to reify those relational concepts into substantival entities there is no ontological problem. And if you don’t reify it, the answer to the question, what is time?, is straightforward. It is a relational concept used to describe the behavior of objects and events.

WRT your broader point it seems that you are saying in mathematical terms what I see in physical terms - that physical reality does not conform to idealistic human concepts (Platonism) and the relentless pursuit of (or belief in) the perfect in modern theoretical physics is the enemy of scientific advancement. For instance, the notion of dark matter and dark energy arises from the belief that we possess universally applicable laws (Newton-Einstein) of gravity so any discrepancy between observations and predictions of the laws is the fault of reality, not our perfect laws.

@budrap00 .

MATHEMATICS (Stack Exchange), MSE for short, is a worldwide forum consisting of over 1,000,000 participants. Unfortunately, many of them are sitting there waiting to get cheap answers to their homework questions. Unfortunately, many of the more skilled members are gaining cheap reputation by answering those questions. Unfortunately, there is a sort of Dark Matter present in Mainstream Mathematics as well. It’s called Set Theory. The forum is an Questions & Answers site. This means that one cannot promote ideas directly. Ideas can only be advertized by “abusing” a question and eventually answering this question yourself. Here is a list of such questions and what I really wanted to say by posting them: the hidden messages.

• Propositional Logic and Redundancy Mathematical logic is highly redundant, because it is combinatorial instead of sequential. This causes a mismatch with common language.
• Non-Euclidean Geometrical Algebra for Real times Real? Non-Euclidean Geometry is always embedded in Euclidean Geometry; even elementary algebra is impossible without classical geometry.
• Additive functions and measure theory Measure theory by Lebesgue is pure mathematism. There are no other addditive functions than linear ones: $f(x)=c.x$ .
• Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous? All real-valued functions in physics are continuous everywhere. They are simply not a function where they are discontinuous.
• Uniform Probability and Riemann Sum Uniform Probability does not exist in mainstream mathematics, while it is easy and highly practical to define it.
• Is this serious mathematics? Question renamed by moderation (i.e. censorship): Can $f(\infty)$ be defined if the sequence $f(n)$ is divergent?
• Double Think about Numerosity Actual Infinity is nonsense; there is only Potential Infinity in the real world.
• Leibniz’ Law and that good old riddle There is no exact equality in reality. Absolute rigor is a phantom.
• Why does Group Theory not come in here? Group Theory is much less powerful than is claimed in some circles (e.g. Particle Physics)
• Iterated Limits Schizophrenia
• Commutativity of iterated limits The hidden message is that iterated limits are always commutative.
• Cauchy distribution instead of Coulomb law? It does no harm to physics if Coulomb’s law is replaced by a function that approximates it without a singularity at the origin.
• How about Cantor’s Theory in a Finite context? This question was removed from Mathematics Stack Exchange for reasons of moderation. Okay, I know which high reputation guy is responsible for this.

Mathematics is general. So general that most of it applies, if at all, only to mathematics.

Hi Roy,

I will admit that Einstein was remiss in not explaining the outcome of the second paragraph. Nonetheless it is easily explicable in relativistic terms. Einstein didn’t abandon reciprocity in the second case, he abandoned the SR framework by introducing an acceleration and that acceleration introduces a physical slowing of the moved clock as specified by GR. There is no contradiction and no inconsistency of results unless you fail to account for the non-SR piece of the experiment.

The misuse of SR as a general model for physical reality (due to the so-called Einstein Equivalence Principle) has been a disaster for modern physics. Historically, the analytical development of RT was deliberately restricted to inertial conditions as a way of forming a baseline for subsequent elaboration to GR. While SR math can be useful to a first approximation in low acceleration/gravity systems it is always a mistake to use it as an analytical tool in the real world because gravity and acceleration are always present. It is in that sense that I would agree that SR is not appropriate for doing real physics.

Hello Roy,

…Einstein relativists are convinced that the symmetric effects (time dilation, length contraction) inherent in the Lorentz transformation are proved by asymmetric effects due to non-kinematical causes…

As an Einstein relativist, as opposed to a Dicke-Wheeler relativist, I have to say that you are mischaracterizing my view on this particular matter. There is no issue of “proof” involved, only of logical consistency. All I am pointing out is that this type of thought experiment which allegedly demonstrates some logical flaw or inconsistency in SR rests on a witting or unwitting failure to properly account for non-inertial events when they are introduced into the experiment.

GR does not in any sense bail out SR; GR is a completion of SR. If you do a thought experiment to test SR and introduce non-inertial events into that experiment while clinging to an SR-only analysis the results will be inconsistent with SR based expectations. In that case the flaw lies entirely with the logical inconsistency of the analysis - not with SR.

If Einstein didn’t invoke GR in his 1905 analysis that is understandable given that Relativity Theory was in its early stages of development. Quibbling with that failure to anticipate future developments seems trivial and pointless. At this point in time, deliberately not invoking the completed version of RT (GR with SR as a limiting case) when the imagined scenario implies the necessity of doing so, seems logically inexcusable to me. As an effort to ‘disprove’ SR it cannot be considered very convincing simply because of its logical inconsistency.

Hi Roy,

I’m not trying to “prove” anything. I just can’t follow your attempt to “disprove” SR with a thought experiment. If you want to instead cite empirical tests that contradict SR, feel free. I’ll listen.

Those two foundational assumptions of SR, are well known, so I’m not sure what your point is. Einstein also stated unequivocally that the second postulate only holds under the first postulate which in turn, only applies to inertial frames:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

— Albert Einstein, Relativity The Special and General Theories, 15th Edition

In all honesty I don’t understand your arguments here except as a kind of general aesthetic dissatisfaction with RT:

My own simple view of the SR controversy, which may be shared by others, is that it was stillborn and no theory at all–or rather 2 theories, each of which could be adopted according to taste.

As stated, that appears to be your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to that view but up to now you haven’t presented any logical argument(s), that don’t rely on a dubious interpretation of an early SR thought experiment (in my opinion), to support that opinion.

Cheers, Bud

Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938): “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves’, or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest’, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion? This is indeed possible!” Despite giving more respectability to the geocentric view than Newtonian physics does, relativity is not geocentric. Rather, relativity states that the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, or any other point for that matter could be chosen as a center of the Solar System with equal validity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Relativity

SR makes as much sense as believing the Solar System revolves around Uranus.

That section is called Relativity, not SR, GR, or RT. The Relativity of the title refers to the principle of relativity which is much broader than Einstein’s RT. It is also clear from the Einstein-Infeld quote that they are discussing a hypothetical scenario, not SR, GR, or RT. The section presents an interesting discussion of the principle of relativity and even notes that geocentric math is still useful:

A geocentric coordinate system can be more convenient when dealing only with bodies mostly influenced by the gravity of the Earth (such as artificial satellites and the Moon), or when calculating what the sky will look like when viewed from Earth (as opposed to an imaginary observer looking down on the entire Solar System, where a different coordinate system might be more convenient).

The Wiki entry does not provide any logical support for the conclusion offered; it’s just camouflage for a preordained opinion.

I understand that you think that the speed of light varies based on gravitational potential, as do I, but you pin it on [SR, GR, RT, principle of relativity] however you define them. There’s no need to. [Gravity as a refractive index] also is consistent with the speed of light varying in a gravitational potential.

It is also clear from the Einstein-Infeld quote that they are discussing a hypothetical scenario, not SR, GR, or RT.

Huh?? The literal quote is “Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion?”

Also, I recall this refrain of yours,

it is just more mathematicist drivel posing as science

Don’t you see that schizophrenic reference frames, stretching and shrinking space, and stars revolving around planets are the ripest subjects for your ridicule?

Also, all the famous high velocity, near-c phenomena should not be called “relativistic”. I think they should be called “high velocity”, “near-c”, “cyclotronic”, or “superdoppler”.

OK, let’s start with this response to my statement, It is also clear from the Einstein-Infeld quote that they are discussing a hypothetical scenario, not SR, GR, or RT:

Huh?? The literal quote is “Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion?”

That’s right and that quote is by any definition I know of, a hypothetical statement. It does not say or imply that SR is such a relativistic physics. If they thought SR was such a relativistic physics they wouldn’t be asking if they could possibly build one. Basic logic.

Nowhere in the rest of that hypothetical discussion is SR mentioned or implied. You however, pirouetted from a discussion you clearly did not understand concerning the principle of relativity and compelled by your pathological dislike of SR, decided the discussion was about SR. It was not. The discussion had nothing to do with SR, GR, or RT. Your conclusion had no logical basis in the quoted discussion.

The fact that you can’t seem to distinguish between the principle of relativity and Einstein’s Relativity Theory is a bad look. It suggests you don’t know this subject very well.

Don’t you see that schizophrenic reference frames, stretching and shrinking space, and stars revolving around planets are the ripest subjects for your ridicule?

Now we’re at the distinction between between math and physics which you seem to have difficulty with. As pointed out in my previous comment, the section on Relativity you cited mentioned that it was still useful under certain circumstances to use geocentric math. Back in the 1980s I was told that NASA used geocentric math to calculate trajectories for interplanetary missions. Given that Earth was at the center and origin of those projects that made sense. For all I know that may still be the case. That doesn’t mean NASA engineers thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System - they were just using some convenient math.

Ptolemy’s geocentric math produced useful predictions for a millennium even though the physics was completely wrong. Math is not physics and the distinction is important if you’re trying to understand why modern theoretical physics is such a mess. In modern theoretical physics math is physics and math is treated as the underlying determinant of physical reality.

The half-assed story of “stretching and shrinking space” has nothing to do with Einstein’s RT. Einstein rejected the reification and geometrization of spacetime throughout his life. He also took the time in 1952 to add an appendix to the 15th edition of Relativity The Special And General Theory specifically to refute the idea:

In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept “empty space” loses its meaning.

The reified concept of spacetime as a causally-interacting substance is now widely taught as integral to Relativity Theory but it is not part of Einstein’s theory. It was cobbled onto RT along with the so-called Einstein and Strong extensions of the Equivalence Principle in the 1960s. Those additions, attributable to Robert H Dicke and John A Wheeler, made an illogical, incoherent mess that should be referred to as Dicke-Wheeler Relativity Theory to distinguish it from Einstein’s version.

If you studied Relativity Theory at any university anywhere in the last 40 years you were most likely indoctrinated into DWRT. I’m pretty sure you’re young enough that that would be the case. In that context I understand your disdain for RT, but the problems of DWRT do not attend Einstein’s version.

If you want to understand Einstein’s RT you have to study that version but I’d be willing to bet the only version you’ve ever encountered is DWRT. That is not really your fault. DWRT is the only version taught in schools and textbooks and popular science books. In all of those accounts they are always quick to attribute “curved and expanding spacetime” to Einstein’s RT - but that attribution is a lie. The historical, well documented record on this matter is unambiguous, Einstein rejected that interpretation of RT. Spacetime is not part of ERT but it is a prominent component of DWRT.

It is entirely possible your disdain for ERT is only based on the inanities of DWRT. If that is the case, then I agree with you on this point - DWRT is junk science.

The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated physics theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity, proposed and published in 1905 and 1915, respectively. The term “theory of relativity” was based on the expression “relative theory” (German: Relativtheorie) used in 1906 by Planck, who emphasized how the theory uses the principle of relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

‘Relativity Theory’ is a set containing ‘Special Relativity’ and ‘General Relativity’, each of which has a dependency on the ‘principle of relativity’. The way you write about them, it’s as if they’re not connected to each other and then you blast me for calling a spade a spade. That is absurdity.

The half-assed story of “stretching and shrinking space” has nothing to do with Einstein’s RT.

It does have to do with it. See SR addition of velocities, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity. This is a special formula that distorts lengths between objects for the illusion that every particle has a particle-centric reference frame where its speed is 0 and photons move at c wrt to it. That is a Ptolemaic model of the particle, a model of schizophrenic reference frames, stretching and shrinking lengths, and stars revolving around planets.

Do you still think SR is physics? Does the Milky Way revolve around the Sun?

@budrap00 replying to @sahil5d : >It suggests you don’t know this subject very well.

I find this one and further remarks in your discussion with Sahil close to personal attacks. It is certainly not up to you to throw doubt on the competence of someone else in this group. As a participant in this discussion, I would like to rise a red flag, but can’t find anything appropriate. So instead, Bud, please show some restraint and read ACG’s code of conduct, especially the first few lines:

• Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
• Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
• Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
• Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
• Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community

Hi Han,

Yes, of course, you are right. I understand the need for such rules and apologize to you and the rest of the community, including Sahil. To prevent any further outbreaks of incivility, I will return to my previous policy of not engaging with Sahil’s remarks. Thanks for bringing this up.

Peace, Bud

@sahil5d writes: >Huh?? The literal quote is “Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion?”

To begin with, a better name for a CS is Reference Frame (RF). According to Léon Brillouin in Relativity Reexamined the difference is that Coordinate Systems are weightless, while Reference Frames are “heavy laboratories”. On page 45 we read: Let us sum up : A frame of reference does not constitute a piece of unreal geometry anymore; it is a heavy laboratory, built on a rigid body of tremendous mass, as compared to masses in motion. The confusion between CS and RF is one of the further problems with SR and GR.

Second, it is suggested that the “true” laws of physics should be independent of any Coordinate System / Reference Frame. Even classical physics is infected by this False Framing (pun intended). An example is the Wikipedia page about Rotating reference frames, where it is stated that All non-inertial reference frames exhibit fictitious forces. I beg to differ ! The forces on a rotating earth are not at all “fictitious”. They are very real. They can be felt. For example weather systems are unthinkable without these forces. If there is different physics in different reference frames, who cares? Kinematics has always been an integral part of physics. The idea of a real relativistic physics valid in all CS is nonsense.

Note.

It is not widely known that Lorentz Transformations (LT) are “hyperbolic rotations”, as is explained in the first few lines of Relativity Special at my website. In contrast with others, I have no problems with the incorporation of some abstract mathematics in physics, but in this case I find one detail worrysome: how the LT relates to a given velocity $v$ via

$$ \tanh(p) = \frac{v}{c} \quad \mbox{where} \quad p = \mbox{hyperbolic angle} $$

Referring once again to Relativity Reexamined, on page 4: For the moment, let us concentrate on the word “ given.“ What do we mean by a given velocity? Who is giving us this velocity, and how? I become very suspicious whenever I hear the word “ given.“

@HanDeBruijn The ludicrous naming of a real physical effect like Coriolis force as “fictitious” while purely fictitious dark matter is treated as “real” is another example of how daft modern theoretical physics has become. In this case the proclivity for reifying relational concepts into physical things is most likely the culprit. The term force describes an effect not a cause.

A golf club is not a force but it can exert a force on a golf ball. Modern science has defined four fundamental forces, electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong. Of those only electromagnetic radiation and charged particles can be said to exist in the way that a golf club exists - not as forces but as physical phenomena that can exert a force on other physical phenomena. The other three fundamental forces are fictitious. They essentially attribute an observed effect to a “force” without describing the mechanism by which the “force” is actually exerted.

You had me at “cosmology for poets” :) and I found this paragraph profound …

“… the correct conclusion is that hypothesis H-1881 was not proven. In other words the conclusion should be: Michelson’s interferometer could not measure the velocity of Earth defined as orbital motion around Sun plus solar motion toward Hercules at 30 km/s maximum speed. This is quite different from Michelson’s conclusion that “the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect”, … “

Yet the stage was set already in 1881 to sway the minds, and it almost looks from the 1887 setup and results that M&M wanted a null result!

It has long been my stance that even if M&M failed to measure absolute motion, it can not be considered proof there-against. It’s like me picking a clear day to prove clouds don’t exist.

Hello Roy and Sahil,

As you point out, “second postulate only holds under the first postulate which in turn, only applies to inertial frames.” Yet you and others invoke non-inertial frames to “retro-validate the clock paradox.”

That’s exactly the opposite of what happened here and happens elsewhere. First you (and others) will cite a thought experiment to demonstrate “… a fatal logical contradiction in the framing of SR and its widely accepted meaning…” and then when I (and others) point out that your experiment invokes a non-inertial event you pivot and accuse us of invoking the non-inertial frame that you, in fact, included in your experiment to begin with. In psychology I think they call that projection.

I have to agree with you though Roy, that these kind of discussions don’t typically end in a satisfactory resolution to the disagreement. My thinking on this is that there is an unstated assumption that is not shared by the opposing parties.

All of the disagreements regarding Relativity Theory seem to ultimately turn on the question of whether there is or is not some kind of universal frame, an aether or spacetime or some variant thereof. The anti-relativists believe there is a universal frame; the pro-relativists do not share that belief - because it is inconsistent with relativity theory.

Matters of belief are usually impervious to logical arguments. Science however has the sword of empiricism that can be applied to beliefs that impinge on physical reality. The situation is straightforward in that regard, there are no direct empirical observations of an aether - none.

Modern science over the last century has vastly expanded its observational range, in both the macrocosmic and microcosmic direction. No evidence for a universal frame has been found and the standard cosmological model which is based on the assumption of a universal frame (the FLRW metric) is, as I think most members of ACG agree, an unscientific mess.

I’m a relativist by self-training. The only way I was able to understand RT was to discard the notion of a universal framework. In it’s absence RT became self-consistent and consistent with observations. It wasn’t a simple project to get rid of that deeply embedded cultural artifact; it took time and effort. It was worth it as far as I’m concerned but as the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

Then there’s this:

Do you still think SR is physics? Does the Milky Way revolve around the Sun?

Do you think that’s a logical argument? Did the cow jump over the moon?

Cheers, Bud

Your unstated assumption has just come out, which is that there is no universal frame.

Also, any commentary on the SR velocity addition formula? Is that or is that not stretching and shrinking lengths?

Also, recall the argument verbatim from the authors of [SR, GR, RT, principle of relativity]:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves’, or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest’, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion? This is indeed possible!” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Relativity

So as to,

Sahil: Do you still think SR is physics? Does the Milky Way revolve around the Sun? Bud: Do you think that’s a logical argument? Did the cow jump over the moon?

I am giving you SR-logic. Will you defend it or jump over it? Does or does not SR mean that it’s valid physics for the Milky Way to revolve around the Sun?

Your unstated assumption has just come out, which is that there is no universal frame.

I do not have an assumption, you do. You assume a universal frame without benefit of any empirical evidence, I do not. My non-assumption does not have to be defended. Your belief has no evidentiary support. Like the rest of the dark cosmos of invisible things that can only be seen through the distorting glass of the standard models, the aether only exists in the minds of those who believe in it - but it is not observed in physical reality. That makes it at best a weak hypothesis.

Weak because it’s been laying around without evidence over the last 100 years despite the enormous increase in sensitivity and range of our cosmological observations. There is no sign of the aether in the the vast Cosmos that lies before us. It is not there. Therefore the only reasonable scientific conclusion is that it is not there.

@sahil5d in fairness ‘revolve’ involves an inward acceleration, which is outside the mandate of SR. I understand your point though and it is very valid.

@budrap00 there may be a middle field in which both SR and an aether can be at play. The aether baby was killed in the womb by M&M and later buried by Einstein, who showed no aether requirement for his SR. On the other hand, SR effects are very real, as can be observed in e.g. GPS systems. So you are not looking for aether but others are and the tide is changing.

SR is fundamentally based on “Light travels at the same speed c for each inertial observer”, which by clear logic (and it is possible to shake the indoctrination) is non-physics. The rest of SR is good maths and physics but it cannot hold true with a faulty base. Hence the paradoxes. It is easily solved by “Light travels at the same speed c in space”. Aka Maxwell and Lorentz. Under this base assumption, time dilation is still a real effect - for the moving traveller only, as many experiments have verified - and no paradoxes ensue.

Of course this requires an aether, or universal frame, which we have been unable to detect convincingly. The reason for this is also simple, in that nobody travels at 0 relative to the aether, and we all have some SR artifacts we carry around. We currently solve this by setting our own $γ = 1$ and calling ourselves a reference frame.

It is easily solved by “Light travels at the same speed c in space”

Francois, I totally agree. (I’d add that light travels a bit slower than c near mass (gravity as a refractive index).)

Bud, you proclaimed that stretching and shrinking have nothing to do with RT, and then it turns out there is formula where stretching and shrinking lengths is the fundament of SR (component of RT)!

1. Do you defend the SR velocity addition formula?

2. Does SR defend a frame where the Milky Way moves around the Sun? Do you defend it?

I do not have an assumption, you do. You assume a universal frame without benefit of any empirical evidence, I do not. My non-assumption does not have to be defended. Your belief has no evidentiary support.

No, no, no. You have the assumption that there is no universal frame. I have the assumption that there either is or there isn’t. Then I hear arguments from SR theorists that stars can revolve around planets, and I realize that ain’t physics. Better to place a bet on something with incomplete information than something which leads to nonsense.

Also, the so-called proofs excluding a universal frame are wrong and deceptive. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not singularly explained by SR. It can also be explained by the electron shape becoming an ellipsoid with velocity (Heaviside’s ellipsoid model). Also, it is also often touted that the Fresnel coefficient (speed of light in a medium), Fizeau experiment (speed of light in water), and Airy experiment (the water telescope), are only explainable by SR, but that is not so. Each of these 3 major matters can be understood with photon and molecule interactions in a universal frame.

See A Simple “Classical” Interpretation of Fizeau’s Experiment (Giuseppe Antoni, Umberto Bartocci). http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3BAR.PDF

I emphasize the importance of the Fresnel coefficient being understood with photon-molecule interactions in space (without SR, without the SR velocity formula). When light is going with a water current, for example, the photon travels a longer distance in between molecules, and also travels with the molecule during time of interaction. That model yields the Fresnel coefficient.

Weak because it’s been laying around without evidence over the last 100 years despite the enormous increase in sensitivity and range of our cosmological observations. There is no sign of the aether in the the vast Cosmos that lies before us. It is not there. Therefore the only reasonable scientific conclusion is that it is not there.

No and no. I have shared the evidence accumulated over the last 100 years in the section above, and as to cosmological observations, there exist the enormous CMB Dipole (~ 400 km/s) and Distant Quasar Dipole (~ 800 km/s), two candidates for the indicator of the universal frame.

@Francois-Zinserling >SR is fundamentally based on “Light travels at the same speed c for each inertial observer”, which by clear logic (and it is possible to shake the indoctrination) is non-physics.

Please specify the clear logic by which you arrive at your conclusion.

@sahil5d >I have the assumption that there either is or there isn’t.

There is no indication in any of your remarks that you have ever considered the non-assumption except to refute it in the context of a world view which contains the universal frame assumption. The two points of view are incompatible. “Disproving” SR as you and others repeatedly claim to do often amounts to “proving” that SR is incompatible with a UF which is both true and trivial. SR does not have a UF therefore SR is incompatible with the belief in one. Further there is no direct empirical evidence for the existence of a universal frame. All the evidence you have is inferential, like this:

…two candidates for the indicator of the universal frame.

Inferential evidence is indirect and non-empirical. Inferential evidence has a circular quality to it. First you start with an assumption then you scour the data for evidence from which you can infer your assumption. That is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is a logical error.

The UF belief rests on exactly the same kind of faulty reasoning that underlies the belief in dark matter, dark energy and all the other invisible helpers that prop up the two standard models. It (and they) are not part of the Cosmos we observe. The UF is however a foundational assumption of the Big Bang model. To that extent your belief is widely held. You and the Big Bang cult have that much in common.

You have the assumption that there is no universal frame.

I am not assuming the non-existence of the UF. I have simply concluded that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for its existence in physical reality and therefore because of my scientific background I do not believe in its existence - because there is no evidence for it.

My non-belief is scientifically defensible, your belief is not, and for the same reason - there is no scientific, empirical evidence for it. Your misunderstanding of SR is couched in that belief and your apparent inability or unwillingness to understand that by the explicit foundational terms of the model, SR only applies to inertial frames.

Only inertial frames - that means that SR is not the same as the principle of relativity because the principle does not have that inertial frame restriction. Conflating the two as you have done repeatedly in your comments is just another logical error.

Still you have not responded to these questions:

1. Do you defend the SR velocity addition formula? Does it or does it not involve stretching and shrinking lengths?
2. Does SR defend a frame in which the Milky Way moves around the Sun? Do you defend such a frame?

Only inertial frames - that means that SR is not the same as the principle of relativity because the principle does not have that inertial frame restriction. Conflating the two as you have done repeatedly in your comments is just another logical error.

What are you attacking me for now? It’s conflation to relate SR and the Principle of Relativity??

There is no indication in any of your remarks that you have ever considered the non-assumption except to refute it in the context of a world view which contains the universal frame assumption.

Rude and wrong. I can replay the thought process again and anytime. I hereby assume there is or isn’t a universal frame. I hereby realize that not having a universal frame means that it would be valid to have an inertial frame centered on the Sun. In such a frame, the Milky Way moves around the Sun. After thinking for 10 seconds, I hereby realize that such a frame has contradictions and absurdities and does not agree with observations. So I hereby conclude that not having a universal frame is false. So I hereby conclude that having a universal frame is true.

All the evidence you have is inferential, like this: “…two candidates for the indicator of the universal frame.”

First of all, the CMB Dipole and Distant Quasar Dipole are cosmological observations that we on Earth are moving at breakneck speed with respect to very large and very distant quantities of mass, and such is evidence in favor of a universal frame, thus refuting your assertion in a previous message (“it’s been laying around without evidence over the last 100 years despite the enormous increase in sensitivity and range of our cosmological observations”). Second of all, do you think that inferential reasoning is a bad thing? Why? Third, your definition of inferential isn’t accurate. Inferential evidence can be direct and empirical.

That is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is a logical error.

Here’s the deal: Circular reasoning is bad when observations are out of the loop, in other words, when a claim stands on a claim which stands on the first claim and no evidence (or miscalibrated evidence like LCDM luminosity distances). Circular reasoning is good when observations are in the loop, when a claim stands on evidence which motivates the claim. Also, I think that calling something “circular reasoning” isn’t a cogent critique. Just identify whether the reasoning is good or bad and where a specific claim is true or false.

For an example of bad circular reasoning, of no observations in the loop, read these sentences of yours:

All of the disagreements regarding Relativity Theory seem to ultimately turn on the question of whether there is or is not some kind of universal frame, an aether or spacetime or some variant thereof. The anti-relativists believe there is a universal frame; the pro-relativists do not share that belief - because it is inconsistent with relativity theory.

I recommend researching the points about the Fresnel coefficient (speed of light in a medium), Fizeau experiment (speed of light in water), and Airy experiment (the water telescope). They can be understood in a universal frame.

I also recommend considering the possibility that SR is the very “mathematicist drivel posing as science” that you love to hate.

I hereby assume there is or isn’t a universal frame. I hereby realize that not having a universal frame means that it would be valid to have an inertial frame centered on the Sun. In such a frame, the Milky Way moves around the Sun. After thinking for 10 seconds, I hereby realize that such a frame has contradictions and absurdities and does not agree with observations. So I hereby conclude that not having a universal frame is false. So I hereby conclude that having a universal frame is true.

That’s a good example of what 10 seconds of “thinking” will get you. That second sentence is a doozy! If there’s a logical argument there, it eludes me. You made my point though, so thanks. In addition you don’t even know what a logical argument looks like:

For an example of bad circular reasoning, of no observations in the loop, read these sentences of yours: “All of the disagreements regarding Relativity Theory seem to ultimately turn on the question of whether there is or is not some kind of universal frame, an aether or spacetime or some variant thereof. The anti-relativists believe there is a universal frame; the pro-relativists do not share that belief - because it is inconsistent with relativity theory.”

Those sentences of mine do not constitute a logical argument so they cannot contain circular reasoning which is a logical error. It was a simple statement of opinion or observation.

…They can be understood in a universal frame.

They can also be understood without a UF. That makes the UF unnecessary baggage. Bottom line is there is no direct observational evidence of a UF. It is not there.

The Cosmos gets along without a UF and RT does not have one. RT is therefore more realistic than a UF based model like the BB or any other UF model you can come up with. If you can’t understand physical reality without the metaphysical crutch of universal frame, the problem lies entirely with you, not the Cosmos.

Still you haven’t answered the two questions.

It’s time (and for me it’s fun) to throw a calculation at all of the eloquent prose in this thread. Let us assume that the rotating earth is one of the allowable frames of reference, an UF so to speak. Then, according to Mach’s Principle, the whole cosmos is rotating around the earth in reverse direction. Now calculate the distance at which the velocity of the stars is going to exceed the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by relativity, right? Let $v=$ velocity, $c=$ speed of light, $r=$ radius, $\omega=2\pi/T$ angular velocity, $T=$ length of a day. Then we have $v = \omega r = 2\pi/T.r = c$ and so, for our radius of interest:

$$ r = \frac{c}{2\pi/T} = \frac{1}{2\pi} \times c.T = \frac{1}{2\pi} \approx 0.16 \mbox{ light-days} $$

Much less than our distance to Proxima Centauri which is measured in ($4.25$) light-years instead of -days.

also less than our distance to Neptune.

At this point, I think the refutation of SR could be on the home page opening letter of ACG https://cosmology.info. ACG has already written that LCDM is plagued with difficulties. We should be bold enough to write that SR is plagued with difficulties too.

also less than our distance to Neptune.

That’s correct: $4.5 \times 10^9 /(300,000 \times 24 \times 3600) \approx 0.17 \gt 0.16$ (I apologize for distrusting everything uttered by anyone) However, the derivation as presented above is not complete. The apparent speed of the stars is also dependent on our direction of sight, especially the latitude $\phi$ of it - hope I’ve said that correctly:

$$ r\cos(\phi)\frac{2\pi}{T} = c \quad \Longrightarrow \quad r = \frac{1}{2\pi\cos(\phi)}\times c.T $$

For $\phi=\pm\pi/2$ there is even a stand-still, for the Northern Hemisphere that is near the North Star:

@sahil5d . >We should be bold enough to write that SR is plagued with difficulties too.

I hesitate to join that project. The reason is that my list of objections against SR is not conclusive:

• You have already mentioned the Fizeau experiment. It has a simple and natural explanation within the framework of Special Relativity.
• Another example is Einstein’s derivation of $E=mc^2$ and the finding that it equals the (huge) energy of a rest mass plus (approximately) classical kinetic energy. See below.
• I’ve seen a derivation of Maxwell’s equations, out of static electricity (charge invariance) with help of the Lorentz transformations. Only partially though. As a student, I’ve not been able to reproduce the full Maxwell equations with this method.
• The Dirac equation follows from replacing energy $E$ and momentum $p$ by the corresponding quantum mechanical operators in $E/c^2=p^2+(m_0c)^2$ and then taking sort of a square root with help of matrices instead of numbers. Very impressive. I’m still wondering though how much of the fine structure of the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, calculated theoretically, is actually in agreement with experiment. And there is another detail. Dirac’s coup starts by first splitting space-time into space and time, as is quite common with classical Quantum Mechanics.

More in general, I think that much of modern physics, eSpecially Relativity and QuantumElectroDynamics, is close to error processing. As an engineer by education, I must say that I’m hardly interested in such near-zero effects, though it may seem that they are “real”. As a further reference, I would highly recommend the book Relativity Reexamined by Léon Brillouin.

My favorite derivation of $E=mc^2$

Start with the law that increase of kinetic inergy $T$ is equal to work performed. Symbols are $F=$ force, $r=$ distance, $t=$ time, $m=$ mass, $v=$ velocity, $p=$ momentum

$$ dT = \vec{F}\cdot d\vec{r} = \frac{d(m\vec{v})}{dt}\cdot d\vec{r} = d(m\vec{v})\cdot \frac{d\vec{r}}{dt} = d(m\vec{v})\cdot \frac{m\vec{v}}{m} = dp^2/(2m) $$

It is assumed that the relationship connecting mass and rest-mass is known.

$$ m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (mc)^2-(mv)^2=(mc)^2-p^2=(m_0c)^2 $$

It follows that

$$ dT = dp^2/(2m)=d(m^2c^2-m_0^2c^2)/(2m) = d(m^2c^2)/(2m) = c^2.2m.dm/(2m) = c^2dm $$

Integration then gives, for the relativistic kinetic energy

$$ T=c^2m+C \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0 = c^2.m_0+C \quad \Longrightarrow \quad T=mc^2-m_0c^2 $$

For small velocities $v \ll c$ the classical expression for kinetic energy is retrieved:

$$ T = \frac{m_0 c^2}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}} - m_0c^2 = m_0 c^2\left[\left(1-(v/c)^2\right)^{-1/2} - 1\right] \approx m_0 c^2\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2- 1\right] = \frac{1}{2}m_0 v^2 $$

The only (and most important) thing we still have to show is that $m_0c^2$ indeed represents another form of energy.

• The Fizeau experiment (speed of light in water) being understood in a universal frame shows that SR is not the exclusive explainer, and this refutes SR theorists’s claim that there is no universal frame because “only SR can explain the Fizeau experiment”.
• E=mc^2 * gamma does not depend on SR. As E=mc^2 * gamma is confirmed in particle accelerator measurements, it exists within the body of knowledge.
• Whether Maxwell’s equations depend on Lorentz’s transformations or a gamma term shouldn’t affect a refutation of SR. (Also, I think Maxwell’s equations have an error in that they imply changes in the electric field spread at c instead of happening instantly everywhere in the volume. I have mentioned the problems with retarded physics elsewhere in ACG Discussions.)
• The energy-momentum relation does not depend on SR. Also, all the famous high velocity, near-c phenomena should not be called “relativistic” and instead be called “high velocity”, “near-c”, “cyclotronic”, or “superdoppler”.

I hesitate to join that project.

Up to you, but I think it’s important. Wouldn’t it be strange for a cosmology group refuting the Big Bang Theory to have no opinion on Special Relativity and Relativity Theory, which cascaded into the Big Bang Theory? Imagine that we succeed, and then the academic physics community starts asking us questions about SR and accusing us that rejecting the BB means you’re challenging SR and how dare you challenge SR… we better not be unprepared to say that SR is plagued with difficulties just as the BB is.

@sahil5d . >SR is not the exclusive explainer

I’ve seen that you mentioned a paper about it: A Simple “Classical” Interpretation of Fizeau’s Experiment. >E=mc^2 * gamma is confirmed in particle accelerator measurements

Yes, but that is not a theoretical explanation. >Maxwell’s equations have an error in that they imply changes in the electric field spread at c instead of happening instantly everywhere in the volume. I have mentioned the problems with retarded physics elsewhere in ACG Discussions

That makes me very curious. Do you have online references about all this? >The energy-momentum relation does not depend on SR.

Would you care to explain how, please.

@sahil5d I’m not sure if I were the one discussing this with you before, I think Maxwell’s equations have an error in that they imply changes in the electric field spread at c instead of happening instantly everywhere in the volume.

By this thinking Newton’s ‘instant action at a distance’ would also still be valid.

This is not an error by Maxwell and pretty much is the core of electrodynamics. Maxwell (Faraday’s law of induction ) says that electric fields curl in space, as magnetic field changes over over time, at the speed of light. $▽×E=– 1/c * δB/δt$

This is valid for all fields, electric, magnetic, quantum and even gravity.

Maybe in electrostatics, where particles are considered stationary, and can be considered to have been stationary for a long time, the fields extend uniformly into space. But the moment a particle moves, a new field begins forming at every instant of dt around the new location of the particle. The old field is still ‘travelling out’ from the original location, and a particle some distance d=ct away will only know after time +t that the first particle has moved. After this time t, it will begin to experience a magnetic field from particle 1 - basically when it also ‘sees’ it moving.

Han: I hesitate… Another example is Einstein’s derivation of E=mc^2 and the finding that it equals the (huge) energy of a rest mass plus (approximately) classical kinetic energy.

Sahil: E=mc^2 * gamma does not depend on SR. As E=mc^2 * gamma is confirmed in particle accelerator measurements, it exists within the body of knowledge.

Han: Yes, but that is not a theoretical explanation.

Yes, but my earlier point was that that’s no reason to hesitate to refute SR. E = mc^2 * γ can exist on its own empirical standing.

Also, even if the equation did depend on SR, SR is falsified by the example of the Milky Way, and therefore, as a truth-seeking scientist, one should seek other theoretical explanation for the empirically-accurate equation.

Sahil: Maxwell’s equations have an error in that they imply changes in the electric field spread at c instead of happening instantly everywhere in the volume.

Han: That makes me very curious. Do you have online references about all this?

https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/82#discussioncomment-7129869 https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Action-at-a-Distance-p45-56(1999).pdf

I think we should take a hint from Feynman’s half-retarded and half-advanced theory.

Sahil: The energy-momentum relation does not depend on SR.

Han: Would you care to explain how, please.

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 depends on E = mc^2 * γ and p = mv * γ. E = mc^2 * γ depends on p = mv * γ and E = mc^2. p = mv * γ is said to only depend on SR, but it truly depends on empirical justification accumulated over time (measurements). E = mc^2 is said to only depend on SR, but that is not so. It can be derived from E = pc, conservation of momentum, and conservation of center of mass. E = pc can be derived from E = hf (empirical) and p = h/λ (empirical).

Also, the motivation for momentum dramatically increasing with speed didn’t come from SR. It came from classical mechanics. Check this out, from 1893:

Thomson (1893) noticed that electromagnetic momentum and energy of charged bodies, and therefore their masses, depend on the speed of the bodies as well… “When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged sphere moving with the velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite, its velocity therefore will remain constant, in other words it is impossible to increase the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond that of light.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass#Thomson_and_Searle

See also Larmor and FitzGerald.

I think a better theory of the gamma term can come from thinking of mass, of a particle, being a photon going in circles, and from there the right-triangle math comes into play.

Francois: I’m not sure if I were the one discussing this with you before

Yep we were

This is not an error by Maxwell and pretty much is the core of electrodynamics.

What about the issue of unstable circular orbits? Also, what about this?:

The attraction toward an object moving with a steady velocity is towards its instantaneous position with no delay, for both gravity and electric charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Practically and theoretically, attraction is to instantaneous position.

Also, it’s not like physics will go into disarray with Maxwell’s theory falsified. There is a far more stable foundation available in Coulomb’s, Ampère’s, and Weber’s theories.

@sahil5d . >$E = mc^2 \times \gamma$ can exist on its own empirical standing.

Don’t think so. See My favorite derivation of $E=mc^2$ at this place. In theory $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}$. But in practice, $\gamma$ cannot be distinguished from approximations like $1+(v/c)^2/2$. In general, theoretism and mathematism can not simply be replaced by empiricism :-) >SR is falsified

Not exactly. As an example, there is The Limited Validity of Special Relativity. In general, there does not exist a physical theory without its limitations and never will. Likewise, there does not exist a Grand Unified Theory and never will.

I think a better theory of the gamma term can come from thinking of mass, of a particle, being a photon going in circles, and from there the right-triangle math comes into play.

Good idea. I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks too for some interesting references.

There is a far more stable foundation available in [ .. ] Weber’s theories.

I’ve learned some of Weber’s theory from the book Origin of Inertia (pages 17 and 30) and must say that I’m not impressed.

But in practice, γ cannot be distinguished from approximations like 1 + (v/c)^2 / 2.

No. In practice, they can be distinguished. These experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum#Precision_measurements accelerated particles to 0.5c, 0.6c, 0.7c and higher, and the gamma term described the data well.

there does not exist a Grand Unified Theory and never will

I think that’s partially wrong, maybe even totally wrong. Review the greatest successes in science and how they unified multiple areas of study at once. Mass-centric gravity, the periodic elements, the tree of life and evolution, B2FH stellar nucleosynthesis.

Weber’s theory

Check out Weber’s work on c. He figured out the connection between charge and light before Maxwell.

@sahil5d “The attraction toward an object moving with a steady velocity is towards its instantaneous position with no delay, for both gravity and electric charge.”

The Newton equation (very similar to Coulomb equation) $F = GMm/r^2$ relates to an attraction of any object at distant r. The earth orbiting around the sun is already travelling on that radius r so anywhere on the circle the attraction will be the same, and will be vectored toward the centre of the ring. Orbits are generally too slow to notice a velocity component (as is witnessed in high-speed electrodynamics) so it only appears as if Newton is ‘instant action’ is valid. A high orbit speed in sol is Mercury, and lo and behold - there’s an anomaly.

Yes, if a small object is magically placed at distance $r$ from earth it will immediately experience the force of attraction, but that is because the gravity field is already there. Because it was magically placed, its own field is not there yet, but this goes unnoticed for a small object, and since we cannot ‘magically’ place masses, and only move them around at v<<c, it just seems as if their fields are always there.

It is unfortunate that the author of your link discards the ether so vehemently. I’m also not a fan of Mach’s principle. It is no longer a question in my mind that aether exists, and that gravity is a result of an energy gradient in the aether. No particles need to fly back-and-forth betweeen ALL masses.

The basic wave equation $∇^2Φ = 1/c^2 * ∂^2Φ/∂t^2$ also holds true if you replace $Φ$ with $E$ or $B$ from electromagnetics. This means they are a wave, and they only propagate at the speed of light - not faster - not slower. Looking at the equation above, the left describes changes in space (as in x,y,z) while the right describes changes in time (t). The delimiter is that these changes in space happen at the speed of light $c$ in vacuum, or less, depending on ε or μ if not in vacuum, but that’s still the speed of light in that material.

In other words, it is forbidden that a local change (e.g in position or velocity) can instantly be observed in the $E$ or $B$ field some large distance away. It will take as long as light takes to that point before an ‘update’ is observed. Simply said, updates occur from the source and spread radially outward.

Now for gravity we don’t have the luxury of throwing things around at close to ‘c’, so we are still trying to figure it out. But we have long supspected gravity moves (updates) at the speed of light, and it has recently been confirmed with gravitational waves. So we will find velocity dependent components eventually, just as we have for EM waves.

So I would implore you to not follow the ‘instant action’ path for too long.

In other words, it is forbidden that a local change (e.g in position or velocity) can instantly be observed in the E or B field some large distance away. It will take as long as light takes to that point before an ‘update’ is observed. Simply said, updates occur from the source and spread radially outward.

Forbidden according to Maxwell’s theory. Meanwhile, the problems abound. Retarded potential theories break down for even the slightest elliptical orbit. Also, Feynman worked on a half-retarded and half-advanced theory because the retarded theory alone had problems.

Also, [photons] are not [attraction and repulsion due to charge]. There is confusion between [directed pulses of electromagnetic energy] and [electrostatic and magnetostatic attraction and repulsion]. Photons are things moving at c in a volume, and electric and magnetic forces are instant calculations based on the state of things in the volume.

Now for gravity we don’t have the luxury of throwing things around at close to ‘c’, so we are still trying to figure it out. But we have long supspected gravity moves (updates) at the speed of light, and it has recently been confirmed with gravitational waves.

After reading Louis’s analysis of LIGO, https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/82#discussioncomment-7165969, I have a lot of doubts about LIGO’s claims of “gravitational waves”.

There is another lesson to be learned. Some people think that reference frames can be defined at will. They also think that General Relativity has given people the freedom to choose any metric they like. These choices are supposed to be meaningful, because the laws of nature are said to be independent of such arbitrary frames of reference. This is blatantly wrong. Another metric means another physics. And it is not allowable to adopt a metric if that metric is not attached to a reference frame that has a physical meaning. An outstanding example is the reference frame called earth. The earth is not an universal frame. We have seen that it allows us to describe star trails, but these are not the true motions of stars, because in that case the speed of any star would exceed the speed of light. It requires a great deal of non-trivial transformations to find a proper reference frame (earth orbit & sun) for defining the Parallax enabling us to measure the distance to a star.

@HanDeBruijn >The earth is not an universal frame.

True and I would only add that all physical frames are local not universal. The quaint notion that there are universal laws which we have discovered by observation and experiment in our local frame(s) is nothing but a sad display of human hubris. Our “universal” law of gravity does not work on the scale of galaxies and above. The unchallengeable belief that they (ND-GR) are universal laws leads directly to the ad hoc dark matter and dark energy hypotheses.

Another metric means another physics.

Again I agree with you, but would reverse the implied dependency - different physics requires different metrics.

And it is not allowable to adopt a metric if that metric is not attached to a reference frame that has a physical meaning.

Agree again, this time without qualification. This begs the question though, does the concept of a universal frame have physical meaning? My view is that it does not because of the hard limit implied by the maximum speed of light relative to material bodies (3 x $10^8$ m/s) and the scale of the Cosmos that we currently observe from our local frame.

Good day Bud and Sahil, ….. Cheers, Roy

@genotics may you please update me on the 2 documents you referenced in the above comment? Those links appear to be broken.

image to image, the camera has moved, but at each image, the camera’s velocity is 0.

Sorry @sahil5d , but it seems to me that your argument is similar to the Arrow paradox and that’s a very much passed station.

I’m talking about a camera in a 3D software sim. A camera can have any velocity, even 0. And a video can be a sequence of any images.

How do you think the video was rendered?

How do you think the video was rendered?

Don’t you think there is a profound difference between astronomical observations and NASA’s animations? In physical reality : παντα ρει και ουδεν μενει (: Heraclitus). There is no standing still universal frame, though many frames may be considered as being in rest for practical purposes.

@HanDeBruijn Layman question:

1. Isn’t the CMB an absolute frame?
2. The idea there are no universal or preferred frame (IIRC GR only stipulate the later) is specific to general relativity.

There are many variants that reproduce ~exactly our observations and that have a preferred frame, this is especially the case of the neo aether theories. I wonder about this question too for teleparallel gravity/Einstein-Cartan related: https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572 https://www.prophy.science/article/142637915/

there exists a harmonic reference frame which is determined uniquely apart from a Lorentz transformation https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.07068 a novel mechanism for reconciling the observed, small cosmological constant (or dark energy) with the large theoretical prediction coming from quantum field theories

also one of the very few (aether) unified quantum/classical gravity theory which is btw non relativist yet match GR observations https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9706055

If we apply the methodological rule that the best available theory has to be preferred, we have to reject the relativistic paradigm and return to Galilean invariant ether theory.

They break relativistic symmetry and make the “hidden preferred frame” observable

Our argumentation is very simple. The mathematical part of theory we have presented is trivial — de-facto a single sentence. We apply a method- ological rule which is also a single sentence: we have to choose the best available theory. The conclusion is very non-trivial: we have to choose this non-relativistic theory as the best available theory of quantum gravity. That means, the relativistic paradigm has to be rejected. Instead, we have to use pre-relativistic ether-theoretical metaphysics. It seems, the simplicity of our argumentation is essential. Only a very sim- ple argumentation which does not leave place for loopholes and immunization has the power to destroy such a fundamental paradigm like relativity.

I can’t believe such a result keeps being ignored

Don’t you think there is a profound difference between astronomical observations and NASA’s animations?

There is. Still, a way to accurately integrate astronomical observations is to make a 3D map, or a 3D scene, and then for viewing pleasure, make a motion picture of a camera flying through that scene.

I should add that the SDSS video isn’t perfect because it suggests the camera is exploring space in the same instant, but of course our telescope snapshots of distant galaxies are millions are billions of years stale. But in a billion years, galaxies make ~ 1 rotation and their general shape doesn’t change too much.

The SDSS video could be improved by marking that the appearance and position of the distant galaxies are x billion years stale, or by simulating the galaxies’ structure and position x billion years after our snapshot of them.

difference between astronomical observations and NASA’s animations

Here’s another 3D scene flythrough, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XdzZHyZr8&ab_channel=CaliforniaAcademyofSciences. The scenecamera appears to be traveling faster than c, but in software, in the rendering of each image, it isn’t. For each image, as the camera is retreating, no Doppler shift is computed. (Otherwise, there would be no real image! Or if the velocity were less than c and near-c, the image would be very redshifted.)

Here’s another 3D scene flythrough, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxTHNiMNPDw&ab_channel=HubbleWebbESA, with the novel feature of the scene running. It’s like, “press play on the scene”. See the date changing at the bottom right of the video and of course the planets and Oumuamua in motion.

A video is a sequence of any images. Each image can be rendered with the scenecamera’s velocity 0, and many images can be displayed one after another. It’s super important that astrophysicists and cosmologists have clarity on the basics of an image, a video, and a 3D scene, because these are tools of communication of observations.

There is no standing still universal frame

According to what? According to Special Relativity, which defends a frame of the Sun moving around the Earth?

I repeat Francois’s insight, “It is easily solved by ‘Light travels at the same speed c in space’”.

@LifeIsStrange

1. Isn’t the CMB an absolute frame?
2. The idea there are no universal or preferred frame (IIRC GR only stipulate the later) is specific to general relativity.

1. No it is not. The CMB is our cosmological horizon - that is all it appears to be and all it needs to be in order to be consistent with observations and known physics.
2. There is a difference in science between assuming something that cannot be empirically demonstrated and not assuming it. The non-assumption is the default scientific position - if something cannot be demonstrated to exist but must be believed in, then it cannot be considered part of empirical reality.

Provisionally of course a theoretical assumption can be considered as a hypothesis but it remains a hypothesis and not a fact in the absence of direct empirical evidence demonstrating its physical existence. Dark matter, dark energy, quarks, gluons, etc. are all hypotheses that, despite having no empirical evidence to support their existence, have been elevated to scientific “facts” in the theoretical physics community.

That is precisely and exactly why there is a so-called Crisis in Physics. The standard models are full of things that do not exist in empirically observed physical reality. The aether is just another member of that hypothetical menagerie - by scientific standards, it ain’t there.

There are many variants that reproduce ~exactly our observations and that have a preferred frame, this is especially the case of the neo aether theories.

That’s right, and all those many variants require that unobserved “preferred frame” which Einstein’s Relativity Theory does not require. Therefore by normal scientific standards ERT is the more parsimonious theory and should be preferred over all the aether dependent variants. That doesn’t make ERT a “universal law”, just a better theory because it is more parsimonious.

@LifeIsStrange . >Isn’t the CMB an absolute frame?

No. According to (my version of) the Variable Mass Theory the CMB is the same for all observers, whether they are moving or not. >The idea there are no universal or preferred frame (IIRC GR only stipulate the later) is specific to general relativity.

Of course not, they are abundant in Classical Physics already. But nobody found it worthwile to pay attention to them before the advent of relativity. >I can’t believe such a result keeps being ignored

Oh well, there are soo many results begging for not to be ignored.

@LifeIsStrange I think the CMB Dipole (~ 400 km/s) is a candidate for the indicator of the absolute frame. There is also the Distant Quasar Dipole (~ 800 km/s). Both are observations that we on Earth are moving at tremendous speed with respect to very large and very distant quantities of mass.

Because of

• the near-certainty of the distances to the quasars, and
• the uncertainty of the distance to whatever is emitting the CMB,

I think the quasar dipole indicates the cosmic rest frame, and the distance to the CMB-emitter needs to be researched.

The CMB-emitter might be within the local supercluster, occupying the volume within 50 Mly. The CMB power/area is similar to the power/area of the Milky Way as well as neighboring galaxies.

CMB ~ 3 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=stefan+boltzmann+constant+*+%282.7+K%29%5E4

Milky Way ~ 9 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=milky+way+luminosity+%2F+%284pi+*+milky+way+radius%5E2%29

Andromeda ~ 2 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=+%283.3++10%5E10+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%28radius+of+andromeda+galaxy%29%5E2%29

Pinwheel Galaxy ~ 1 microWatt / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2830+billion++solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2885000+light+year%29%5E2%29

Whirlpool Galaxy ~ 2 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2810++10%5E9++luminosity+of+sun%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2838000+lightyear%29%5E2%29

Sunflower Galaxy ~ 18 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%281.9++milky+way+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2849000+lightyear%29%5E2%29

Messier 60 ~ 6 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2860++10%5E9+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2860000+light+year%29%5E2%29

@budrap00 what do you mean the CMB is the “cosmological horizon”? What do you think the distance is to the CMB-emitter?

Therefore by normal scientific standards [Relativity Theory] is the more parsimonious theory

No it is not more parsimonious. It is maximally egregious in physical distortion.

See SR addition of velocities, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity. This is a special formula that distorts lengths between objects for the illusion that every particle has a particle-centric reference frame where its speed is 0 and photons move at c wrt to it. That is a Ptolemaic model of the particle. That is not parsimony.

And @HanDeBruijn pointed out how a reference frame based on a stationary Earth would have stars moving around the Earth and moving faster than c. That is not parsimony.

Here is the Relativity Theory stack: | General Relativity (GR) | Special Relativity (SR) | Principle of Relativity (PoR) GR depends on SR which depends on PoR. If SR is debunked, GR is debunked. If PoR is debunked, SR and GR are debunked.

If one doubts that Relativity Theory defends a frame where the Sun goes around the Earth, hear the authors themselves:

Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938): “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves’, or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest’, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion? This is indeed possible!” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Relativity

@sahil5d

the near-certainty of the distances to the quasars

Quasar distances are inaccurately known and the reasons are not understood; the “quasar dipole” is not reliable.

M.B. Bell, “Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that They are Likely to Be a Lot Closer than Their Redshifts Imply,” arXiv preprint astro-ph/0602242, 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242 This problem has not been resolved since the publication of the paper.

H. C. Arp, C. C. Fulton, and D. Carosati, “Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies.” http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf Quasars seem to have a large “intrinsic redshift”, so the “distance redshift” is unreliable.

@RedshiftDrift I mean the quasar distance as estimated by the quasar’s associated galaxy’s redshift. Not the quasar’s redshift.

Also, the quasar dipole is based on quasar counts in a sky hemisphere. My point about quasar distance was that it is known that the quasars are far away, way beyond the local supercluster.

@RedshiftDrift I was not aware of this radio signature in quasars, this is very interesting. However one has also to reconcile why quasars have become highly accurate standard candles to estimate the hubble constant.. In 2015 was made the major discovery that there is a robust anticorellation between the quasar xray and UV flux and that it can be used to reliably estimate distance https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.07118 see below this very recent study (that also mention papers about the interpretation of said relation) https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19953 if quasars were nearby objects, how could they give such coincident constraints on the hubble constant via this xray/uv relation? In the next 1-2 years (via euclid) this method could become superior to supernovas candles to constraint the hubble constant and already is considered accurate note that the 2015 paper seems to mention “excluding radio-loud and BAL sources” so maybe radio loud quasars would be a subpopulation that truly is nearby?

@sahil5d Quasar distances and the quasar dipole are estimated from the redshift of quasars, not the redshift of their associated galaxies (only Arp and Fulton have bothered with ‘quasar-galaxy associations’)

@LifeIsStrange I am not saying that they are nearby objects (I disagree with Arp’s conclusions), all I am saying is that each quasar is unreliable and we don’t know why. Each individual quasar is a poor “standard candle” - the “highly accurate standard candles” from quasars is only a result of the large statistical samples. Over a large number of quasars, a number is obtained with a lower uncertainty that approaches the value of the Hubble constant. But without the science to explain individual anomalies, we are at high risk of having unknown biases.

Quasar distances and the quasar dipole are estimated from the redshift of quasars, not the redshift of their associated galaxies

Whoever is estimating quasar distance from quasar redshift alone has got a methodology issue. That’s separate.

My original point was that the quasars are very far away, and most likely farther than the CMB-emitter, thus making the quasar dipole a better candidate. Also, the quasar dipole is determined from sky hemisphere counts from a sample of > 1 million quasars https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.14826. So I disagree with your argument that the dipole is unreliable.

@LifeIsStrange

The value of the model fitting exercises you cite is dubious. This is especially so since catalog data has often been massaged to fit LCDM assumptions. See this discussion.

Unfortunately I had to change to a new internet provider, which has resulted in the disappearance of the apeiron website from cyberspace, at least until I can figure out a way to salvage it.

Hi Roy, this is somewhat a perilous situation. A bicycle could run you over on Rue St. Denis tomorrow and the Apeiron archive would be lost to posterity! Perhaps there are AGC members who could help you secure the archive. This would be a big loss to science.

Found the papers under that link, thanks @genotics

I only received the cosmology notification of your post above. No attachments or other emails received. Got them both now from the archive, thank you. Unless you sent something else along I’m all good for now.

Hi Roy. Seems github doesn’t like you posting your email address. Either that or someone tampered with the sensor settings of my browser :)

All I see are *****

“email” and “web interface” are not fully compatible. Email attachments don’t show up on the github web interface.

Thank you @genotics The first link had the information I was looking for, where Michelson does not claim that his experiment failed, or that he was ‘unable to detect’, but indeed claims that he disproved the ether hypothesis: I quote from the document:

“the interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous”

This statement is not consistent with a NULL result and is remarkably unscientific. Yet his words set the scene for an upcoming (then and still today) denial of an aether. Add to this Einstein’s Special Relativity in 1905, which does not require a fixed frame (or aether) and the physics world was ready to reject this idea altogether.

In my humble opinion, a great opportunity was lost. Because of the above, aether is taboo, despite electrodynamics and also quantum physics (more fields) not being able to function without an aether. It appears we need only a ‘nothingness’ between emitter and observer. Which I will counter with this: If there is truly “NOTHING” between point A and B, being separate points in space, then either

1. Since there is ‘nothing’, it MUST take 0 time to traverse the nothingness from A to B.
2. If not (1) then the alternative is that ‘nothing’ cannot be traversed (or must take an infinite time to do so)

Since neither of the above yield truth, an aether must exist.

@Francois-Zinserling “It appears we need only a ‘nothingness’ between emitter and observer.”

On the contrary, what is observed to exist between emitters and observers (or point A and point B) in the absence of matter, is omnidirectionally-sourced electromagnetic radiation. That is what we observe. That is all we observe. There are no credible accounts of NOTHING, spacetime, or an aether. They are not observed components of physical reality.

Any models that do not take account of the ubiquitous presence of EMR wind up imaging an unobservable substitute like NOTHING, spacetime or the aether. EMR does not require the existence of those metaphysical substances. EMR is the complimentary state to matter in the Cosmos; it is by observation what is there.

Ultimately, science is the study of the things that are there. Those things that are not present in physical reality are the province of philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc.

@budrap00 I always highly value your opinions and replies.

We have been taught that “waves, like light, radio waves, and X-rays, don’t require a medium to travel”. Yet space exists. And your reply

omnidirectionally-sourced electromagnetic radiation. That is what we observe. That is all we observe.

already contains 4 spacial components essential to our existence. Ignoring for now that radiation has a point of origin:

1. ‘omnidirectional’ requires dimensions. Let’s stick to 3 for now. A cubic meter of space, no matter what we may argue to be “inside”, it must exist as a non-zero object. We may not be able to pick it up and move it somewhere else, but still it exists.
2. electromagnetic contain the 2 pillars electric and magnetic, arguably two sides of the same coin. These are (two of) properties of space. Something that ‘doesn’t exist’ cannot have ‘properties’.
3. radiation, arguably the same thing as (point2), also needs (point1) dimensions to exist, but also needs the 4th dimension of time to become identifiable. But time needs ticking clocks and clocks are at simplest achieved through radiation (frequency), so which came first?

Back to my erlier statement, which holds just as true for electromagnetic radiation in omnidirectional space, and I will add:

• Radiation cannot exist in zero space (that would require infinite energy)
• Let’s arguably say it can, then radiation must cross zero space in zero time, because zero space is ‘nothing’ or
• radiation cannot cross zero space, because there is no bridge.

All of this as you point out could exist in a cubic meter of space. But then if radiation is an excitation of an electromagnetic field, then it means the field must already exist. However dormant or not, it too cannot exist at zero energy. I would argue it cannot even be low in energy, but maybe another time. Is that field then not an aether that already provides at a minimum the dimensions of space and time? Both space and time are contained in the dimensions of the speed of light $m/s$ then my argument could be that space and time exist because of the speed of light, or that the speed of light is giving us a clue as to the nature of empty space.

The ACG Apeiron section contains an interesting paper by Thomas E. Phipps titled On Mathematical Misconceptions Masquerading as Physics. And by “interesting” I mean VERY interesting. It is suggested in the paper that the partial derivatives with respect to time $(\partial / \partial t)$ everywhere in the Maxwell’s equations are wrong. They should be replaced by the so-called total derivatives $(D/Dt)$ , defined by

$$ \frac{D}{Dt} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + u\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + v\frac{\partial}{\partial y} + w\frac{\partial}{\partial z} $$

where $(x,y,z)$ are common spatial coordinates, $t=$ time and $(u,v,w)$ are velocity components. Impressive as it may sound, it’s only the chain rule for differentiation of a function with more than one variable:

$$ \frac{Df}{Dt} = \frac{d f(t,x(t),y(t),z(t))}{dt} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{dy}{dt} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\frac{dz}{dt} $$

where

$$ \frac{dx}{dt} = u \quad ; \quad \frac{dy}{dt} = v \quad ; \quad \frac{dz}{dt} = w $$

With reference to Wikipedia then we have for Maxwell’s equations corrected, with $E=$ electric field, $B=$ magnetic field and $\epsilon_0=$ electric permittivity, $\mu_0=$ magnetic permeability (for vacuum):

$$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E} = 0 $$

$$ \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = - \left[\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{B}\right] $$

$$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{B} = 0 $$

$$ \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{B} = \mu_0\epsilon_0 \left[\frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{E}\right] $$

Most interesting question is, of course: can the electromagnetic wave equation be derived again from the latter? As a shortcut we proceed with the original EM wave equations (where $\mu_0\epsilon_0 = 1/c^2$ and $c=$ speed of light) :

$$ \frac{1}{c^2} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^2 \vec{E} - \nabla^2 \vec{E} = 0 $$

$$ \frac{1}{c^2} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^2 \vec{B} - \nabla^2 \vec{B} = 0 $$

Now simply replace the $(\partial / \partial t)$ operator by the $(D/Dt)$ operator:

$$ \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{D}{D t}\right)^2 \vec{E} - \nabla^2 \vec{E} = 0 $$

$$ \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{D}{D t}\right)^2 \vec{B} - \nabla^2 \vec{B} = 0 $$

Written otherwise:

$$ \frac{1}{c^2}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\right]^2 \vec{E} - \nabla^2 \vec{E} = 0 $$

$$ \frac{1}{c^2}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\right]^2 \vec{B} - \nabla^2 \vec{B} = 0 $$

Allright. This sounds a bit too complicated, isn’t it? So let’s simplify this to one equation with one EM field component $E_x$ , one vecocity component $u$ and one spatial dimension $x$.

$$ \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]^2 - \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]^2\right) E_x = 0 $$

Operator calculus has been employed already throughout this writeup and we shall continue to do so.

$$ \left[\frac{1}{c}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right] \left[\frac{1}{c}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]E_x = 0 $$

Wich is the same as

$$ \frac{1}{c}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+(c+u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right] \frac{1}{c}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-(c-u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]E_x = 0 $$

We seek solutions of this “almost wave” equation. As follows. First define $p = (c+u)t-x$. By rules of partial differentiation then we have

$$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}f(p) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = (c+u)\frac{\partial f}{\partial p} $$

$$ (c+u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}f(p) = (c+u)\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\frac{\partial p}{\partial x} = -(c+u)\frac{\partial f}{\partial p} $$

$$ \Longrightarrow \quad \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+(c+u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]f(p) = 0 $$

Analogously, define $q = (c-u)t+x$. By rules of partial differentiation then we have, again

$$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(q) = \frac{\partial g}{\partial q}\frac{\partial q}{\partial t} = (c-u)\frac{\partial g}{\partial q} $$

$$ (c-u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}g(q) = (c-u)\frac{\partial g}{\partial q}\frac{\partial q}{\partial x} = (c-u)\frac{\partial g}{\partial q} $$

$$ \Longrightarrow \quad \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-(c-u)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right]g(q) = 0 $$

It follows that both $f(p)$ and $g(q)$ are solutions. Therefore the general solution $E_x$ shall be of the form

$$ E_x(x,t) = f(p)+g(q) = f\left[(c+u)t-x\right] + g\left[(c-u)t+x\right] $$

The physical interpretation of this solution is an arbitary wave $f$ travelling to the right with speed $(c+u)$ superimposed eventually with an arbitary wave $g$ travelling to the left with speed $(c-u)$ . With other words: the waves are moving in an “aether” that is itself moving with a velocity $+u$ . It is easy to see that the solution is indeed “invariant” for a Galilei transformation $(x’ = x-ut , t’ = t)$ , because

$$ E_x(x’,t’) = f(ct’-x’) + g(ct’+x’) $$

So in an aether at rest we find back the solutions for the 1-D wave equation “as usual”. No Special Relativity is needed to explain a “constant” lightspeed, which is now dependent on speed of the aether / observer. No Lorentz transformations are involved with the above theory, no length contraction, no relativistic time dilation, according to The Empirical Evidence for the Relativistic Theories of Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein: the 1881 and 1887 Michelson Experiments, Revisited .

Note. The math as displayed above can also be understood with help of a poster of mine at Mathematics Stack Exchange.

Hey @Francois-Zinserling , here is the mathematics of your aether theory ! Or isn’t ?

@Francois-Zinserling Thank you for your thoughtful and cogent reply. Before going any further I want to point out that what we are discussing is an old, perhaps even ancient, question: Is space(time) a substantival or relational property? The first paragraph of this article lays out the distinction clearly.

In that context you hold a substantivalist position while I argue for the relational perspective. The article as a whole is steeped in second order mathematical analysis and beyond that first paragraph is somewhat abstruse (it is essentially philosophical in its approach rather than scientific), although not uninteresting.

Back to your comment, I would say that most of your arguments are circular inasmuch as all of your reasoning proceeds from the assumption that space is a substantival part of nature. For instance you begin with this assertion, Yet space exists. But a simple assertion does not constitute, in itself, a fact. Here again:

These are (two of) properties [electric and magnetic] of space. Something that ‘doesn’t exist’ cannot have ‘properties’.

Electromagnetic radiation is an observed phenomenon - substantival space(time) is not. Circular reasoning arises when the conclusion of an argument is contained in the premises as is the case here. Circular reasoning is a logical error and is not considered a valid form of argumentation.

Ultimately, no one can claim to have empirical evidence that space(time) does not exist, but it can be stated unequivocally that there is no empirical evidence supporting its existence. In that, it is similar to dark matter, dark energy, angels, devils, etc. Substantival space(time) is not a part of the empirically observed phenomenological world; it is a metaphysical concept that lies outside the realm of science.

According to a paper by Thomas E. Phipps we have proved for a plane 1-D EM wave, with $f$ and $g$ arbitrary functions:

$$ E_x(x,t) = f\left[(c+u)t-x\right] + g\left[(c-u)t+x\right] $$

The physical interpretation of this solution is an arbitary wave $f$ travelling to the right with speed $(c+u)$ superimposed eventually with an arbitary wave $g$ travelling to the left with speed $(c-u)$ . With other words: the waves are moving in an “aether” that is itself moving with a velocity $+u$ .

@budrap00 : what do you think of this?

@HanDeBruijn, Electromagnetic waves can be described as two orthogonally oriented, transverse, in-phase waves. Any one transverse wave involves two dimensions, the direction of travel and the direction of oscillation. The only 1D wave form I know of is longitudinal not transverse so I don’t see any physical significance or meaning to the mathematical concept of a 1D EM wave.

Hey @Francois-Zinserling , here is the mathematics of your aether theory ! Or isn’t ?

That’s a pretty good effort, @HanDeBruijn , except my integrals and derivatives are too rusty for me to be your judge. I like your conclusion of ‘an aether moving at +u’ which is indescernable from an aether ‘rest’ frame and an object moving at u.

The physical interpretation of this solution is an arbitary wave f travelling to the right …. superimposed eventually with an arbitary wave g travelling to the left ….

This is exactly ‘my’ aether theory in 1D. :) How would we describe this in 3 dimensions, where every point in space has a wave coming/going from all directions. Do you talk tensor?

A comment (or correction?) that the divergence of E is only zero if there are no charges within the Gaussian sphere. It’s not Maxwell though but maybe I’m just pedantic, and I think you’re using it toward the EM wave equation so it still makes sense.

From your wave equation: $1/c^2*(D/Dt)^2E=∇^2E$

it can be reasoned that, (because left = right) a 2nd order evolution over time (t) equals a 2nd order evolution in spacial dimension (∇ operator). And the time evolution is governed by the properties of space ($μ_0 , ϵ_0$)

@budrap00. >Electromagnetic waves can be described as two orthogonally oriented, transverse, in-phase waves. Any one transverse wave involves two dimensions, the direction of travel and the direction of oscillation. The only 1D wave form I know of is longitudinal not transverse so I don’t see any physical significance or meaning to the mathematical concept of a 1D EM wave.

Good point! Consider instead a (one-dimensional) light ray propagating (back- or) forward in the z-direction with the electric field oscillating in the x-direction and the magnetic field oscillating in the y-direction. Mathematically:

$$ \begin{cases} E_x(x,t) = f_E\left[(c+w)t-z\right] + g_E\left[(c-w)t+z\right] \ B_y(x,t) = f_B\left[(c+w)t-z\right] + g_B\left[(c-w)t+z\right] \end{cases} $$

The physical interpretation of this solution is an arbitary wave $f$ travelling upward with speed $(c+w)$ superimposed eventually with an arbitary wave $g$ travelling downward with speed $(c-w)$ . With other words: the waves are moving in an “aether” that is itself moving with a velocity $+w$ .

Better this way ?

@Francois-Zinserling . >How would we describe this in 3 dimensions, where every point in space has a wave coming/going from all directions.

I’ve been switching to the one-dimensional case, of course, because full 3-D seemed too difficult at first sight. Meanwhile I’ve found a few notes about a (quantum mechanical) treatment of the wave equation in three dimensions. So I’m working on it. But anything free comes without guarantee :-)

@HanDeBruijn I had a quick look at your derivation and can’t find anything obviously wrong in the mathematics.

It has to be extended in 3-D, which is what you are working on. My guess is that when you do that, the terms in $c+u$ and $c-u$ will multiply somewhere and you will find terms in

$$ (c+u)(c-u) = c^2 - u^2 = c^2 \left( 1- \frac{u^2}{c^2} \right), $$

which is the Lorentz transformation you were trying to avoid in the first place! If you have Jackson’s book “Classical Electrodynamics”, you may want to read Chapter 11 where all this is already derived.

@HanDeBruijn >Consider instead a (one-dimensional) light ray propagating (back- or) forward in the z-direction with the electric field oscillating in the x-direction and the magnetic field oscillating in the y-direction.

That seems self-contradictory. If the light ray is to be considered one-dimensional then it can’t be described as oscillating in two orthogonal directions as that invokes multiple dimensions. I understand that what you are doing mathematically is simply reducing the math to a one-dimensional analysis, but I can’t see the justification for attaching a physical meaning to that analysis since the physical system under consideration is actually 4D (two orthogonally oriented 2D planes.

If @RedshiftDrift is correct in his analysis though the velocity term you attribute to an aether could be more simply described as the relative velocity between the source of the light ray and an observer.

${ E_x ( x , t ) = f_E [ ( c + w ) t − z ] + g_E [ ( c − w ) t + z ] }$ $B_y ( x , t ) = f_B [ ( c + w ) t − z ] + g_B [ ( c − w ) t + z ]$

The physical interpretation of this solution is an arbitary wave f travelling upward with speed ( c + w ) superimposed eventually with an arbitary wave g travelling downward with speed ( c − w ) . With other words: the waves are moving in an “aether” that is itself moving with a velocity + w .

I’m writing some ramblings below here to stimulate further thought (even if only my own). The above may apply to a ‘static’ aether moving at velocity w. Static aethers are troublesome.

@HanDeBruijn for a ‘dynamic’ aether, an electromagnetic wave would always travel at c, which is also the local speed of the aether’. An electromagnetic wave would not choose its own speed, but attains the speed (c) that the local environment allows. Let’s call the dynamic aether a ‘field’ as we know from electrodynamics. One field to rule them all. Here c is varied by e.g gravitational wells or e.g. inside glass. For me the ‘w’ in your equation then cannot be for an EM wave, but for an object of mass, which can never attain ‘w=c’. For an EM wave ‘w’ would always be =0, which gives back our basic (known) EM wave equation.

Which then, if we’re assuming the aether to be an omnidirectional wave, makes the equations for an object hypothetically at rest relative to the aether (still only in z), and I’ll only do E for now, with B assumed co-travelling and orthogonal (+/-) depending on polarisation: ${ E_x ( x , t ) = f_E [ kz − ct ] + g_E [ kz + ct ] }$ Which appears to be a net standing wave? Does this work? Feels like I’m missing something.

Then if we affix the ‘w’ speed to only an object of mass, and keep ‘c’ to describe the speed of the aether, then we are back with your equations but here it is not the object ‘w’ going back and forth, but the aether is going in both directions, and ‘w’ is only relative. A function would apply to an ‘object’ that is moving relative to the background aether at a velocity w in the +z-direction.

${ E_x ( x , t ) = f_E [ kz − ( c − w )t ] + g_E [ kz + ( c + w )t ] }$ ${ = f_E [ kz − ct + wt ] + g_E [ kz + ct + wt ] }$ Which now appears to be the whole standing wave is moving at speed w relative to the background aether? Does this make sense to write it like this?

Reply by @RedshiftDrift to (you = me): >which is the Lorentz transformation you were trying to avoid in the first place!

I don’t think so. A thin bundle of laser light is described approximately by the 1-D model as presented. I do not expect that generalizing this to three dimensions will change the whole scene.

f you have Jackson’s book “Classical Electrodynamics”, you may want to read Chapter 11 where all this is already derived.

A book about “Classical Electrodynamics” with the term $(\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla})$ in it? I don’t believe it! Maybe you are right, but I’m not going to buy a whole book every time again for the sole purpose of checking out a handful of formulas I am interested in.

@budrap00 writes: >That seems self-contradictory. [ .. ] that invokes multiple dimensions.

Nope. Only three dimensions are involved. Plus time of course. Take a look at the picture below, as copied from Wikipedia. The wave itself is propagating into the y-direction, the electric field is oscillating into the z-direction and the magnetic field is oscillating into the x-direction. It’s a perfect 3-D happening. Only the coordinates have been orientated differently: take $(x,y,z)\to (y,z,x)$.

$$ \begin{cases} E_z(y,t) = f_E\left[(c+v)t-y\right] + g_E\left[(c-v)t+y\right] \ B_x(y,t) = f_B\left[(c+v)t-y\right] + g_B\left[(c-v)t+y\right] \end{cases} $$

the velocity term you attribute to an aether could be more simply described as the relative velocity between the source of the light ray and an observer.

There is no difference in the mathematics. So that’s fine with me. :-)

@HanDeBruijn

I do not expect that generalizing this to three dimensions will change the whole scene.

The calculation has been done before by many people and it will change the whole scene when generalized to 3-D. I’ve known the work of Phipps for 40 years and I’ve read his book “Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description” (I would send you my copy but I did not keep it - it’s full of mistakes, as are his papers).

Don’t buy a new book on special relativity if you don’t have any. The derivation is only a few pages long, you can do it. It’s a good exercise that will convince yourself without having to rely on someone else’s work.

Remember, your 3-D results have to describe the experimentally confirmed ‘apparently constant speed-of-light’. This must work for any two observers measuring the same light beam propagating in any arbitrary direction $\vec k$. One observer is “at rest” by definition, the other is moving at a speed in any arbitrary direction $\vec u$ with respect to the observer “at rest”.

@HanDeBruijn >Nope. Only three dimensions are involved. Plus time of course.

No matter how you slice it, 4D (EMR frame) or 3D+t (matter frame), a light ray is not one dimensional, so treating it mathematically as 1D cannot produce a meaningful physical insight or interpretation. This is the problem with couching physical analysis in a framework that has been constrained for the sake of mathematical convenience. Here is a related problem with respect to the existence or non-existence of an aether:

There is no difference in the mathematics.

So the math cannot distinguish whether a term it employs represents a relational velocity between two observables or the presence of an unobserved aether. To me that means the math does not provide an adequate description of the physics it is supposedly modeling. The math is either incomplete, inaccurate or both.

@Francois-Zinserling . You write about

$$ E_x(z,t) = f_E\left[kz-ct\right] + g_E\left[kz-ct\right] $$

Two remarks:

• I think that including a factor $k$ in this way is not correct. Did you mean $\left[kx\pm\omega t\right]$ ?
• My solution is a general one, including standing waves too, but not exclusively (e.g. take $f$ or $g$ = zero).

@RedshiftDrift . >the work of Phipps [ .. ] it’s full of mistakes, as are his papers [ .. ]

Affirmative. I’ve noticed the same.

the experimentally confirmed ‘apparently constant speed-of-light’

Isn’t that a Special Relativity bias? I just thought there was evidence of the contrary here.

@HanDeBruijn I’ll let Einstein handle this:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

— Albert Einstein, Relativity The Special and General Theories, 15th Edition

That light slows down in a gravitational field is an observed fact (the Shapiro delay). It is also a fact that the speed of light has never been measured to within a meter here on Earth. The so-called Einstein Equivalence Principle (which Einstein had no part in), on which the claim that the speed of light is a “universal constant” is based, has no empirical or theoretical justification. It is commonly attributed to Robert H. Dicke, but it amounts to little more than a conjecture of mathematical convenience. Like expanding, curving spacetime it is not a part of Einstein’s Relativity Theory although it is now taught as such.

@HanDeBruijn

I just thought there was evidence of the contrary here.

Really Han, that’s all you can find: an inaccurate experiment that is 150 years old?

Modern experiments detect zero relative variation of the two-way speed-of-light, with uncertainties inferior to a few parts per billion per billion. This ‘Michelson–Morley style’ experiment “Direct terrestrial test of Lorentz symmetry in electrodynamics to $10^{−18}$” by Michael Tobar’s group at UWA uses optical resonators in liquid helium mounted on a turntable. No change of the speed of light is seen as a function of the orientation of the resonators.

You should be able to upload files with your existing github account. I created a new folder “apeiron”. Click https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg/tree/main/apeiron and click “add files/upload files” (top-right corner).

Once it’s uploaded click on “create pull request”. I’ll approve it. (Some instructions are given here.)

Then I’ll figure out how to add links that point to your files…

@genotics Roy, do you still own redshift.vif.com?

Hi Roy, I had forgotten that I must give ‘push access’ to your account for you to upload files. That’s done now! Try again, it should work! (It’s not bigger than 1 GB I hope?) If that doesn’t work, you can send your files to me via e.g. Google drive and I’ll upload the website to github.

Once the files are uploaded, I’ll make the Apeiron website part of the ACG website and linked from the main menu.

I snooped a bit, vif.com is owned by someone in Montréal but no more info is available. So “redshift.vif.com” is gone, but “redshiftvif.com” or even better “redshiftvif.ca” are available if anybody is interested.

@RedshiftDrift I managed to do a download from the archive to a local host. Not too many pages so it still seems reasonable intact. At least all the pdf files are there. If you give me access I’ll try upload and rebuild in the link you provided above.

Thanks @Francois-Zinserling , @genotics Roy had a backup he sent me which seems to have every file. In any case can you send me the files you got via Googledrive? I could compare with what I have and check if anything is missing.

The Apeiron website is now on https://cosmology.info/ (left column) Roy is taking care of fixing the broken links.

@genotics @Francois-Zinserling I already have most (if not all) *.pdf files from the Apeiron website. I renamed them with lowercase letters and they are being uploaded to the Apeiron website.

@genotics yes, the broken links in the file “journal_archives.html” have to be fixed so they work on github. For your information @Francois-Zinserling, every link in the .html file with capital letters are to be converted to lowercase letters, for example

https://cosmology.info/apeiron/pdf/v17no2/v17N2ZAB.pdf

becomes

https://cosmology.info/apeiron/pdf/v17no2/v17n2zab.pdf

There are about 500 links to be changed.

I haven’t found a way to do this automatically yet, but Roy offered to do this using AI. Perhaps @Francois-Zinserling has a script that could do that automatically?

Your script seems to work, however it used the old http://redshift.vif.com/journalfiles/ root instead of https://cosmology.info/apeiron/pdf/

I sent @genotics Roy a seperate email.

@genotics @Francois-Zinserling It works, the Apeiron archive is on cosmology.info!

About 30% of the .pdf files are now uploaded (I’m just making sure github is not complaining) and I will have to fix a few broken links (my fault, I changed the directory structure), but most of it should be fully accessible by tomorrow…

@genotics Roy do you also want the files “further-reading.html”, “vigier-note-jeffers.html” and “vigier-tribute-pecker.html” to be linked?

A nice read, but so many contradictions

Space-time is the totality of all events that ever happen. and Space-time is the map

but then

Space-time does not exist; Events do not exist, they happen.

I would argue like this: For something to happen, something must exist first, so that ‘an existence can happen’, which becomes a conundrum for the writer. Think of t like this - during a quantum fluctuation, do the particles ‘exist’ or do they ‘happen’, or does their ‘existence happen’?

also

There are infinitely many points in the three dimensions of space ..

but if space ticks the clocks (to make up a combined space-time) then space must be discrete. For it to be discrete, it must exist. Not just as a map of dimensions, but with physical properties.

Bottom line: Aether Exists.

@Francois-Zinserling This looks like a short version of a longer paper where, hopefully, the terms are defined more carefully…

@RedshiftDrift aether never left the building :)

Can you elaborate on what those experimental properties are/were? My model is not particularly close to predicting the substrate but I often encounter aether models built on the properties of stress or strain or even shear of a solid. I’d like to know what invalidates those.

@Francois-Zinserling I don’t remember the details. It had to do with the property that every crystal has a natural resonance. But no resonance is experimentally observed for ‘vacuum’ or ‘empty space’ (for the reason that ‘nothing’ does not have physical properties). If that was the case, then there would be a dispersion relation for waves propagating in that crystal. I consider that a fail.

Here are a few relevant questions I asked her five years ago from my old emails (with a short explanation). Hope this helps.

A question I have is, if quaternions can be used to describe waves in a solid, are they related to the ‘deformation tensor’ used by engineers to describe a solid? The deformation tensor has 6 scalars, while quaternions have 4, so perhaps the deformation tensor is reduced due to other constraints? - @RedshiftDrift

(My concern here was that the number of independent variables in her model doesn’t match the number of variables required to describe deformations of a solid.)

Perhaps I am missing the point, but it seems to me that quaternions are just another way to describe the same physics. It’s interesting to see that quaternions may provide a more natural description of light and matter and spin. But how is the quaternion model better at explaining quantum collapse? Perhaps the really important question is: If photons and phonons are similar, can a quantum computer be built with entangled phonons? - @RedshiftDrift

(Some quantum mechanics is implied by her model, but it is incomplete.)

In terms of cosmology and tired-light, you are trying to use the properties of aether to derive the redshift of light. But there are problems with this hypothesis: generation of light at different frequencies (in this case a small redshift as light propagates) requires the ‘medium’ to have certain properties. One property that follows from the Kramers-Kronig relations is that the medium must be dispersive. What these relations say is that if there is an energy loss in the medium, the medium must be dispersive. When you write “light moves through any (non-dispersive, transparent) medium, some of the energy of the photon is passed onto the medium” you contradict the Kramers-Kronig relations. These relations follow from causality and signal analysis, so one must give up causality for your explanation to be correct. I am not ready to give up causality yet! ;-) […] I don’t have much hope for a possible tired-light effect in aether or other hypothetical media that could support light instead of the vacuum. Aether is non-dispersive: observations of gamma-rays have not been able to detect any dispersion. For example, gamma ray bursts have an extremely small dispersion even after propagating for billions of years (GRB090510 at a distance of 7.4 Gly had a duration of 0.5 s! ) - @RedshiftDrift

(Chantal suggests that the cosmological redshift appears from her quaternion description of space, but her model doesn’t have any way for waves to lose energy and produce dispersion. This is an inconsistency of her model.)

Now the big question: What is quantum collapse? Your explanation, a sudden change of our knowledge, reminds me of Bohr’s argument. But it doesn’t explain anything to me. The collapsing wavefunction does not follow the Schrödinger equation, instead it’s a magic trick that is instantaneous and transforms the wavefunction into one of the eigenstates of what we are measuring. This is one of the most disappointing models of physics! You explain that the collapse is as fast as our knowledge can change, but it is a “dynamical change over a longer time”, which I guess is a first step in answering the question. But then how is this change effectuated during the measurement? Which evolution equation does the wave follow as a function of time during measurement? - @RedshiftDrift

(More problems with quantum mechanics. Neither the “Copenhagen interpretation” nor the “Chantal Roth” interpretation of quantum mechanics explain ‘quantum collapse’. But the Schrödinger equation is much simpler than her quaternions, so there is no motivation to switch.)