[General] SR

[John Williamson]

Dear Grahame,

I'm intrigued. Whyever do you think the idea that all inertial frames are equivalent is holding up progress? Comments in red below
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR
Dear Viv,

I'll try just once again:

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured' again!).

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i) there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial reference frames are objectively equivalent;

Agreed, but this is certainly NOT generally accepted. There is merely a statement that IF one takes this as a premise, THEN certain things follow (a good many of which happen to coincide with observed reality). There is, as far as I know, no proof of premise in ANY theory. By definition any logical construct rests on its axioms. One can find a deeper theory which contains another, but it then rests once again on its own axioms, but subsumes the other. There are, as I have said before, a whole basket load of theories which lead to SR, including some that predate Einstein relativity. So what?

There is a good argument anyway to say that there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame (isn't this what you have argued effectively in your redshift argument in the past Viv?).

(ii) there is no evidence to support this assertion (which is not the same as the truism that measured speed of light in all frames is invariant);

On the contrary there is evidence that the assertion is false - in detail. One can easily load a spaceship with instrumentation that can readily distinguish between different inertial frames. This is not a big item for discussion.

(iii) there is no causation offered to support that notion.

Look, any theory rests on a set of axioms for which there is no “cause”. As I said in the previous note Maxwell contains implicitly, space, time, multiplication, division, differentiation, charge, and fields, none of which are given a “cause”. The axioms are merely assumed. This is the way theories work. You make some shit up and then see in how far your shit agrees with observed reality. Ok, I agree that there is a sociological problem, in that in any era there is a general consensus as to what axioms are “true”. If that is what you have been arguing must be challenged all along I am with you 100 percent!

This is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question the veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric does not follow logically from the data showing that this appears to be the case - in fact, as you yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it defines a reference point of any kind.]

There are a lot of preachers preaching, but most of them do not really understand relativity beyond SR at all. Grahame, this is not and has never been a claim of SR. SR is just the simple set of relations - the trigonometry of rulers and clocks in uniform motion, as measured by rulers and clocks (made of light, or slower stuff than light). SR itself does not contain, or need,   "the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric". . One can derive it simply from the properties of confined light, as you say and as I have done years (decades!) ago. So have many others. For goodness sake what is all the fuss about?

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".  Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of scientific inquiry.


Look, I kind of agree with this, but do not agree at all that "other people" think that, or ever thought that, SR is "an objective reality". The whole initial point was, in fact, exactly the opposite: an argument against any particular objective reality. I certainly do not, and never did thing that SR is "an objective reality"even as a fresh undergrad meeting it for the first time. Good grief, why oh why are we arguing about this?

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven, unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for the future of our species.

I think this may be true. In making up a new theory one must always question the bases, of course - but one has to replace them with something that explains all of experiment, and there remains the fact that the analogy of light waves, and the Doppler shift of light as it is observed,is not consistent with there being a medium in the same way that sound is carried by matter for example. One needs to do better than this. As to your specific point: I do not see how the principle of equivalence of inertial frames affects this either way, either impeding or helping it at all. Rotating light, for example is as non-inertial as one can get and remain physical!

That's all.

Grahame

That’s all from me too!
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Dear Viv,

I'll try just once again:

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured' again!).

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i) there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial reference frames are objectively equivalent; (ii) there is no evidence to support this assertion (which is not the same as the truism that measured speed of light in all frames is invariant); (iii) there is no causation offered to support that notion.  This is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question the veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric does not follow logically from the data showing that this appears to be the case - in fact, as you yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it defines a reference point of any kind.]

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".  Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of scientific inquiry.

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven, unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for the future of our species.

That's all.

Grahame

==========

----- Original Message -----
From: Viv Robinson<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:43 PM
Subject: [General] SR

Dear All,
I note there are still some concerns about Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) theory corrections. They were made on the basis that the speed of light is the same for all observers. His calculations have proved to be accurate. Despite that there are different schools of thought about SR. The “standard model”, ie, that which is accepted by mainstream physicists, is that the SR corrections are accurate because the speed of light is indeed constant for all observers. That is usually accompanied by “That is the way it is. We don’t need to know why”. Others suggest that SR implies an absolute reference point is required, against which the speed of light can be measured. This is a brief attempt to shed some light from an observer’s perspective.
The speed of light has been measured by different people and organizations, under different circumstances, using different equipment at different times of the day and year. The results have been refined to the accepted value of 2.99792458 x  m/sec. (That value is now used to define the length of a metre). This is accurate to about 1 : 108. This can be compared to the motions of Earth based observers relative to our surroundings, see table 1. The values are approximate only and were taken from Wikipedia. The values for Earth rotating and revolving about the sun came from direct observation. The others came from Doppler redshift measurements.
Origin of speed

Speed (km/sec)

Speed, c

<!--[if !vml]-->[X]<!--[endif]-->

Earth equatorial rotation

< 0.5

1.5 x 10-6

≈ 1.0000000000..

Earth revolving around sun

≈ 30

1 x 1010-4

≈ 1.00000002

Sun revolving around galaxy

≈ 230

7.7 x 10-4

≈ 1.0000003

Galaxy towards “Great Attractor”

≈ 600

2.2 x 10-3

≈ 1.0000048


Origin of speed Speed (km/sec) Speed (c)  𝛾 (gamma)
Earth equatorial rotation < 0.5 1.5 x 10^−6 ≈ 1.0000000000
Exert revolving around sun ≈ 30 1 x 10^−4 ≈ 1.00000002
Sun revolving around galaxy ≈ 230 7.7 x 10^−4 ≈ 1.0000003
Galaxy towards “Great Attractor” ≈ 600 2.2 x 10^−3 ≈ 1.0000048
Table 1  Summary of Earth based observers’ movements through space relative to nearby objects. Two versions are given in case of difficulties during downloading.
The important feature of table 1 is that, except for Earth’s rotation, all other measurements are well within the current experimental error in the measurement of c. If there were a fixed and absolute reference in space against which all measurements of c were made, that would be detected in measurements made. Table 1 indicates the constant speed of light has been measured with Earth having different speeds wrt “nearby” objects. Their SR corrections, 𝛾, are close to unity, but are still sufficient to be measured. Most of us are happy to believe we are at rest when sitting down in our office/laboratory etc. Relative to our local environment we are at rest. iMHO they are called relativity theories because all measurements are made relative to the observer making them.
There is nothing in the above that suggests there was any error in Einstein’s assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. That does not mean that his calculations are the only way of deriving the SR corrections. It does mean that the SR corrections are not an inherent property of space to be imposed upon travellers relative to a fixed reference in space that has no other cause. It does mean that the SR corrections are a property of each individual particle, as has been deduced from the toroidal or rotating photon model of individual sub-atomic particles.
That brings us to the other question about intrepid space travellers encountering each other. SR suggests their clocks will show different times. How do they know which traveller is going the fastest? It is here that a little practicality is required. To a first approximation, stars in our local region of the Milky Way, say within 5,000 light years (LYs), would have approximately the same rotational speed around the galaxy as has our sun. (There is no evidence to suggest that stars in our local region are moving at significant speeds towards or away from each other.) The only difference would be in the rotational speed of the planet around their star of origin. That limits any speed difference to say 60 km/sec at the origin of both intrepid travelers.
Consider the situation of the intrepid space travelers setting out on their interstellar journey. Their origins would be relatively at rest wrt each other. As the traveled their internal clocks would be subject to the SR corrections. If at some time in the future their two paths were to cross, both would have those SR corrections to their internal clocks relative to their point of origin. If their speeds from their origins were less than the planetary rotation differences, they would not know which traveller was moving the fastest. Under the circumstances where at least one of their speeds was much greater than their orbital origin speeds, their clocks would be SR adjusted from their starting points. A comparison of clocks that took into account their Doppler frequency change would indicate which traveller was moving the fastest.
There is no absolute fixed point in space about which all speeds must be measured. From the practical viewpoint, there is a local reference point set by the fixed nature of the stars in our local neighborhood (some thousands of light years around us). Outside that distance, the corrections required are given above. They are still quite small compared to c. Any travelers measuring a speed difference that is a significant fraction of c will know which one of them is traveling the fastest. From a practical point of view, this gives an approximate “fixed point” against which all speeds can be determined. It is set by the relatively stationary nature of the origins of those intrepid travelers who will travel for a few thousand light years. For travelers originating further than those few thousand light years apart, other corrections, minor compared to c, need too be applied.
The above is forwarded to suggest there is no experimental evidence for any flaw in SR. I hope others can gain a similar understanding. The “standard model” is wrong to assume: “That is the way it is. We don’t need to know why”. There has to be a cause, a physical reason why “it is the way it is”. The toroidal or rotating photon model of matter offers a physical reason of that cause. Others may be possible. There is no experimental evidence, accurate to < 1 : 108, to suggest it is wrong in its interpretation.
We should challenge aspects of modern science’s understanding of the universe around us. Without such challenges there will not be much progress. I merely suggest that SR is not a good one to challenge.
Cheers,
Vivian Robinson

________________________________

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171109/6f4bf045/attachment.html>