Does the speed of light affect the aberration of starlight?

[Phobos]

Related topic by DW...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15225

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by David
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, much less one electron being in two places at the same time. And I suspect you haven’t either...

Good to know that Einstein's Relativity isn't the only modern theory you have a problem with. Careful though: if you flush QM down the toilet your cd player and computer might explode.

Regarding the various papers, I'm sure you've heard this before too: context, context, context. You're taking quotes out of context. Particularly, your last quote clearly is not meant to discard Relativity (and probably, that's still just SR) altogether, but rather to simplify a hypothetical situation as so not to confuse separate effects. For example, if you do an atomic-clocks-on-towers experiment, the rotation of the Earth has an SR impact that must be accounted for to flush out the GR effects. So, to use Einstein's own words applied to this situation: ”To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the theory of [special] relativity" and mount our atomic clock on a tower located at the north pole.

Context is everything in quotes.

 

[turin]

Originally posted by David
Didn’t Einstein adopt the “photon particle” nature of light, rather than the “wave” nature?

No.

EDIT:
To elaborate on my dispute, Einstein didn't adopt the photon particle nature of light, RATHER than the wave nature of light. He realized that there is a dualism, so that light acts both like a particle AND a wave. The photoelectric effect shows a manifestation of the particle nature, but the wave nature is not ignored.

Originally posted by David
Isn’t that what his photoelectric effect was all about?

No.

EDIT:
The photoelectric effect wasn't just about Einstein's preference. It is Einstein who receives credit for our present interpretation of the phenomenon, but the phenomenon is about photons freeing electrons.

Originally posted by David
Why is it that when Newton says it's "particles", that's "out of date", but when Einstein says it's "particles", that's considered "brilliant"?

Because, for one thing, Newton said "corpuscles." But, more importantly, Newton meant classical particles, while Einstein meant quanta (of energy). Totally different pictures.

Originally posted by David
The “constancy” postulate was just a guess that turned out to be wrong, as he admitted in his 1911 paper.

You must be joking.

Originally posted by David
He was able to guess at the constancy postulate in 1905, because back then astronomers didn’t realize that stars ... were moving around in space at relatives speeds of thousands of miles a second.

What does the fact that the stars are moving have to do with the validity of an inertial frame?

Originally posted by David
The SR theory doesn’t explain this phenomena at all.

Why should it? (I'm assuming that you are referring to his preliminary scalar field theory for the speed of light to include gravity, which he had rejected by 1915 to adopt the full-on geometrical picture.)

Originally posted by David
Anyway, he altered the “constancy” postulate in his 1911 paper and he tied the local speed of light to an astronomical body’s local gravity field.

This is basically correct, but I have the slight suspicion that you have no idea how to appreciate the mechanism or consequence of this alteration.

Originally posted by David
A logical alternative explanation of the M&M results was that their apparatus was resting inside the earth’s own local ether (the earth’s local light-speed regulating medium) and not moving through it at all.

I suppose I can't refute this.

Originally posted by David
The “space is expanding” story is silly. Space is three-dimensional physical emptiness. Nothing.

Then what causes distance? Space at least has geometry, which is what gravity manipulates in order to affect stress-energy.

Originally posted by David
The galaxies that are moving, are moving through space.

Wait a second! I thought that you just said space was "nothing." How can anything move through nothing? That doesn't make sense. How do you define such motion?

Originally posted by David
The only thing that is “expanding” in space is their gravity fields that are, sort of, in effect, “stretching” and becoming weaker in the space in-between the galaxies.

Expanding gravity fields? Do you even know what these terms mean?




EDIT:
assuaged road-rage

Originally posted by David
It doesn’t matter if you are being “carried along” or if you are running yourself. You are MOVING away from me, and that’s what the galaxies are doing.

OK, but there isn't any "being carried along" going on in expansion. That's the point. Why don't you try to understand what expansion is before you say it is wrong? The distance relationships between the points are expanding.

Originally posted by David
There are no scientific papers on “expanding space”. There is no physical reason for “space to expand”. There is no such thing as “expanding space”.

Because you haven't been privelaged with the info.

Originally posted by David
There are no reports on where this “new space” comes from to augment “pre-existing space”, and there are no reports on how pre-existing space can physically “expand”. So, there is no such thing as “expanding space”.

But again, if space is "nothing," then why is there an accounting problem. If I don't buy stock, then I don't go broke if it drops a million points.

Originally posted by David
If you drive from Chicago to New York, you can’t say the “space” between you and Chicago is “expanding”. That’s nonsense. You are MOVING THROUGH SPACE as you drive, and the DISTANCE between you and Chicago is expanding, but not the “space”.

Not noticeably. So, are you basing your views of the phenomena of distant galaxies over millions of years on your little drive from Chicago to New York? Interesting. Isn't that the same flaw in interpretting the null result of the M&M as a support of SR?




EDIT:
to remove unresponded quote

Originally posted by David
If we have a light beam in our galaxy emitted by the sun, in the direction out toward the edge of our galaxy, ...
...
... that beam will be slowly moving sideways, revolving with the sun around the center of our galaxy.

The light beam will follow a geodesic. The effect of the sun on that geodesic will diminish long before it reaches the edge of the galaxy. Probably, it will follow somewhat of a spiral on its way out, but it will not revolve with the sun.

Originally posted by David
Their term “comoving space” is very misleading. But, they do not want to use the term “ether” or “local ether”, not yet.

So you've consulted them on this issue. It's good that they can turn to you for such advice.

Originally posted by David
Actually, there is a trick to that, that results from a peculiarity of nature. Seems that local atomic clocks slow down in a gravity field just as the local speed of light slows down in a gravity field.

So, what you want to do is redefine time and speed so that GR is incorrect if you replace its definitions with yours?

Originally posted by David
If space goes from here to infinity in all directions, ...

Space "goes?" What is that supposed to mean? Does it drive or walk?

Originally posted by David
... it can’t expand any more than it already is.

Take at least one math course. Infinity + 1 = ?.

Originally posted by David
Einstein didn’t create the universe. His postulate might be wrong on an astronomical scale.

True.

Originally posted by David
Anyway, he didn’t invent the “c” speed limit, Lorentz did.

Einstein used it appropriately; Lorentz did not.

Originally posted by David
You need to loosen up a little and allow your mind to think freely.

You need to tighten up a little and learn how to think logically.

Originally posted by David
”There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”

See? He realized in 1911 that just the 1905 local “reference frame” idea didn’t work.

Yes, because space-time isn't Minkowskian in a universe containing stress-energy. But, c is still c. The issue is that, in GR, coordinate systems usually only make good sense in a small region surounding a point about which they are defined.

Originally posted by David
Well, both Newton and Einstein "observed" all the stars as being "fixed", but they turned out to not be "fixed" at all.

Um, no. Einstien was a big fan of Mach, but he wasn't so deluded to think that the stars didn't move. Whince did you dig up that nonsense?

Originally posted by David
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, ...
...
... we can only try to guess what is happening to electrons by some very indirect detection methods.

Do blind people make less legitimate physicists?

EDIT:
to remove any indication that I, or any blind person, may have been greatly offended by the intrinsic unnecessarily discriminatory exclusion.

Originally posted by David
... if you just happen to turn up two separate photographs of the very same electron, showing the very same serial number, ...

A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.

 

[David]

Originally posted by turin

A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.

My statement about the electron serial number was intended to be a joke.

 

[Phobos]

turin - Your otherwise good post had 2 no-no's...the running over with the car comment and the 'arrogant bigot' comment. That kind of flaming is against PF rules.

 

[turin]

Originally posted by Phobos
turin - Your otherwise good post had 2 no-no's...the running over with the car comment and the 'arrogant bigot' comment. That kind of flaming is against PF rules.

Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.

BTW, what was wrong with answering David's questions in one word (as rhetorical as they may have been to David)? Is there a rule on PF that I must answer with a certain minimum of text?

Originally posted by David
My statement about the electron serial number was intended to be a joke.

I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking. Are you aware of any consequences of indistiguishability besides not being able to read serial numbers?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by turin
I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking.

I've been having similar problems with him. Its pretty hard to tell.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by turin
Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.

Thanks, turin. I know this is a frustrating debate. Just want to keep it civil.

BTW, what was wrong with answering David's questions in one word (as rhetorical as they may have been to David)? Is there a rule on PF that I must answer with a certain minimum of text?

I didn't say there was a problem with that. I think those responses were appropriate in this case.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Phobos
I know this is a frustrating debate.

I think all debates are somewhat frustrating, aren’t they?

A friend of mine, a photographer, went on a photography board one time, and he saw a bunch of guys in a heated debate about focal lengths of lenses. They were calling each other nasty names and stuff. He said he got off the board and never went on another one. He refuses to go on message boards.

But, I’ve found that if we go on a board in which everyone thinks exactly alike, that is extremely boring. We have to agree with everyone. We can’t say anything different. If we make any suggestion that is not “approved” by the moderators, we either get chewed out, attacked viciously, or banned. That’s no fun! One time I got chewed out and humiliated by a board owner, because I said something about the water in a sink drain turning a certain way in the Northern Hemisphere. Well, that’s what my science teacher had said in the 9th grade and I never conducted any real scientific examination of the situation regarding drains. That was just some very minor urban legend I had picked up years ago. It amounted to nothing at all. All the guy had to say to me was, “Opps, that’s actually incorrect, because sink drains are too small to be affected by the Coriolis Effect,” or something like that. But, the board owner got all upset like I had committed the Crime of the Century. I thought he was going to try to have me arrested or shot or put in a concentration camp. I couldn’t believe his over-reaction.

I’ve noticed that if we go into a university student union building, and listen around at the different tables, we see the same kind of debates going on. Universities and coffee houses in Europe used to be the places where people went to debate stuff. Now it’s the internet. But I don't think there is any reason to get upset about it.

 

[Peterdevis]

David,

I agree that debating is booring when everybody agrees.
But debating is not to proove your right, it is to learn something.
When you don't agree with a theory you can argue that

"its silly"
"Lorentz said it before"
Quoting papers you don't understand

are no good arguments.

When i says that your clock theorie violates EEP (even WEP), you don't argue I' m wrong. You keep argueing on atomic clocks used by maxwell etc..

Debates whithout good arguments are frustrating for both sides, because nobodys learning anything.

So I'm waiting for your good arguments

 

[Nereid]

stalking? hardly!

David (about Russ): When I talk to someone on the board, and when I express my opinion, you follow me around and try to assure them that I am always wrong. You stalk me. You are obsessed with me. I don’t know what’s the matter with you.

This comment went by without a response, and I feel it shouldn't have.

First, russ is https://www.physicsforums.com/memberlist.php?s=&what=topposters&perpage=15 , so it's not really surprising to see his posts on a great many threads.

Next, IMHO, he does a particularly good job of helping to keep physics (and other science) discussions tied to what we call 'science' or the 'scientific method'. I say, let's have more Russes!

Third, based on my own disagreements with him, it seems he will readily accept good data and consistent logic which contradicts his own assertions, and graciously admit his case is either weak or flawed.

Finally, even if you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded (and she or he doesn't keep repeating things no longer in contention), it behoves you to respond - with good data or logic of your own - to his or her criticisms. Indeed, we should all welcome such critics, they can only make our own proposals better.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Peterdevis

When i says that your clock theorie violates EEP (even WEP), you don't argue I' m wrong. You keep argueing on atomic clocks used by maxwell etc..

When you say that my clock theory violates EEP and WEP, where is your argument? All you are saying is that my theory violates EEP and WEP but without explaining why. I’ve explained my point of view several times. An atomic clock rate depends on how fast the atoms are oscillating internally and that determines the frequency of light they emit, while a thermodynamic clock rate depends on how fast a group of molecules are bouncing around. So tell me exactly how that violates EEP and WEP.

In my statement, I’ve not said anything against any known law of physics. We all know very well that internal atomic oscillation rates slow down at massive stars, and this causes what we call a “gravitational redshift” in the light emitted by the stars. And we all know that molecular vibration rates speed up at the same places and this is caused by the heat energy causing the molecules and atoms to bounce around more rapidly. So what have I said that is so objectionable?

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nereid

Finally, even if you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded...

Russ’s points about the atomic clocks were not well founded. He said atomic clocks were not invented until 1952. He said they didn’t exist before that. He said that Maxwell and Einstein couldn’t have been thinking about “atomic clocks” since they were not invented to 1952.

This was absolutely wrong. In fact, the “manufactured atomic clocks” were invented in 1952 because of the work by people like Maxwell and Einstein and their studies of and theories about oscillating atoms and the light frequencies they emit. This is a main feature of Einstein’s 1911 gravitational redshift theory. He was talking about natural and fundamental “atomic clocks” as found in nature.

I told Russ that Maxwell and others in the 19th Century knew that oscillating atoms were “atomic clocks”, but he denied it and implied that I was some kind of crackpot for saying such a thing. The truth is, he just didn’t know that fact of science, and he had apparently never heard of it before.

This is how the whole concept of “atomic clocks” got started, because of the “natural atomic clock” theories of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, and this is the very basis of the modern invention of atomic clocks that are specifically manufactured as self-contained units that have a clock-face digital read-out. They are manufactured in that manner so that scientists will not have to heat groups of atoms until they glow, and then study them with a spectroscope, and then try to calculate their frequencies in the old 19th Century way.

Fundamental “atomic clocks” are and always have been naturally oscillating atoms. Russ didn’t seem to know that, and he even denied it, so I explained it to him. I had to go to one of my old books and explain it to him with a quote from the book that said what I had already said. So what is wrong about what I have done?

One great problem that I see on the internet all the time is that a lot of young people today have no idea of the history of modern science. Russ and everyone else who takes a university physics course should be told what I have just told about natural “atomic clocks” being the basis for modern manufactured atomic clocks, and they should be told what gave scientists the idea to invent modern atomic clocks in the first place. I had to find that information in old books, since I can’t find it in modern books. I should be thanked for the information, not ridiculed for it.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nereid

it behoves you to respond - with good data or logic of your own - to his or her criticisms.

Here are Maxwell’s 1873 statements about natural atomic clocks:

”In the present state of science the most universal standard of length which we could assume would be the wave length in vacuum of a particular kind of light, emitted by some widely diffused substance such as sodium, which has well-defined lines in its spectrum.”

And:

”In astronomy a year is sometimes used as a unit of time. A more universal unit of time might be found by taking the periodic time of vibration of the particular kind of light whose wave length is the unit of length.”

In 1923 Steinmetz explained it simply:

”We cannot carry a clock from the Earth to Betelgeuse, but we do not need to do this, since every incandescent hydrogen atom, for instance, is an accurate clock, vibrating at rate definitely fixed by the electrical constants of the hydrogen atom and showing us the exact rate of its vibration in the spectroscope by the wave length or frequency of its spectrum lines. Thus in a strong gravitational field the frequency of luminous vibrations of the atoms should be found slowed down’ in other words, the spectrum lines should be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.”

And this is the knowledge that Einstein had in 1911 when he wrote about “the vibration-number of an elementary light-generator.” And I should not have been ridiculed by Russ for talking about Einstein and Maxwell using natural atoms as “clocks”. He obviously didn’t know the information, while I did, he should apologize for being rude to me about what I said earlier about Maxwell and Einstein using “atomic clocks” in their theories.

 

[Peterdevis]

Dear David,

When you say that my clock theory violates EEP and WEP, where is your argument? All you are saying is that my theory violates EEP and WEP but without explaining why

You have a good point, when I attack your theory I must proof where he is wrong.

So when I’ve got it right, in your theory there are different sorts of time:

1) atomic time (internal oscillation rate of an atom)
2) mechanical time (pendulum clock)
3) thermodynamical time (external vibration rate of atoms/molecules)
4) maybe others

First I’m going to point out that if it are really different times there is a violation of the equivalence principle and second that your notion of time is (in my eyes) no good definition.

So, let’s say we have three clocks:

1)An atomic clock (better photon clock) who is slowing down in a stronger gravitational field (or acceleration) and who speeds up when she’s traveling faster.

2)An pendulum who’s speeding up in a stronger gravitational field (or acceleration) but stays the same when she’s traveling faster.

3) thermodynamic clock (only depends from temperature)

When you are in a closed box with the three clocks and the atomic clock is slowing down according the TC (thermodynamic clock) and the pendulum is speeding up according to TC here is no problem, you can’t detect your in a gravitational field or in acceleration.
But when the atomic clock is slowing down (according to TC) and the pendulum stays at the same rate as the TC, there is a violation of EP : Because the only conclusion is that you are moving.

Second, you are confusion measurements devices (clocks) with the physical parameter you want to measure.
What you really measure with the clocks are CHANGES. And there exist a bijective function between the clocks who defines the relation between these clocks, If such a function doesn’t exist you always violate EP.


It is obvious that al measurement devices depends on physical laws, but that doesn’t mean that they defining other physical parameters. (p.e there are hunderds of sorts of meters to measure length, but there are not hunderd sorts of lenghts).

In SR and GR time dilatation depends not on the clock you used ,but is affecting the parameter time (are must a say CHANGE) itself.

I’m looking forward to your reply. Can you first reply my first statement and then the others. So we can keep this discussion structured?

 

[Phobos]

But, I’ve found that if we go on a board in which everyone thinks exactly alike, that is extremely boring. We have to agree with everyone. We can’t say anything different. If we make any suggestion that is not “approved” by the moderators, we either get chewed out, attacked viciously, or banned. That’s no fun!

I agree that a diversity of views/opinions/etc. makes for a good discussion. I'm just asking for a civil debate/discussion.

All the guy had to say to me was, “Opps, that’s actually incorrect, because sink drains are too small to be affected by the Coriolis Effect,” or something like that. ...I couldn’t believe his over-reaction. ... But I don't think there is any reason to get upset about it.

That is pretty much all I've been saying and yet you have taken great offense and have insinuated that I (or PF) is some kind of dictator. That is out of line. From where I'm sitting, it seems like you are the one who is getting all worked up.

Discuss/defend your ideas. Don't insult other members.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
First, russ is https://www.physicsforums.com/memberlist.php?s=&what=topposters&perpage=15 ...

Damn, I need a new hobby.

He said that Maxwell and Einstein couldn’t have been thinking about “atomic clocks” since they were not invented to 1952.

I said nothing of the sort, David.

I told Russ that Maxwell and others in the 19th Century knew that oscillating atoms were “atomic clocks”, but he denied it and implied that I was some kind of crackpot for saying such a thing.

Also a misrepresentation of the truth.

I should be thanked for the information, not ridiculed for it.

And most importantly, I have not ridiculed you. If anything, you've belittled me. No worries - I have pretty thick skin.

David, the reason I'm harping on the clock thing, is it is a major, major inconsistency in what you are arguing. In fact, if you want to argue that the words "atomic clock" don't necessarily need to be applied to a box with an lcd display, but a "natural clock," I'm all for it. You still need to show a good reason why this entire class of clocks can be treated with the same set of equations while your examples of mechanical clocks cannot. You cite friction, for example, which is different for every individual mechanical clock.

You also need to explain how these equations can accurately predict timing of other events like particle decay rate changes with speed.