A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

I seem to recall that Einstein was pondering the same question as the OP( if not very similar), when he was compelled to formulated his theory of relativity , and special relativity. His conclusion seemed to be that space-time and matter are not absolute or immutable. With my layman understanding, I believe light to have hyper dimensional characteristics like gravity, and is out of phase with the Higgs field. I also believe there is no absolute frame of reference, observer or not.

That said I'm really disappointed with the conclusion that the speed of light is immutable, perhaps speed is the wrong concept to describe the passage of light.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

There is a false in the first image in this link: Michelson-Morley Experiment

The Viewer can only observe one beem of light deflected from arm 1. And to the Viewer.

The Viewer will not be able to observe the light which travels from the light Source directly to the Mirror.

A observer will not be able to observe light unless it is reflected towards the observer. Or unless the light beam is illumintated by a gass.

- The second beem of light the observer can see is from arm 2.

I am a bit confused about this Experiment because the distance from light Source through arm 2 is Equal to the distance the light travels through arm 1. There is no way they can messure any differential between arm 1 and arm 2?

This will result in that the observer only can see one beem of light, there will not be a trailing light beem do to the ether Wind?
Because no matter how you turn the table compare to the ether Wind the distance the light will trawel through the couces compare to the ether wind is the same?

The other question i would raise is this:

- Since the distance from light Source is Equal from arm 1 and arm 2 to the Viewer and from the same light Source, and go through the exact same spot on the splitter. How would the Experiment tell the difference between the reflection from arm 1 and arm 2?

The Equations add up. So i am a bit confused.


This is pritty interesting

Do you have an answer to my question?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

There is a false in the first image in this link: Michelson-Morley Experiment

The Viewer can only observe one beem of light deflected from arm 1. And to the Viewer.

The Viewer will not be able to observe the light which travels from the light Source directly to the Mirror.

A observer will not be able to observe light unless it is reflected towards the observer. Or unless the light beam is illumintated by a gass.

- The second beem of light the observer can see is from arm 2.

I am a bit confused about this Experiment because the distance from light Source through arm 2 is Equal to the distance the light travels through arm 1. There is no way they can messure any differential between arm 1 and arm 2?

This will result in that the observer only can see on beem of light, there will not be a trailing light beem do to the ether Wind?
Because no matter how you turn the table compare to the ether Wind the distance the light will trawel through the couces compare to the ether wind is the same?

The other question i would raise is this:

- Since the distance from light Source is Equal from arm 1 and arm 2 to the viewer. How would the Experiment tell the difference between the reflection from arm 1 and arm 2?

The Equations add up. So i am a bit confused.


This is pritty interesting

Do you have an answer to my question?

This experiment was an early attempt to describe something called frame dragging, the ether wind is not something we talk about now as we now call the concept simply space-time.

Rather than me waffle on about GR and SR, why not just watch the following. I have reviewed both and they are accurate.







Hope this helps,

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Okay. I see what you are trying to say With these two videos. But i am going to bring up a few New questions.

In the first video there are two Viewers not one. That makes a big difference compared to the Michelson-Morley Experiment. In Michelson-Morley Experiment you have to consider that there is only one observer7viewer.

In the second video you have a buss. There is one very imortant issue the video dosent take into account. And that is that the buss is a isolated Chamber of atmosphere in motion. The atmosphere inside the buss is not really in motion relative to the clock inside the buss. The Whole buss is in motion relative to its surrounding atmosphere out side the buss and to the observer standing outside the buss.

If the person inside the buss throwes a ball into the air. The ball will not hit im in the face. It will fall stright Down.

The clock inside the buss will not move like the video is trying to explaine.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Okay. I see what you are trying to say With these two videos. But i am going to bring up a few New questions.

In the first video there are two Viewers not one. That makes a big difference compared to the Michelson-Morley Experiment. In Michelson-Morley Experiment you have to consider that there is only one observer7viewer.

In the second video you have a buss. There is one very imortant issue the video dosent take into account. And that is that the buss is a isolated Chamber of atmosphere in motion. The atmosphere inside the buss is not really in motion relative to the clock inside the buss. The Whole buss is in motion relative to its surrounding atmosphere out side the buss and to the observer standing outside the buss.

If the person inside the buss throwes a ball into the air. The ball will not hit im in the face. It will fall stright Down.

The clock inside the buss will not move like the video is trying to explaine.

The simple answer is just to say that regardless of the frame of reference due to time dilation and length contraction the speed of light always measures the same velocity value.

I know it's not easy to get your head around, but both math and experimental evidence all conclude the Einsteins GR and SR are in fact correct.

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is not that simple. The theory is not illustrated properly.

There is a big difference in these two images when it comes to how light travels through the Ether.

This image bellow is used to illustrate the time difference in a buss, and it is not correct illustrated:


This is the correct illustration of the atmosphere that light would travel inside the buss.



There is a big difference in these two images.

The first image would illustrate the time the observer out side the buss is having. But not even that is correct. because it woul look like this:


The second image is the time frame the guy inside the buss would have.

These two would have the exact same time frame. Even relative to the motion of the buss. Becaue light is a constant no matter what enviorment it is in.

In the first image you have two Objects moving at the same speed relative to each other which light is bouncing of. That is not a correct illustration of the buss Experiment.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is not that simple. The theory is not illustrated properly.

There is a big difference in these two images when it comes to how light travels through the Ether.

This image bellow is used to illustrate the time difference in a buss, and it is not correct illustrated:

This is the correct illustration of the atmosphere that light would travel inside the buss.

There is a big difference in these two images.

The first image would illustrate the time the observer out side the buss is having. But not even that is correct. because it woul look like this:

The second image is the time frame the guy inside the buss would have.

These two would have the exact same time frame. Even relative to the motion of the buss. Becaue light is a constant no matter what enviorment it is in.

In the first image you have two Objects moving at the same speed relative to each other which light is bouncing of. That is not a correct illustration of the buss Experiment.

You are over complicating it. Let me ask you a question.

Do you agree that light when measured from all frames of reference would be the same speed?

or...

Are you saying that Einsteins Field equations are wrong and we should ignore relativity?

If we could start from there then I might narrow down the confusion.

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are over complicating it. Let me ask you a question.

Do you agree that light when measured from all frames of reference would be the same speed?

or...

Are you saying that Einsteins Field equations are wrong and we should ignore relativity?

If we could start from there then I might narrow down the confusion.

Korg.

Sorry, i have been doing the equation that fallow the videos you have posted to see if i have been missing out on something.

The Equations add up to the examples shown in the videos. But the examles shown are not correct when it comes to the enviorment light speed and motion is exposed to conserning the buss and the observer. This does not mean Einstein is wrong, it means who ever made the video are using the wrong examples to prove Einsteins theory.

When the person who made the video is using the wrong set up, the result will also be wrong compared to the setting.

All the Equations are correct, but the Equations dont fit into the senarios With the buss and the observer.

Do you understand what i mean? Dont you see what i see?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?

Yes. Exactly.

Or decreasing it...

It's a Doppler effect.

Korg.

But the photons themselves (and I don't really respect the whole particle/wave dismissal since that's all about how an observation is made) must have an actual speed of distance traversal. That must be the case or else light has no speed at all. Einstein argued for time dilation and length contraction/expansion using the constant speed of light as the reason why such bizarre assertions must be true, and yet when a source of photons is traveling 6,000 miles per second, the photons emitting from that source (in a laser focused manner toward the direction that the source is traveling) are not affected by that source's speed, and neither is the source itself? Why isn't the source affected?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

Rather than me waffle on about GR and SR, why not just watch the following. I have reviewed both and they are accurate.

Hope this helps,

Korg.

So, the reason why the speed of light has been declared by Einstein to be immutable is because the Michelson-Morley Experiment failed to show any difference in "light propagation" speed regardless of which angle the experiment was conducted relative to the "ether wind"? And time dilation was declared to exist as a result of a thought experiment involving differences in human perception?

Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?

I dont really understand Your question.

The Light from both the lazors will travel With the same speed "always". The rear light will travel behind the front light Equal to the distance they are situated on the platfrom traveling at 6000m/s.

If you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from the lazors on the platfrom you will read 299,792,458m/s

But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.

What if you are not traveling on the laser pointer, but are working with the macro-system confine's frame of reference? This would be the frame of reference that includes all material wholes and the proximity spacing between all those material wholes that exist within the entire distance traveled by the laser pointer and the light photons emitted by the laser pointer in both directions. Restricting the frame of reference to a person's frame of reference (either riding that laser pointer or standing there as the pointer flies by) is NOT the premise I introduced. That thought experiment has been done to death already. I want to understand the reality impact here, not any one perception impact.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: spy66


But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.

This is not correct.

If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.

Do you see?

Korg.

Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.

No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.

The speed of Light is Constant.

Korg.

And this is not an article of faith, correct? Anything other that aether wind experiment been done to confirm this? Anything more comprehensive than yet another thought experiment or perception affecting trick shot?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

This video is attempting to create a false equivalence between two vector plotting efforts, with a car traveling northeast instead of directly east (using a vector graph that illustrates that car's eastward progression being affected by its northeastern trajectory) and a similar looking vector illustration showing the eastward vector to now be a time vector and the northward vector to now be a space-distance vector. This is completely disingenuous crap.

The impact on the eastward progress of the car, as it heads northeast instead of directly eastward is not equivalent to the impact on the progression of time for something if it budges from an inert proximity position. Comparing the relationship impact inherent between traversing a blend of two perpendicular directional potentials is not the same as comparing a spatial-time relationship. The equivalence just doesn't exist, even if a vector illustration can be created that looks similar. This is what drives me nuts about modern physics. It's as if a math formula can just bring reality into existence because the equation balances out after some number crunching. It's completely insane.

originally posted by: NorEaster
Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.

Except for those pesky tons of experiments that sort of, you know, prove that it's true.

Find me a way to hand wave 'em. I'd LOVE to be able to come up with an alternate explanation.

I’d throw in my 2 cents here, but I see it would be pointless. Anyone who would make the statements,

“Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.”

is either trolling or not worth replying to. He/she is obviously so far above the likes of Einstein that no amount of effort trying to explain Einstein’s concepts will be acceptable. I imagine life must be tough for someone as brilliant as NorEaster; being surrounded by such vastly inferior underlings as we Earthly creatures.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: NorEaster
Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.

Except for those pesky tons of experiments that sort of, you know, prove that it's true.

Find me a way to hand wave 'em. I'd LOVE to be able to come up with an alternate explanation.

Wooow could you imagine.... you'd be famous and most likely bloody rich!



Korg.

originally posted by: netbound
I’d throw in my 2 cents here, but I see it would be pointless. Anyone who would make the statements,

“Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.”

is either trolling or not worth replying to. He/she is obviously so far above the likes of Einstein that no amount of effort trying to explain Einstein’s concepts will be acceptable. I imagine life must be tough for someone as brilliant as NorEaster; being surrounded by such vastly inferior underlings as we Earthly creatures.

The weird thing is I've noticed quite a few people on ATS recently that appear to have the same attitude.

I think I've said it here many times before, I am all for blue sky thinking but to dismiss one of if not the fundamental scientific discoveries of the 20th century is just crazy.

I have to conclude that looking how these people attempt to control a thread by simply ignoring the evidence when posted is just as crazy.

Korg.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity

All the Equations are correct, but the Equations dont fit into the senarios With the buss and the observer.

Do you understand what i mean? Dont you see what i see?

Ah I see, it is possible that the example could be at fault. I will break down that example and come back to you a little later today with an analysis.



Korg.

a reply to: NorEaster

What if you are not traveling on the laser pointer, but are working with the macro-system confine's frame of reference? This would be the frame of reference that includes all material wholes and the proximity spacing between all those material wholes that exist within the entire distance traveled by the laser pointer and the light photons emitted by the laser pointer in both directions.

Hmm. You are asking for quite a lot here. Light is very Close to a absolute constant in vacuume. But since there have never been produced a chaimber With a absolute vacuum on Earth or in orbit. It is hard to determine the exact Properties of light, since light is messured/observed in a vacuum that is not absolute Perfect/pure.


You are bringing up a very complex problem With you question that is not going to be easy to answer.

a reply to: NorEaster

I think i have found a way to figure this out. I am just going to give a little bit of Insight into the bases of how i am going to proceed.

Light must change Properties every time it hits an Object. And light becomes the image of the Object it interacts with on its way.

Lets say you shine a light on an Object like a cup With different collours. The only way you are going to see the cup and its collours is if the light copies the cups Properties. Light is a Source of information.

This means that light must be able to change its Properties. This means that the Properties of light is initially a absolute constant but changes instantainously as its Properties interact With finite time/void. And the light changes its Properties With the seed of light.

- Light would become the image of the very first property it interacts With, and that image would be passed on to what ever property it interacts With NeXT. Like sharing information. So light would change form/property at the speed of light.

So determening the Properties of light from point A to point B. Would be Equal to the dimention of each particles and matter that make up the Space between point A and point B.

Problem solved.