I said your 'model'. But I see your mind's closed to other options. However; - If light doesn't travel wrt a 'field', it makes no difference whether the emitter or receiver is 'moving'. right!? In which case there are loads of experiments And spectroscopy CAN measure speed, simply by comparison of two positions, and time. But I note you've avoided Wang et al and all the evidence! RFG's do NOT work as you claim. I work with gyro's. (Do send me any 'credible' source for your belief to debunk).
@PeteraJackson1 Im not arguing for any other models validity than my own . Seeing as the rest including yours arent valid and have little proof to back up their ridiculous predictions. Note you say above `there two positions`.Thats called distance. And seeing as you have no concept of physics and maths basics you can calculate speed without any spectroscopy seeing as you already have dt.
Your mistake is to think that NASA has voyagers accurate distance at any time. They dont. Check their sites
@PeteraJackson1 Earlier I said `their is no path difference for the rotating sagnac ring frame`. Now I can see you spluttering furiously at this so let me explain what is essentially a simple concept, tho not for you maybe. Shrink your body down to pea size and place you ontop the source of the rotating ring. What do you see? In your frame its a non moving ring and detector/emitter with the room rotating around you.Now measure the distance both ways. What do you get? The same distance!!
I've tried 8 times WITH links. trying this; I thought the ring fibre interferometer with rotating emitter was YOUR model as well! Wang's excellent experiments agree, where it's in the same frame. Look up his others too.
And where the emitter is NOT in the rotating frame, the light is always accelerated in the + direction (red shifted) and slowed in the - direction (blue shifted) to travel in the frame of the medium, to give the fringe shift. (Don't believe the confusing nonsense on Wiki!).
@PeteraJackson1 Im not sure what you mean here by `my experiment`?But if you mean does it agree with my model? then yes.Because if you calculate the path difference(and Ive done that with vector calculations in my sagnac videos)then you get a path difference where the light travels at c in the(rotating)source frame.But as I said last post NOT in the medium frame. In fact the prediction that light always travels at c in the medium is not consistent with sagnac ring.It travels at cv in the medium
And just to be clear; If the emitter is co-moving with the source they remain in the same frame. The logic of your argument is utter nonsense!
Your approach is completely unscientific. All the time you keep your head in the sand and ignore facts and logic you will only be written off as a crackpot.
@PeteraJackson1 Your arguments are nonsense and YOU havent read wang`s paper. In it he confirms that the `longer path ` takes longer time to propogate. But this path is calculated relative to the outside reference of the room. In case this fact hasnt penetrated your empty brain this means that mathematically if one calculates the path distance in the *rotating fibreoptic * frame the two opposing paths are the same length. Do your research and maths next time.
I'd spent an hour finding the citations, then it failed to accept the post! Can't do it again, but some are among the dross here; C:\Work\Documents\Documents\Unification old docs\Experimental Basis of Special Relativity.mht
I agree it's initially 'c' in the emitters frame. But, my models can have intervening 'field' frames it changes to 'c' with respect to, before changing to any receivers frame. With the QMechanism used, that not only meets all observation but resolves the paradoxes of SR.
@PeteraJackson1 The url you have supplied is from your hard drive.There are no observations In any reference Ive seen that are not consistent with a c+v model.Some measurements conflict with c being constant in a medium.Take sagnac setup in room.When rotated light can be explained as being at c in the room medium.OK for you so far.But if the setup is embedded in another medium like glass and then rotated, the same shift is observed.In other words the light isnt moving at c in the glass medium.
Ok, I've now given up, it seems it'll never send with the web links embedded, you'll have to Google Wang, NASA and mathpages. It's all there.
With different relative emitter/receiver velocities in the vacuum spectroscopy shows velocity is wrt the intervening medium.
But no problem, I agree you're still correct, but with limits. To an observer at rest, EM wave velocity changes subject to relative media/field speed, to enable 'c' and the laws of physics to be the same in all inertial frames.
@PeteraJackson1 I ve already trawled through a few citations at `Experimental Basis of Special Relativity`and none have any confirmed measurement of lightspeed where the observor moves relative to source. So unless you can cite a SPECIFIC single paper with page # then Im, afraid you still have not supplied any proof that light is always at c to the observor.Believe me its not that you cant find any yet , but rather.. none exists.By theway spectroscopy cannot measure lightspeed!You need t & d
@PeteraJackson1 Regarding c wrt medium. Yes I accept that a source will emit light at c and if that light travels into another medium ie air to glass the speed will change to c of that medium. But what happens if the source moves in the medium? In vacuum I say that the light will travel away at c relative to source regardless of what motion the source makes in the vacuum. And the lunar ranging measurement is consistent with this prediction as they found that the light was at c on return
@jaymoseleygrb Explain the effect of a path difference when measured with a sagnac ring interferometer rotating in a room? Here the `medium` is the rotating optical ring and source (not the room). According to you if light was always at c in the ring medium it wouldnt give a path difference measurement: Because to give a difference it would have to be moving at c relative to the air in the room, not the glass in the rotating fibre.So obviously here light isnt at c wrt the ring optical medium.
@PeteraJackson1 You just claimed the speed difference wouldnt show up, Now you do. You are confused.
And no V2 data or other craft data shows any accurate measurement of c. You made this data up to back up your erroneous claims. Wheres your proof
And you now change the subject: the argument isnt that light changes speed from medium to medium, its the claim you make that within the *same* medium its always at c even when the emitter is moving relative to the observor. Youve no proof of this.
@jaymoseleygrb Heres your post again minus the smears... If you believe that's what I said you're understanding is inadequate. Our known relative planetary velocity, and subsequent shift curve, is the base line. From there we can work out the actual speed of the EM waves between the closest and most distant positions. It is always 'c' wrt the field. That is undeniable mathematics.
Your'e missing the point that the 'speed of the emitter' is wrt something, i.e. the observer, i.e. it is relative. Or are you using some other physics? If the relative speed changes, i.e. when the Earths direction changes, it would show in the spectrocopy. It does not. If there is an 'ether' between, that it moves wrt, then it moves wrt the ether so your model also fails. Also; Apollo arrived on time, so we knew what speed she was doing, both ways. Again, the EM signals travelled wrt space
@PeteraJackson1 NASA Voyager 1 data, (from Sun): distance "approximately" 17 billion km, speed 17k/s. If one calculates difference in distance sun to voyager for both c and c+v one gets a difference of 0.001 %! Far less than the "approximate" margin from NASA. So unless you can supply the exact NASA error margin the data does NOT confirm c . And how does NASA calculate distance? If it does using time of travel and an assumed speed of c then this is an inherently biased distance calculation.
@PeteraJackson1 Depends on what you use `wrt` as. I mean ` With Respect To` Anyways normal physics apply if a source is moving relative to an observor. What physics do you use that prevents relative motion between objects? You are dreaming again. If earths relative speed to voyager changes due to orbit then in both models it would have to show up as a shift in doppler shift. Ie a shift in wavelength of the observed signal. If it didnt then there would be no observed cosmic redshift.
@PeteraJackson1See above for repost of your post. Regarding your Em waves and planetary velocity etc. For starters you didnt even DO the calculations so you cant say mine are wrong. And the method you use to `calculate` c it still ends up giving only 0.001 % difference in distance to one using c+v . NASA`s error margin of approximate is much larger. So V data is consistent with my predictions and relativity. Plus ..you cant calc distance or v with just a spectral shift and planetary velocity.
If you think carefully you'll find that we measure EM emissons from stars both while the earth advances towards them on our orbit, and also while retreating from them. And all emitters are also in different frames. The signals are indeed both emitted and propagate at 'c' within the strict limits of the emitters field. They clearly however do NOT cross space at 'c' wrt that field! The Doppler shift is evidence of the speed change to the 'c' of the intervening field/s, then our own. Simple!
@PeteraJackson1 If you think carefully you will find that at no time has the speed of light from a distant star been measured by an observor, regardless of its motion wrt us. And regardless of how many different fields or medium it crosses.
Confirmation of this is your inabilty to cite ONE example in a paper or even a general source like wiki. Where is your evidence that it clearly does not travel through space at c wrt to emitter? You dont even a measurement when it reaches earth.
Sorry Jay, not only is it an interpolation result but I don't have a links schedule so you'll have to do your own research. It seems few think the 'question' sensible enough to comment specifically, but you'll find signal spectroscopy matches time/distance data for mission velocity profiles. There are hundreds of 'anomalies' on V2's complex mission so far, but you'll find none suggesting signals cross the medium at 'c' wrt vehicle velocity rather than range. Or do let me know if you ever do!
@PeteraJackson1 When someone makes a claim and then fails to back it up with proof ie a citation or reference source it means they cannot find any proof to back there argument. Youve made up this voyager thing obviously. I think youll find that mission spectroscopy is not a measurement of speed. Only redshift, and that would be the same measured redshift for either model, ie at c or c+-v.
So your above argument not only doesnt come with refernce , its unscientific. You are wasting my time here.
Just consider Voyager Jay. Either the Heliosphere is a very strange shape and size or the coms signals have been propagated at 'c' wrt the sun, NOT Voyager. Also, the suns regular mag field change 'wavelength' changed at the Bow shock, as did signal times, with new local velocity, all proving conclusively propagation is wrt the local field NOT the emitter. Look up the scores of papers.
Anyway. Do you suggest all stars are NOT in relative motion with us and we DON'T consistently orbit the sun!?
@PeteraJackson1 How do you know that the coms signals are arriving at earth at c despite being emitted by Voyager at c-v? Where is the reference you have sourced? Name the page and paragraph from said paper. Even your grammar is garbled and sensless ie.."suns regular mag field change 'wavelength' changed at the Bow shock".?? meaningless. And in future when you are asked for proof: you cite a specific reference or paper."Just saying "scores of papers" is unscientific and of no use
@PeteraJackson1 To answer the last part of your question. Where do I suggest that we dont consistently orbit the sun??? I certainly never said or suggested such a thing..And where do I say that stars are not in relative motion to us?
I never said or suggested such a thing. You imagine this.
You ducked the point! EM wave Signals FROM Apollo did not travel to earth at 'c' in the source frame, (in either direction). This is precisely the same as is found with all probes etc. You're right about current theory being wrong, but in denial about your profferred solution, which does not match observation. The real solution is quite simple. Fields exist, spactially extending all mass, in relative motion, and 'c' is constant locally within each. But you must escape denial to find truth.
@PeteraJackson1 You have ducked the issue by not supplying reference to any measurement of lightspeed where the source is in a different frame. The ONLY example of a apollo `test` available online is the lunar ranging reflection test where a laser beam is reflected at the moons surface and the time lapse of the return beam is measured to give c. BUT this is where th light source is the earth ie the observer and source are in the same frame. Which is as my model predicts. Is there another test?
The logic's conclusive. Measurement of celestial & probe emissions at 'c' here (as last post) is ALWAYS measurement from a frame other than emitters (except the infinitely small case of 0 relative speed). This was also the case with Apollo (distance/time) receiving EM signals from Earth. (unless the moon changed orbit while they were there!).
But this and logic only demand a more interesting adjustment of your theory.
EO Extinction never extended to the implications of observer frames!
@PeteraJackson1 Youve already tried the apollo (lunar ranging)measurement and it failed as a test as Ive outlined earlier. Its also a moot point that if the laser was reflected off the moon then in a wave only classical model that puts the reflected beam in the `earth source` frame which should gibve c in my model. Which is what they calculated.
@jaymoseleygrb You have still failed to give an example where the light speed was measured where the source frame moves relative to the observor. Your apollo lunar ranging test failed as Ive outlined above, your gas jets were not measured for light speed here on earth, the ewald olsen test was made with both source and observor in the same frame. Please cite a specific measurement, and its setup ansd results. Furthermore relativity cannot explain MMx & sagnac. Whereas my model does.
Mostly agree, but as Popper; there is ONLY empirical evidence. (+logic). All we can do is test assumption by observation. Speed is derived from distance/time velocity, distance can only be approx. angularly, but the difference between everything measured at different known receiver positions (orbit, spin & satelite/surface) has always confirmed 'c' locally. (also when these are different inertial frames). No other assumption has any observational evidence so it has to be the safest, by far.
The gas jets are explained by 'columnar motion'. In a fast flowing stream say; - No water molecule can pass it's local 'background' neighbour molecules (of ANY type) faster than 1mph.
At centre stream however the molecules may be seen travelling at 7mph with respect to the bank. (c+v).
But wade to the middle, measure those next to your skin, and you find they can only do 1mph!
That simple logical Ewald-Oseen Extinction solution unifies SR & QM and removes SR's paradoxes. Unbeleivably simple
@PeteraJackson1 This is an anology not an observation, theoretivcal assumption not observation. The Ewald -Oseen observation is a measurement that was made where the source and observor were both in the same frame. Your `solution` is an assumption only; that the same light speed c would be observed were the source in a different frame. Unfortunately for your argument neither this nor your gas jets etc, constitute measurements that light travels at c when the source is in another frame
Yes. But you get different results subject to frame. Your always RECEIVE at C, but light always does C in the frame (medium) it's IN, so we observe 'apparent rate of change of position' at C+V.
There are LOADS of observations 'of' other frames. Check out the gas jets of M87 etc. (7c+) There were only nonsense explanations til the above concept got past the censors.
If Doppler shift is evidence of speed change between frames there are thousands more consistent results. And nothing conflicts.
@PeteraJackson1 Take the gas jet of M87. There is no measurement of the light coming from that jet to us that has been measured to arrive here at c. Show me the quote relative to that example. You will not find one as Ive looked. You must be confusing the `assumption` that the light leaves or arrives at c with the `measurement` or observation that it does. These are two different things. Theoretical ptrrediction by relativity is NOT the same as a verified observation or measurement.
@jaymoseleygrb Ive read reference on this and it seems that although initially it was intended to measure from a moving frame ie the source and observor in different frames, ultimately they decided that this was incorrect and that it must be a stationary frame.Ie both source and observor in the same frame. See wiki`s page. I think you will find that nowhere is there any measurement of light speed from a source that moves relative to the observor ,NASA nor spectroscopy, unless you can cite one?
Check out Gezari NASA Laser Lunar Ranging, all NASA craft communications, and spectroscopy. And you're right about Extinction etc - simple science forgets all things in motion are in different inertial frames! That's why it's been missed.
Imagine the windscreen of Einsteins train. Light hits its electrons at the 'c' of the tracks, is re-emiited and goes through at the 'c' (xn) of the glass screen, and through the train at the 'c' of the train. As measured. You on the embankment WILL see c-v
Hi. I'm from a galaxy where we do always measure light at 'c' "irrespective of speed...etc. If you've found some evidence of anything else thousands here are searching for it! Please post it.
The mechanism is standard optics; FM, Huygens Principle, Eward-Oseen Extinction, or electrons in a new medium re-emitting photons at 'c' wrt the new medium whatever it's motion.
(And see Wang on Sagnac).
You're right in that very few've had the brainpower to conceptually see it before. Do you?
@PeteraJackson1 If *youve* found a way to measure the speed of light from a source that moves relative to you the observor , please supply some evidence of this. It sems your the only one who has. And as far as the `mechanism` you mention. So far you havent described the `mechanism` that can measure this. Nor do your samples above. For instance the Huygens principle. Lets take wiki`s page. Nowhere on that page does it mention the source moving relative to the observor. Same with Eward-Oseen.
Except that we find all observers moving away from source still see it at 'c'! And the same moving towards it. The only change is to its frequency. Yes, MMx, Sagnac & Wang conflict with the STR, not 'Relativity' per se. All evidence proves light does 'c' LOCALLY within ALL frames!
The solution is simple. EM waves change speed between co-moving frames in exactly the same way as between different media (i.e. water into air). This maintains it's constant speed in any medium. Revolutionary!
@PeteraJackson1 Incorrect .We dont find that observors always see light at c even when they move away from the source. Wheres the proof? In fact all the evidence points to light only movin at c in the source frame ie Sagnac and MMx. And one problem with the `co moving frames` is there is no precedent or no mechanism that is consistent with this claim. When light travels between two co-moving media there is no way to prove that the light was at c in the first, contrary to your expectations.
All ok if the background field's in the emitters frame. The mirrors are effectively stationary.
When EM waves enter a new medium (i.e. a glass rod, etc or even just an enclosed waveguide) they'd move wrt the inertial frame of the medium they're moving in. If the observer also changes inertial frames with the light (accelerates to rotate with the mirrors within the wave guide) he'll observe the light at 'c'. NOT 'c' wrt the emitters frame. An inertial frame is anything in relative motion.
@PeteraJackson1 Yes the but the mirrors still rotate around the source provided they dont move away or towards the source...And in the model I outline in the video,.. if the observor accelerates away from the source he will see the light at less than c. Your idea of always at c is only predicted in relativity. And dont forget relativity cannot explain the MMx. Because the MMx rotates 1/24 hours around the earths axis. This means that light in MMx is observed to travel at c in a rotating frame.
Youll have to be more specific and supply substantiation. Why do you think light would appear to be more `scrambled` in emission theory? And what in binary system observations is observed that is not compatible with predictions made by emmision theory?
Let's say that one of the stars throws out a solar flare during the receding part of it's orbit. Then later on it throws off another solar flare as it goes around the advancing part of it's orbit. In Emission theory, the light from the second flare should eventually catch up with the light from the first flare. If there was an observer at the point where both sets of light waves overlap, they would see two images of the same star simultaneously, each giving off a flare. Cont...
A chap named Willem de Sitter carried out a study of binary star systems back in 1913 to try and find such 'weird' images that would support Emission theory, but found nothing of the sort.
Its important to note that my model is distinct from other emission theories. I always have light as a wave and always at c in the source frame (re/myvideo clips).So if one does the maths properly as de Sitter did not you will find that to `catch up`,.. the light in question would HAVE to be travelling at >c in its source frame.Which is impossible in my model. Some critics say that light is then dragged around in the source frame. Sadly for them, my model still can explain binaries & Sagnac
I said your 'model'. But I see your mind's closed to other options. However; - If light doesn't travel wrt a 'field', it makes no difference whether the emitter or receiver is 'moving'. right!? In which case there are loads of experiments And spectroscopy CAN measure speed, simply by comparison of two positions, and time. But I note you've avoided Wang et al and all the evidence! RFG's do NOT work as you claim. I work with gyro's. (Do send me any 'credible' source for your belief to debunk).
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Im not arguing for any other models validity than my own . Seeing as the rest including yours arent valid and have little proof to back up their ridiculous predictions. Note you say above `there two positions`.Thats called distance. And seeing as you have no concept of physics and maths basics you can calculate speed without any spectroscopy seeing as you already have dt.
Your mistake is to think that NASA has voyagers accurate distance at any time. They dont. Check their sites
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Earlier I said `their is no path difference for the rotating sagnac ring frame`. Now I can see you spluttering furiously at this so let me explain what is essentially a simple concept, tho not for you maybe. Shrink your body down to pea size and place you ontop the source of the rotating ring. What do you see? In your frame its a non moving ring and detector/emitter with the room rotating around you.Now measure the distance both ways. What do you get? The same distance!!
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
I've tried 8 times WITH links. trying this; I thought the ring fibre interferometer with rotating emitter was YOUR model as well! Wang's excellent experiments agree, where it's in the same frame. Look up his others too.
And where the emitter is NOT in the rotating frame, the light is always accelerated in the + direction (red shifted) and slowed in the - direction (blue shifted) to travel in the frame of the medium, to give the fringe shift. (Don't believe the confusing nonsense on Wiki!).
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Im not sure what you mean here by `my experiment`?But if you mean does it agree with my model? then yes.Because if you calculate the path difference(and Ive done that with vector calculations in my sagnac videos)then you get a path difference where the light travels at c in the(rotating)source frame.But as I said last post NOT in the medium frame. In fact the prediction that light always travels at c in the medium is not consistent with sagnac ring.It travels at cv in the medium
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
And just to be clear; If the emitter is co-moving with the source they remain in the same frame. The logic of your argument is utter nonsense!
Your approach is completely unscientific. All the time you keep your head in the sand and ignore facts and logic you will only be written off as a crackpot.
Read about Ruyong Wang's Sagnac work and learn.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Your arguments are nonsense and YOU havent read wang`s paper. In it he confirms that the `longer path ` takes longer time to propogate. But this path is calculated relative to the outside reference of the room. In case this fact hasnt penetrated your empty brain this means that mathematically if one calculates the path distance in the *rotating fibreoptic * frame the two opposing paths are the same length. Do your research and maths next time.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
I'd spent an hour finding the citations, then it failed to accept the post! Can't do it again, but some are among the dross here; C:\Work\Documents\Documents\Unification old docs\Experimental Basis of Special Relativity.mht
I agree it's initially 'c' in the emitters frame. But, my models can have intervening 'field' frames it changes to 'c' with respect to, before changing to any receivers frame. With the QMechanism used, that not only meets all observation but resolves the paradoxes of SR.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 The url you have supplied is from your hard drive.There are no observations In any reference Ive seen that are not consistent with a c+v model.Some measurements conflict with c being constant in a medium.Take sagnac setup in room.When rotated light can be explained as being at c in the room medium.OK for you so far.But if the setup is embedded in another medium like glass and then rotated, the same shift is observed.In other words the light isnt moving at c in the glass medium.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Ok, I've now given up, it seems it'll never send with the web links embedded, you'll have to Google Wang, NASA and mathpages. It's all there.
With different relative emitter/receiver velocities in the vacuum spectroscopy shows velocity is wrt the intervening medium.
But no problem, I agree you're still correct, but with limits. To an observer at rest, EM wave velocity changes subject to relative media/field speed, to enable 'c' and the laws of physics to be the same in all inertial frames.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 I ve already trawled through a few citations at `Experimental Basis of Special Relativity`and none have any confirmed measurement of lightspeed where the observor moves relative to source. So unless you can cite a SPECIFIC single paper with page # then Im, afraid you still have not supplied any proof that light is always at c to the observor.Believe me its not that you cant find any yet , but rather.. none exists.By theway spectroscopy cannot measure lightspeed!You need t & d
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Regarding c wrt medium. Yes I accept that a source will emit light at c and if that light travels into another medium ie air to glass the speed will change to c of that medium. But what happens if the source moves in the medium? In vacuum I say that the light will travel away at c relative to source regardless of what motion the source makes in the vacuum. And the lunar ranging measurement is consistent with this prediction as they found that the light was at c on return
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@jaymoseleygrb Explain the effect of a path difference when measured with a sagnac ring interferometer rotating in a room? Here the `medium` is the rotating optical ring and source (not the room). According to you if light was always at c in the ring medium it wouldnt give a path difference measurement: Because to give a difference it would have to be moving at c relative to the air in the room, not the glass in the rotating fibre.So obviously here light isnt at c wrt the ring optical medium.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 You just claimed the speed difference wouldnt show up, Now you do. You are confused.
And no V2 data or other craft data shows any accurate measurement of c. You made this data up to back up your erroneous claims. Wheres your proof
And you now change the subject: the argument isnt that light changes speed from medium to medium, its the claim you make that within the *same* medium its always at c even when the emitter is moving relative to the observor. Youve no proof of this.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@jaymoseleygrb Heres your post again minus the smears... If you believe that's what I said you're understanding is inadequate. Our known relative planetary velocity, and subsequent shift curve, is the base line. From there we can work out the actual speed of the EM waves between the closest and most distant positions. It is always 'c' wrt the field. That is undeniable mathematics.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Your'e missing the point that the 'speed of the emitter' is wrt something, i.e. the observer, i.e. it is relative. Or are you using some other physics? If the relative speed changes, i.e. when the Earths direction changes, it would show in the spectrocopy. It does not. If there is an 'ether' between, that it moves wrt, then it moves wrt the ether so your model also fails. Also; Apollo arrived on time, so we knew what speed she was doing, both ways. Again, the EM signals travelled wrt space
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 NASA Voyager 1 data, (from Sun): distance "approximately" 17 billion km, speed 17k/s. If one calculates difference in distance sun to voyager for both c and c+v one gets a difference of 0.001 %! Far less than the "approximate" margin from NASA. So unless you can supply the exact NASA error margin the data does NOT confirm c . And how does NASA calculate distance? If it does using time of travel and an assumed speed of c then this is an inherently biased distance calculation.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Depends on what you use `wrt` as. I mean ` With Respect To` Anyways normal physics apply if a source is moving relative to an observor. What physics do you use that prevents relative motion between objects? You are dreaming again. If earths relative speed to voyager changes due to orbit then in both models it would have to show up as a shift in doppler shift. Ie a shift in wavelength of the observed signal. If it didnt then there would be no observed cosmic redshift.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1See above for repost of your post. Regarding your Em waves and planetary velocity etc. For starters you didnt even DO the calculations so you cant say mine are wrong. And the method you use to `calculate` c it still ends up giving only 0.001 % difference in distance to one using c+v . NASA`s error margin of approximate is much larger. So V data is consistent with my predictions and relativity. Plus ..you cant calc distance or v with just a spectral shift and planetary velocity.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
If you think carefully you'll find that we measure EM emissons from stars both while the earth advances towards them on our orbit, and also while retreating from them. And all emitters are also in different frames. The signals are indeed both emitted and propagate at 'c' within the strict limits of the emitters field. They clearly however do NOT cross space at 'c' wrt that field! The Doppler shift is evidence of the speed change to the 'c' of the intervening field/s, then our own. Simple!
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 If you think carefully you will find that at no time has the speed of light from a distant star been measured by an observor, regardless of its motion wrt us. And regardless of how many different fields or medium it crosses.
Confirmation of this is your inabilty to cite ONE example in a paper or even a general source like wiki. Where is your evidence that it clearly does not travel through space at c wrt to emitter? You dont even a measurement when it reaches earth.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Sorry Jay, not only is it an interpolation result but I don't have a links schedule so you'll have to do your own research. It seems few think the 'question' sensible enough to comment specifically, but you'll find signal spectroscopy matches time/distance data for mission velocity profiles. There are hundreds of 'anomalies' on V2's complex mission so far, but you'll find none suggesting signals cross the medium at 'c' wrt vehicle velocity rather than range. Or do let me know if you ever do!
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 When someone makes a claim and then fails to back it up with proof ie a citation or reference source it means they cannot find any proof to back there argument. Youve made up this voyager thing obviously. I think youll find that mission spectroscopy is not a measurement of speed. Only redshift, and that would be the same measured redshift for either model, ie at c or c+-v.
So your above argument not only doesnt come with refernce , its unscientific. You are wasting my time here.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Just consider Voyager Jay. Either the Heliosphere is a very strange shape and size or the coms signals have been propagated at 'c' wrt the sun, NOT Voyager. Also, the suns regular mag field change 'wavelength' changed at the Bow shock, as did signal times, with new local velocity, all proving conclusively propagation is wrt the local field NOT the emitter. Look up the scores of papers.
Anyway. Do you suggest all stars are NOT in relative motion with us and we DON'T consistently orbit the sun!?
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 How do you know that the coms signals are arriving at earth at c despite being emitted by Voyager at c-v? Where is the reference you have sourced? Name the page and paragraph from said paper. Even your grammar is garbled and sensless ie.."suns regular mag field change 'wavelength' changed at the Bow shock".?? meaningless. And in future when you are asked for proof: you cite a specific reference or paper."Just saying "scores of papers" is unscientific and of no use
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 To answer the last part of your question. Where do I suggest that we dont consistently orbit the sun??? I certainly never said or suggested such a thing..And where do I say that stars are not in relative motion to us?
I never said or suggested such a thing. You imagine this.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
You ducked the point! EM wave Signals FROM Apollo did not travel to earth at 'c' in the source frame, (in either direction). This is precisely the same as is found with all probes etc. You're right about current theory being wrong, but in denial about your profferred solution, which does not match observation. The real solution is quite simple. Fields exist, spactially extending all mass, in relative motion, and 'c' is constant locally within each. But you must escape denial to find truth.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 You have ducked the issue by not supplying reference to any measurement of lightspeed where the source is in a different frame. The ONLY example of a apollo `test` available online is the lunar ranging reflection test where a laser beam is reflected at the moons surface and the time lapse of the return beam is measured to give c. BUT this is where th light source is the earth ie the observer and source are in the same frame. Which is as my model predicts. Is there another test?
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
The logic's conclusive. Measurement of celestial & probe emissions at 'c' here (as last post) is ALWAYS measurement from a frame other than emitters (except the infinitely small case of 0 relative speed). This was also the case with Apollo (distance/time) receiving EM signals from Earth. (unless the moon changed orbit while they were there!).
But this and logic only demand a more interesting adjustment of your theory.
EO Extinction never extended to the implications of observer frames!
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Youve already tried the apollo (lunar ranging)measurement and it failed as a test as Ive outlined earlier. Its also a moot point that if the laser was reflected off the moon then in a wave only classical model that puts the reflected beam in the `earth source` frame which should gibve c in my model. Which is what they calculated.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@jaymoseleygrb You have still failed to give an example where the light speed was measured where the source frame moves relative to the observor. Your apollo lunar ranging test failed as Ive outlined above, your gas jets were not measured for light speed here on earth, the ewald olsen test was made with both source and observor in the same frame. Please cite a specific measurement, and its setup ansd results. Furthermore relativity cannot explain MMx & sagnac. Whereas my model does.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Mostly agree, but as Popper; there is ONLY empirical evidence. (+logic). All we can do is test assumption by observation. Speed is derived from distance/time velocity, distance can only be approx. angularly, but the difference between everything measured at different known receiver positions (orbit, spin & satelite/surface) has always confirmed 'c' locally. (also when these are different inertial frames). No other assumption has any observational evidence so it has to be the safest, by far.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
The gas jets are explained by 'columnar motion'. In a fast flowing stream say; - No water molecule can pass it's local 'background' neighbour molecules (of ANY type) faster than 1mph.
At centre stream however the molecules may be seen travelling at 7mph with respect to the bank. (c+v).
But wade to the middle, measure those next to your skin, and you find they can only do 1mph!
That simple logical Ewald-Oseen Extinction solution unifies SR & QM and removes SR's paradoxes. Unbeleivably simple
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 This is an anology not an observation, theoretivcal assumption not observation. The Ewald -Oseen observation is a measurement that was made where the source and observor were both in the same frame. Your `solution` is an assumption only; that the same light speed c would be observed were the source in a different frame. Unfortunately for your argument neither this nor your gas jets etc, constitute measurements that light travels at c when the source is in another frame
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Yes. But you get different results subject to frame. Your always RECEIVE at C, but light always does C in the frame (medium) it's IN, so we observe 'apparent rate of change of position' at C+V.
There are LOADS of observations 'of' other frames. Check out the gas jets of M87 etc. (7c+) There were only nonsense explanations til the above concept got past the censors.
If Doppler shift is evidence of speed change between frames there are thousands more consistent results. And nothing conflicts.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Take the gas jet of M87. There is no measurement of the light coming from that jet to us that has been measured to arrive here at c. Show me the quote relative to that example. You will not find one as Ive looked. You must be confusing the `assumption` that the light leaves or arrives at c with the `measurement` or observation that it does. These are two different things. Theoretical ptrrediction by relativity is NOT the same as a verified observation or measurement.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
@jaymoseleygrb Ive read reference on this and it seems that although initially it was intended to measure from a moving frame ie the source and observor in different frames, ultimately they decided that this was incorrect and that it must be a stationary frame.Ie both source and observor in the same frame. See wiki`s page. I think you will find that nowhere is there any measurement of light speed from a source that moves relative to the observor ,NASA nor spectroscopy, unless you can cite one?
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Check out Gezari NASA Laser Lunar Ranging, all NASA craft communications, and spectroscopy. And you're right about Extinction etc - simple science forgets all things in motion are in different inertial frames! That's why it's been missed.
Imagine the windscreen of Einsteins train. Light hits its electrons at the 'c' of the tracks, is re-emiited and goes through at the 'c' (xn) of the glass screen, and through the train at the 'c' of the train. As measured. You on the embankment WILL see c-v
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
Hi. I'm from a galaxy where we do always measure light at 'c' "irrespective of speed...etc. If you've found some evidence of anything else thousands here are searching for it! Please post it.
The mechanism is standard optics; FM, Huygens Principle, Eward-Oseen Extinction, or electrons in a new medium re-emitting photons at 'c' wrt the new medium whatever it's motion.
(And see Wang on Sagnac).
You're right in that very few've had the brainpower to conceptually see it before. Do you?
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 If *youve* found a way to measure the speed of light from a source that moves relative to you the observor , please supply some evidence of this. It sems your the only one who has. And as far as the `mechanism` you mention. So far you havent described the `mechanism` that can measure this. Nor do your samples above. For instance the Huygens principle. Lets take wiki`s page. Nowhere on that page does it mention the source moving relative to the observor. Same with Eward-Oseen.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
Except that we find all observers moving away from source still see it at 'c'! And the same moving towards it. The only change is to its frequency. Yes, MMx, Sagnac & Wang conflict with the STR, not 'Relativity' per se. All evidence proves light does 'c' LOCALLY within ALL frames!
The solution is simple. EM waves change speed between co-moving frames in exactly the same way as between different media (i.e. water into air). This maintains it's constant speed in any medium. Revolutionary!
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Incorrect .We dont find that observors always see light at c even when they move away from the source. Wheres the proof? In fact all the evidence points to light only movin at c in the source frame ie Sagnac and MMx. And one problem with the `co moving frames` is there is no precedent or no mechanism that is consistent with this claim. When light travels between two co-moving media there is no way to prove that the light was at c in the first, contrary to your expectations.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
All ok if the background field's in the emitters frame. The mirrors are effectively stationary.
When EM waves enter a new medium (i.e. a glass rod, etc or even just an enclosed waveguide) they'd move wrt the inertial frame of the medium they're moving in. If the observer also changes inertial frames with the light (accelerates to rotate with the mirrors within the wave guide) he'll observe the light at 'c'. NOT 'c' wrt the emitters frame. An inertial frame is anything in relative motion.
PeteraJackson1 1 year ago
@PeteraJackson1 Yes the but the mirrors still rotate around the source provided they dont move away or towards the source...And in the model I outline in the video,.. if the observor accelerates away from the source he will see the light at less than c. Your idea of always at c is only predicted in relativity. And dont forget relativity cannot explain the MMx. Because the MMx rotates 1/24 hours around the earths axis. This means that light in MMx is observed to travel at c in a rotating frame.
jaymoseleygrb 1 year ago
If the Emission model is correct, then why aren't we seeing scrambled up images from binary star systems?
The light waves from the advancing star should overtake the light waves from the receding star, but we don't see that when we observe such systems.
kybalion2009 2 years ago
Youll have to be more specific and supply substantiation. Why do you think light would appear to be more `scrambled` in emission theory? And what in binary system observations is observed that is not compatible with predictions made by emmision theory?
jaymoseleygrb 2 years ago
Let's say that one of the stars throws out a solar flare during the receding part of it's orbit. Then later on it throws off another solar flare as it goes around the advancing part of it's orbit. In Emission theory, the light from the second flare should eventually catch up with the light from the first flare. If there was an observer at the point where both sets of light waves overlap, they would see two images of the same star simultaneously, each giving off a flare. Cont...
kybalion2009 2 years ago
A chap named Willem de Sitter carried out a study of binary star systems back in 1913 to try and find such 'weird' images that would support Emission theory, but found nothing of the sort.
Hope the above makes sense.
kybalion2009 2 years ago
Its important to note that my model is distinct from other emission theories. I always have light as a wave and always at c in the source frame (re/myvideo clips).So if one does the maths properly as de Sitter did not you will find that to `catch up`,.. the light in question would HAVE to be travelling at >c in its source frame.Which is impossible in my model. Some critics say that light is then dragged around in the source frame. Sadly for them, my model still can explain binaries & Sagnac
jaymoseleygrb 2 years ago