Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 31 of 268 (473096)
06-27-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by onifre
06-26-2008 9:54 AM


Re: speed of light
onifre writes:
If galaxies were shrinking then stars in our own galaxy would be red shifted toward us, which we don't observe.
Just a little nitpicking. This would be called "blue shift".

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 06-26-2008 9:54 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:46 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 32 of 268 (473345)
06-28-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taz
06-27-2008 12:35 AM


Re: speed of light
This would be called "blue shift".
Thanks, I have since changed it.

All great truths begin as blasphemies
I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 06-27-2008 12:35 AM Taz has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 33 of 268 (536822)
11-25-2009 9:34 AM


Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
General reply to thread./07 9:02 AM
1
My Most Dangerous Idea: 'velocity' of light is miscnceived.
Viv Pope
Research Associate of the Department of Mathematics, Keele University, UK
Llys Alaw, 10 West End, Penclawdd, Swansea, UK.
My most dangerous or disconcerting idea is that Einstein’s dictum that the constant c is the ‘velocity of light in vacuo’ is a misinterpretation of the true facts. The basic observational
fact, as Olaus Rmer discovered in 1676, is that astronomical distances are also times in a constant ratio of units, c. This constant relation between distances and times was later confirmed by the astronomer James Bradley and, in other areas of observation by the likes of Armand Fizeau and A.A. Michelson.
The standard orthodox interpretation of this constant relation is that it is the measure of ‘the velocity of light in a vacuum’, as stated by Einstein in his second postulate of Special Relativity. As a point of pure logic, however, from the fact that all velocities are measures of distance-divided-by-time it does not follow that all distances-divided-by-time are velocities. Moreover, an essential characteristic of what is properly called a velocity is that it is a
measure of the motion of an identifiable material object, also that the measure conforms, both in magnitude and vectorially, to the law of the composition of velocities. Neither of these criteria are satisfied by c.
Furthermore, if that so-called ‘velocity’ is ascribed to particles of light, as in Einstein’s concept of the ‘photon’, then any idea of that particle being something properly conceived as material becomes untenable. This is because according to Relativity, anything properly called a particle, no matter how small we may be imagine it to be, becomes infinitely massive at the ‘speed c’, whereas the only mass that can be ascribed to a light-quantum in the visible range of the spectrum (i.e., its spectral energy divided by c-squared) is in the
minuscule order of 10-35 kilogram.
In any case, as for c being a ‘velocity’, how can that ‘velocity c’ be measured relative to a vacuum? With respect to what datum can that ‘velocity’ be measured when the light is travelling all alone (as imagined) in the void between its source and sink? And if, instead of thinking of light in that way, we think of it as waves, (after Huygens, et al.), then what can possibly wave in a vacuum? (The customary conception of ‘electromagnetic waves as field
vectors in vacuo’ is completely ad hoc and notoriously unempirical.)
All sorts of ways can be contrived of answering these awkward questions regarding ‘light velocity’. However, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of relativity theory can be deduced in an extremely simple way without involving this mind-bending
plethora of problems raised by the customary interpretation of c as a ‘velocity’. In the relevant equations, c is the same c regardless of whether it is interpreted as the ‘velocity of light’ or as
no more than a dimensional constant — what Herman Bondi describes as distance-time ‘conversion factor’. So why do we persist in thinking of light as ‘travelling’, when all true evidences are to the contrary? This is where the ‘danger’ comes in. The philosophical consequences of relinquishing the ‘velocity in space’ interpretation of light promise to be socially catastrophic. This is because it entails a truly Copernican ‘flipover’ from thinking of light as travelling in space to the opposite logical alternative of thinking of all space and time as being in the light — not light as it is thought of as travelling in space but light as it is actually observed, optically or instrumentally, in its full spectral range. What does this mean? It means that in relativistic
proper-time, the interacting atoms are in direct quantum contact, regardless of observational distance, that on the quantum-informational level there is no such thing as distance, a
quantum being an irreducible amount of energy transacted in zero proper time. This means that at the quantum-informational level the transactions take place in terms of pure propertime-instantaneous action-at-a-distance [1]. What we perceive as ‘distance’ is then an
observational extrapolation out of statistical numbers of these proper-time-instantaneous quantum events, in a manner similar to the way in which distance is projected by the viewer of a video scenario from informational patterns and sequences of otherwise randomly
occurring screen events, and what we measure as the time-delay of that observational interaction is just another solution of the relative equations.
In short, this ‘Copernican flipover’ matches, in physics, the radical shift, in modern information technlogy, from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’. In modern communication, the basic informational units are discrete and unconnected ‘bits’ (binary digits). In physics they are quanta, that is, irreducible units of Planck’s quantum h. These do not ‘travel’ across space, any more than the pixel events do across the video-screen. Like those pixels, the quanta simply occur.
What, then, is the danger of this radical switch taking place from its traditional mechanics-based to a modern information-based Physics? That danger may not be so much to Modern Physics as to anyone proposing this resurgent phenomenalism. As it is said, ‘whether
the pitcher strikes the rock or the rock the pitcher, it is bad for the pitcher’.
[1] See Immediate Distant Action and Correlation in Modern Physics: the Balanced Universe is a collection of contributions, by an international group of scholars, following a series of workshops held at the University of Wales, Swansea. Eds. N. V. Pope, A. D, Osborne and A. F. T. Winfield, The book was officially launched, at UWE (University of West of England) Bristol, on Thursday 19 January 2006. It is available from the Edwin Mellen press, website: Academic Publishing @ The Edwin Mellen Press

Neville Vvian (Viv) Pope

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 10:07 AM Viv Pope has not replied
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2009 3:05 PM Viv Pope has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 34 of 268 (536827)
11-25-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Viv Pope
11-25-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
This is Viv Pope again.
Here is something which is of central relevance to the issue of whether light has a 'velocity or is no more than a dimensional constant.
Ten Proofs that the Constant c cannot be a Velocity
From a talk given to a Natural Philosophy group at Cambridge, by Viv Pope.
1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.
2. Herman Bondi says: ‘Any attempt to measure the velocity of light isnot an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.’[ ] Also, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of Einstein’s Theory, both Special and General, can be deduced much more simply by adopting Bondi’s interpretation of c as a pure ‘conversion factor’ for interconverting measures in metres into time-measures in seconds [ ].
These two above arguments were aimed to prove that c need not necessarily be a ‘velocity’. The following eight arguments contend that c cannot, logically, be a velocity.
3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.
4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.
5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.
6. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Nils Abramson [ ]. However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms therefore has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between its source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to photograph or otherwise detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected, that is, in vacuo.
7. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) put it, ‘the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!’[ ] So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? The whole concept is meaningless.
8. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If a powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980 [ ], two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking or interference whatever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around, it would be amazing if visual acuity were possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting around in all directions would be as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity militates against the validity of any such experimentalist claim.
9. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers, as Einstein’s Relativity requires and as experiment confirms. Therefore, logically, c cannot be a velocity.
10. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as light travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate. If we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum? And if we think of what ‘travels’ as ‘photons’, then if those ‘photons’ travel at the ‘speed of light’, then their mass has to be relativistically infinite at that ‘speed’. The mass of a single photon would be as great as that of the whole universe. To escape this consequence by assuming that the ‘stationary mass’ of the photon is zero — as some physicists have claimed — then how can that ‘zero mass’ be conceived as a ‘particle’? And, anyway, when is a photon ever regarded as stationary, since its alleged ‘velocity’ is c in all observational frames, bar none?
From these considerations it has to be logically conclueded that the constant c is not a 'velocity' but simply a constant ratio of conventional measuring units of metres and seconds,in the same way that 39.37 is the ratio of incnches to metres in the measuring of space, and c-squared is the constant ratio between conventional joules and conventional kilograms in the measuring of energy. All else is ot physics but metaphysics.
-----------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 9:34 AM Viv Pope has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2009 5:55 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 35 of 268 (536905)
11-25-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Viv Pope
11-25-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
Research Associate of the Department of Mathematics, Keele University, UK
Funny, I was driving past Keele University on Sunday. Given the complete lack of understanding, almost total miscomprehension, and uttermost confusion in the above two posts, it would sadly appear that Keele is not what it once was...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 9:34 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ZenMonkey, posted 11-25-2009 7:12 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 37 by Viv Pope, posted 11-29-2009 4:55 AM cavediver has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 36 of 268 (536937)
11-25-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by cavediver
11-25-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
And - surprise - there is no Viv Pope listed as a member of the academic staff in the Department of Computing and Mathematics. Unless he's been forced go by a pseudonym to avoid persecution by the academic overlords for his bold new ideas.
It's possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2009 3:05 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Viv Pope, posted 12-02-2009 3:27 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 37 of 268 (537509)
11-29-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by cavediver
11-25-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
No, Cavediver, I have never been a staff member of Keele University and have never claimed to be. At the age 79 (in three months time) I am long past being a staff member of anywhere. So, what I am is what has been agreed to call a Reseach Associate of tne Mathematics Department in an unclassifiable Math/Philosopohy (Arts-Science)project at that university. The staff member concerned is Dr. Anthony D. Osborne. If you look up his research record you will see this twenty-five-year-long Association between him and me.
Thanks for alerting me to this possible misunderstanding.
Edited by Viv Pope, : Correctin of misspelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 11-25-2009 3:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 38 of 268 (537512)
11-29-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Viv Pope
11-25-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
You say you are 79 - that means that when you were born, most of your questions had already been answered 25 years earlier with Special Relativity, and the rest would take just another 15 years with Quantum ElectroDynamics. So at best, you are 64 years too late.
Of course, you are free to disagree with SR and QED, but I should point out that they are the most successfully tested theories ever constructed by mankind, and are tested every second of every day to extraordinary precision by processes such as the GPS system and every particle accelerator in use around the world, not least the new LHC at Cern. Every particle physicist involved in the experiments at these particle accelerators knows the answers to your questions as basic graduate introductory material.
Just to give a little active content to this post, let me briefly address question 8:
Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed?
Yes, it can, but it is a second order effect and so is exceptionally hard to detect. As you infer, it is a very good job it is a second order effect as otherwise light would be useless for sight!!
Photons are excitation of an abelian quantum field, which in simple terms means that the excitations do not self-interact. This is in contrast to the non-abelian fields of the gluons, and the W,Z bosons, which do self-interact:
/ Ph
        /
Ph     /
  ~~~~~    Doesn't Happen !!!!
       \
        \
         \ Ph
Ph \    / Ph
    \  /
     \/   Doesn't Happen !!!!
     /\
    /  \
Ph /    \ Ph
However, a pair of photons can produce an electron/positron pair (pair creation):
/e+
        /
Ph     /
~~~~~~|
      |
      |
Ph    |
~~~~~~|
       \
        \
         \ e-
This interaction can be used to build a second order photon-scattering interaction:
Ph \          / Ph
    \        /
     \___e__/
     |      |
     |e     |e
     |______|
     /   e  \
    /        \
Ph /          \ Ph
This is the famous box diagram of QED.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 10:07 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Viv Pope, posted 12-01-2009 5:20 AM cavediver has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 39 of 268 (537516)
11-29-2009 6:40 AM


To give some background on Mr. Neville Vivian Pope:
'Light Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity' by Anthony D. Osborne and N. Vivian Pope writes:
Anthony D Osborne gained his Ph.D at City University, London for his thesis, 'Gravitation and Dynamical Systems'. For more than twenty-five years, he has taught Relativity to Final Year students at Keele University, Staffordshire, where he is Senior Lecturer in Mathematics. His student textbook, 'Complex Variables and their Applications', was published by Addison Wesley Longman in 1999. His collaboration with Viv Pope began in 1982, and their first joint paper on the Normal Realist approach to Relativity appeared in 1987. N.Vivian (Viv) Pope worked for almost twenty years in the telecommunications industry, leaving to become a mature-age student at the University of Wales, Bangor. Graduating in the Philosophy of Science, he then became a lecturer at the Burton-on-Trent Further Education College, Staffordshire where he taught Liberal Studies and Philosophy. He was also tutor/counsellor for the Open University. He took early retirement from these posts in order to concentrate on his researches into the philosophical foundations of modern physics. He has published numerous papers and books on the subject, both on his own and in collaboration with Anthony Osborne.
and more bio here: (The New) Quantum Touching A Cinematic Model of Instantaneous Action-at-a-Distance
BTW, Mr. Pope (if this is really you, one never knows on the WWW), this is not to disparage you but if one makes claims here we like to check their background. Of course all of this relativity stuff is over my head but it is just interesting to see what people's different backgrounds are. Thanks.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2009 7:10 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 49 by Viv Pope, posted 12-02-2009 2:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 40 of 268 (537519)
11-29-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate
11-29-2009 6:40 AM


To give some background on Mr. Neville Vivian Pope:
The key statement from his bio is as follows:
quote:
His aim is, by this means, to seek out and remove from theoretical physics its traditional accumulation of sheer conceptual clutter and to discourage the associated misuses of language which generate what the philosopher Wittgenstein called Scheinprobleme, a prime example of which, as Pope sees it, is the notorious, so-called 'EPR paradox'.
This is probably the one guiding principle behind every armchair-physicist - they read all of the layman-ese regarding theoretical physics, and unsurprisingly it seems confused and makes little sense to them - this is because it is usually complete crap! But they mistake these layman descriptions for the real physics/mathematics, and so completely miss the point. The only words we use in real theoretical physics are to connect the mathematics to the real world. The content is all in the mathematics, and that is never seen by the likes of Mr Pope.
Even the Feynman diagrams in my previous post are simply graphical representations of the perturbative interaction expressions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2009 6:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Viv Pope, posted 12-02-2009 6:19 PM cavediver has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 41 of 268 (537828)
12-01-2009 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
11-29-2009 5:55 AM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
I'm sorry, my dear 'Cave-diver, if my reply disconcerted you in showing you how wrong you were in so hastily assuming that I was some sort of pretentious charlatan claiming to be a staff member of Keele University. Somehow, from your very hostile, ageist tone, I didn't expect that you would just honourably and gracefully concede your mistake.
Anyway, I now I have to annoy you further by pointing out another flaw in your nest of instant assumptions. This is that you couldn't possibly be more wrong in your estimate of my attitude towards Relativity and Quantum Physics. If you had taken just a few moments to study my work instead of just unthinkingly 'shooting from the hip', you would realise that it supports Einsteinian Special Relativity right up to the hilt. You would also see just how much it has to do with both General Relativity and Quantum Physics, though perhaps not in the way you would like.
As for your presumptuous projection into my early years in this study, forgive me but I have to say that you sound like my grandsons trying to imagine what it was like being bombed in a city during the war — not a clue as to what it was like. This is how you appear to me in projecting yourself back into the historical context when I was a telephone lineman in my early twenties, when ‘Relativity’ was little more known to public perception except as a music-hall caricature of egg-headed intellectuality.
Any way, as my work makes clear, it by no means contradicts Einstein's Relativity. It is based on the truism that 'All the keys hang not at one man's girdle.' So, what nature reveals to one thinker at one spot on the planet may well be revealed to another thinker at a different spot and different time, but not necessarily in the same way or in the same theoretical/mathematical format. It is this independent corroboration between different observers/thinkers which ensures scientific objectivity, otherwise if only one thinker thinks in that way with everyone slavishly following him, then that does not augur well for a truly objective scientific progress.
The novelty, therefore, in my work, as many others have seen — note that I didn't just come 'in off the street' with this — lies in its providing for Einstein's famous Theory of Relativity, not only a well-authenticated, much simpler, purely geometrical way of deducing much the same sequences as Einstein’s (as concurred in those days for instance by people like Profs. P. M. Davidson and Sir Herman Bondi), it also provides the philosophical foundation which, as Einstein’s relativist precursor, mentor and inspirer Mach, complained, Einstein's version of relativity conspicuously lacks. I would like to explain this to you in depth, but since it has all been published many times in conference-proceedings, books and papers, over many years (all available for study on Internet), I feel the onus is on you to study it before commenting on it, not for me to repeat it all indefinitely, far less for your sake alone.
So, if and when you do that necessary study, then perhaps you will be in a position to comment on it, and then we may discuss these things more sensibly and maturely. in the interests of dialectical progress.
As for what you say about the 'scattering of light by light’ your argument is very thin on that point, and it by no means answers any of the other nine proofs that light is not a 'velocity'.
It is also relevant to mention, here, what was reported in the New Scientist, recently, that physicists are beginning to see that Einstein's Second Axiom regarding the 'speed of light in vacuo' is surplus to requirements in the formulation of Relativity. That is precisely what I discovered, uniquely, all those years ago.
Sincerely,
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2009 5:55 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2009 8:03 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 42 of 268 (537847)
12-01-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Viv Pope
12-01-2009 5:20 AM


Re: Not 'light in space' but space in l,ight
'm sorry, my dear 'Cave-diver, if my reply disconcerted you in showing you how wrong you were in so hastily assuming that I was some sort of pretentious charlatan claiming to be a staff member of Keele University
No need to apologise, I wasn't in the slightest disconcerted; for the simple reason that I didn't doubt your status in the slightest. I took what I read as read, and replied accordingly.
Somehow, from your very hostile
Hostile? Really?
ageist tone
If I was ageist at all, it was in my lack of hostility, compared to the usual verbal beating I dole out to those at EvC peddling nonsense. For that slight of ageism, I apologise and promise not to trim my hostility any further.
However, my actual reference to your age was simply to put into context various dates, and had no implications of ageism whatsoever.
I didn't expect that you would just honourably and gracefully concede your mistake.
No mistake was made, so no concession was necessary.
well-authenticated, much simpler, purely geometrical way of deducing much the same sequences as Einstein’s
Minkowski gave us this in 1907, and we use it to this day. You could have saved yourself much work.
I'm sorry, but the staggering lack of understanding manifest in your "arguments" is sufficient to dismiss anything you have to say. You obviously have no awareness of something as simple as the relativistic composition of velocities, something I would teach to first year undergrads. And to suggest that
As for what you say about the 'scattering of light by light’ your argument is very thin on that point
when I am describing Quantum ElectroDynamics, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORY KNOWN TO MAN, is simply staggering. The fact that you show zero knowledge of this, and claim that it is "thin", firmly removes any residual credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Viv Pope, posted 12-01-2009 5:20 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 268 (537867)
12-01-2009 10:24 AM


Topic Reminder
This thread is not about Viv Pope. It's about the speed of light. Subsequent off topic posts and portions of posts may be hidden.
I see two problems:
  1. Viv Pope's ideas are cloaked in language that makes them difficult for me to understand, and I suspect others may share the same difficulty.
  2. The objections to Viv Pope's ideas are primarily derogatory comments rather than substantive rebuttal.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2009 11:27 AM Admin has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 268 (537876)
12-01-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Admin
12-01-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
The objections to Viv Pope's ideas are primarily derogatory comments rather than substantive rebuttal.
Ah, I see - I take then that you are of similar opinion to Viv Pope that my response in message 38 copied below was a bit thin?
Good to see I'm completely wasting my time - FFS
Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed?
Yes, it can, but it is a second order effect and so is exceptionally hard to detect. As you infer, it is a very good job it is a second order effect as otherwise light would be useless for sight!!
Photons are excitation of an abelian quantum field, which in simple terms means that the excitations do not self-interact. This is in contrast to the non-abelian fields of the gluons, and the W,Z bosons, which do self-interact:
/ Ph
        /
Ph     /
  ~~~~~    Doesn't Happen !!!!
       \
        \
         \ Ph

Ph \    / Ph
    \  /
     \/   Doesn't Happen !!!!
     /\
    /  \
Ph /    \ Ph
However, a pair of photons can produce an electron/positron pair (pair creation):
/e+
        /
Ph     /
~~~~~~|
      |
      |
Ph    |
~~~~~~|
       \
        \
         \ e-
This interaction can be used to build a second order photon-scattering interaction:
Ph \          / Ph
    \        /
     \___e__/
     |      |
     |e     |e
     |______|
     /   e  \
    /        \
Ph /          \ Ph
This is the famous box diagram of QED.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Admin, posted 12-01-2009 10:24 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Admin, posted 12-01-2009 12:30 PM cavediver has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 45 of 268 (537877)
12-01-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
12-01-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
cavediver writes:
Good to see I'm completely wasting my time - FFS
Well, yes, but that post wasn't what I had in mind when I mentioned derogatory comments. Anyway, in case others are having the same difficulties I am, since I don't really understand Viv's position, I don't understand the rebuttal, either. For example, it isn't apparent to me how light scattering light relates to the speed of light, the thread's topic.
It shouldn't go without saying that your technical contributions on relativity and cosmological topics are invaluable.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2009 11:27 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2009 3:36 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 47 by Viv Pope, posted 12-02-2009 9:07 AM Admin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024