Einstein was a genius - there is no question about that. But even a genius can make mistakes - though in some cases the original "blunder" may turn out to possibly be right after all if examined in a different light. You probably remember the case of "the cosmological constant".
Anyway, here I would like to draw attention to the fact that Einstein apparently considered the Newtonian gravitational constant G and the velocity of light in a vacuum c as indisputable CONSTANTS. Period. No ifs or buts or any other explanation to the contrary. And those two just lately re-measured figures even found their way AS EXACT CONSTANTS into the physics handbooks and other physics literature without any reference to sigma or other notes about the almost certain discrepancies in the individual measurements - as is usually done with other measured figures. - That's really not the "scientifc" way to treat measured quantities, is it? And there were even some courageous authors who pointed that out in published papers with historical graphs clearly showing an almost-evolutionary oscillation in these measured quantities over the past 200 years or so since, for exampla, Cavendish's first measurements of G. But those gutsy people apparently were simply ignored and G as well as c continue to be considered exact constants.
This is enough to "digest" for today - I have more Einstein mistakes to point out later in another post. Please correct me if I made any grievous mistake myself in presenting these historical facts - and let's see whether we can co-operatively correct these errors in interpretation.
Spiral Path
In order to determine that the velocity of light (C) is not a constant then one MUST have already determined that 'time' is a constant.
According to Einstein (interpreted) if 'C' seems to fluctuate (in a vacuum, etc.) it is because of perturbations in time or space (distance).
I know that 'C' and gravity share an 'identity' in that both travel at the speed of light.
Your argument, which I (partially) tend to agree with, is based upon 'time' being the constant rather than the speed of light. This position is a flashback to Newtonian physics.
Your position in this matter can only be deemed to be correct if you can prove that 'time' is a constant.
To summarize Einstein's point-of-view.....
Einstein said (interpreted) if you remove everything (all matter) except for vast empty space then light will travel through that empty space at 'C' (light speed).
If you place matter into that previously empty space (let's use a blackhole) then the presence of that matter warps (compresses and/or expands) the space around it and only 'seems' to affect the velocity of light. But, in the Einsteinian cosmology, any perceived (apparent) fluctuations in light speed are actually representative of fluctuations in space (distance) or fluctuations in 'time' and that light speed, under all natural conditions (as in space) travels at the constant rate of 'C'.
Einstein can't lose! His posture in this matter is that any perceived fluctuations in light speed are only 'apparent' and are actually indications of fluctuations in either time or distance (space). Anyone claiming variations in light speed MUST be implying that either 'time' or 'distance' are constants... however, tests of Einstein's equations have proven otherwise (counter-intuitive).
So.... what IS the 'constant'? light speed? ..... time?..... distance?.... or 'none of the above'?
If someone takes a 'quadrant' (?) and compresses it to the size of a pea, then light will pass through the pea in the same amount of time that it takes light to travel the length of the uncompressed quadrant.
To a distant observer it would seem that the light passing through the pea has slowed down to a relative crawl, but in reality the light is moving through 'compressed space' and only appears to be going slower.
As such, any perceived fluctuation in light speed can be interpreted to indicate actual variations in the density of space or perturbations in time.
The 'C' of Einstein's equations is not exclusively based upon a 'fixed number'... in other words, if at a later time it can be determined that 'C' is greater that previously thought it would not affect the accuracy of Einstein's equations.... one would just 'plug-in' the new number for 'C' and Einstein's equations would still work flawlessly (like variations in 'Pi' which is always cut off or rounded off but any such cuts or rounding do not have a significant effect on the outcome of the calculation).
My present belief is that light is not completely devoid of matter and that the velocity of light operates within 'parameters' except that the 'parameters' are not significant enough to invalidate the accuracy of Einstein's equations.
How are Einstein's equations, using 'C', changed when the value for 'C' is expressed in miles per second [186,000] instead of meters per second [299,792,458] ?
Will an atomic bomb (E=MC squared) be more powerful if we use meters per second in our calculations for energy yield?
I suppose that what I am saying is the the numbers involved in this entire issue, are so gigantic that, ultimately, it really makes no significant difference even if there are fluctuations in 'C'.
As such, 'C' is used as a 'constant'.
'C' could have just as well have been another value if spins of nucleons have been faster due to some different size of the energy involved, but that's not a big deal, but it may demonstrate why 'C' is a certain value, that is, the spin of what throws off a photon.
The speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a constant. The MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum produces the same value for all frames of reference (by definition). This simply means that your instrumentation used in performing the measurement (including your clock) are influenced by the state of motion of the observer. By making the invariant terms (time and distance) variant, and making the single variant (light speed) invariant, we make it possible to overcome fluctuations caused by the physical motions of the observer and the environment. This is not the work of genius; it is simply laziness and stupidity; it works so who cares what is physically real?
Time is invariant; it is the clock (the measurement of time) that fails to maintain invariance. Distance is invariant; it is the measuring stick that fails to maintain the invariance. Combining space and time mathematically simply gives Aether a new name; spacetime. Those who fail to comprehend the nuances of physical measure will always be overwhelmed by the magician’s tricks.
I wrote a post this morning, but unfortunately it wasn't accepted by ToeQuest - perhaps Robert had shut the Forum temporarily down or something. Luck was with me as I found a copy of it just now, 10 hours later, in the computer memory. So here it is:
Sorry for being late again with my reply, but I am thrilled about your responses. Will try to get back to you individually about your comments whenever I find the time and energy after a hectic day's work. Please be patient - your opinions matter to me! Besides, there are so many interesting threads on the ToeQuest website and so many links to other interesting websites to explore (thanks bottomlander, and more thanks to Robert for his new website feature) that I usually get lost in them. I really would need 24 hours a day of leisure time to catch up with the reading and thinking-about the information contained there.
Anyway, in this particular thread here about the mistakes of Einstein, I just wanted to deal with the topics that bothered me most during my 30-year research into earthquake prediction and the TOE, namely that he, Einstein, (and actually also the entire physics community all around him at that time) elevated two variables (G and c) to the status of "constants", while he (and apparently he alone only) also demoted two measurement tools which should have stayed constant (namely space and time) to variables (i.e. inventing "warped" space and "dilated" time). It just doesn't make sense to me to replace an accurate solid measuring tape with a rubber band (to produce warped space) and a precisely running clock with one that can be stopped and started at will, depending on its state of motion and nature of its surroundings (to produce dilated time). - I believe that a better solution for GR is my SG-gravity, as I described in another ToeQuest thread (Mathematics / gravity not explained / July 16, 2008.
These are my thoughts I have time for today.
Spiral Path
No big bang either because even stars of the same type are not of the same state of development and so they didn't all begin at the same time of a big bang.
So perhaps some of the basic original and eternal stuff spun into neutrons (and such that led to us) and some of the stuff is still doing it somewhere or will be or somehow 'dissipated' back to the ether after some while.
Also, maybe our universe took much longer than we think to accumulate.
Thank you again, austintorn, for another valid comment about the Big Bang, or rather the non-existence of it. 13.7 billion years is just too short a time for the universe to have evolved as far as it did. In my humble opinion, the universe must be at least a few trillion years old - if it ever had any "beginning" at all. Actually, in my theory it is continually renewing itself in an amazingly self-regulating manner. I hope to explain that more fully some day - though you have already with the word "dissipated" indicated that you seem to be on a similar mental track.
If you are interested, perhaps you might want to have a look at the website of the Alternative Cosmology Group to which, as far as I know, hundreds of serious scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang subscribe http://www.cosmology.info/ (I hope the link works for you). They have a conference in Washington State now in September and I would certainly have tried to get there if I could still travel.
It's only too bad that NASA (who, after all, represents the American "Cosmology Establishment" thinking) still adheres to the "Standard Model", including the Big Bang - and spends a lot of the little available research money on proving this outdated model to be true. I sincerely hope that they will change their minds about it in my lifetime (and also the mathematical formula which gave them the 13.7 billion years result) - as only when that happens, true progress in cosmology can result.
In order to determine that the velocity of light (C) is not a constant then one MUST have already determined that 'time' is a constant.
Yes, exactly. Time, as we know it, is just a measuring stick for us - and a measuring stick has to be constant, otherwise we cannot compare the motions of different particles with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Play_Dough
According to Einstein (interpreted) if 'C' seems to fluctuate (in a vacuum, etc.) it is because of perturbations in time or space (distance).
It is not time that is perturbed (i.e. dilated or shrunk) and neither is space changed (as another measuring stick it has to be a constant and cannot get warped). It's the distance that a photon travels in a vacuum (or wherever) which changes - depending on how "dense" the vacuum is (i.e. how much "stuff" there is around it, as austintorn put it) and how the temperature changes in the space the photon travels through. Velocity is after all distance divided by time (i.e. m/s) and since time as a measuring stick has to be a constant, only the distance traveled can change, depending on the conditions around it. Common sense demands that.
To be continued whenever I find the time for it again.
Regards,
-Spiral Path
Last edited by Spiral Path; 08-06-2008 at 02:39 AM.
Reason: Forgot to address post
I know that 'C' and gravity share an 'identity' in that both travel at the speed of light.
In my opinion, "C" is the speed of light (with units m/s), i.e. it is the rate of travel (or momentum) of a visible light photon of a mass of probably less than about 10^-34 kg, while gravity is something entirely different. In my SG gravitational model ("shifting gyration" gravity) gravity does not "travel" (hence no gravitons or gravitational waves) but it manifests as an integral part of the rotational dynamics between two free floating masses, i.e. the afore-mentioned photon and the Earth (if the measurements were done on Earth). - That's why Einstein's prediction of the bending of light during the 1919 solar eclipse succeeded so well. It really showed the rotational dynamics effect produced by the interaction of the masses of the Sun and the photon.
If NASA could ever be persuaded to include such measurements of the speed light and amount of bending of the light done on any space craft during a there visible eclipse of the Sun (or any planet), it sure would be interesting to see the resulting data.
Spiral Path
P.S. SG-gravity as explained in another thread:
Every coherent mass in the universe, from the smallest dust particle to the largest star, is in constant motion, i.e. has directional momentum, and should therefore be considered a vector. These vectors interact with each other according to the laws of rotational dynamics by following multiple superimposed spiral paths. The vector analysis resultant (commonly called G) of these interacting forces, done on any solid surface, will reveal a constant change of irregular magnitude and shifting direction in the overall momentum at this particular spot. Combined with Newton's famous formula, it represents the universal phenomenon of "gravity" as we know it. This variable SG ("shifting gyration") gravity in turn causes most of the geological events we record on the Earth's surface as well as explains most of the phenomena we observe in the heavens. It also leads us to assume that the Universe is self-regulating by constantly recycling and interchanging its matter and energy content and therefore presumably everlasting - whatever that entails.
As your screen name suggested your concern is single spiral path. But my concern is a configuration of double spiral paths. If one is increasing the other is decreasing, vice versa. In this way the two linked paths become an invariance of a local infinitesimal motion as a quantum of space-time. Moreover, these can be properly described using the algebra of symmetric singular Hadamard matrices.
__________________ Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Why is the argument about the constant velocity of c still being debated?
Jean Foucault noted in 1850 that the velocity at which light propagates is entirely dependent on the medium through which it travels. Light appears to travel much slower through water than through air, so one can conclude that it propagates much slower through air than through space, slower through the immediate space close to a large mass like the sun than through intergalactic space, and so on. This also explains the observation that "light bends" when it propagates past a star. It's the result of the common phenomenon of refraction.
Spiral Path still thinks that photons are like "tiny light particles" that fly through space until they are impeded. In fact, Einstein supplemented Planck's inspired theory of the emission of "quanta" of energy through the observation of the black body radiator by suggesting that these "photons", as he called them, are also absorbed. Therefore, the basic idea behind the propagation of light involves the oscillating particles in a medium continually emitting and absorbing quanta of photonic energy and transferring the momentum of the oscillating behaviour to adjacent particles via like polar interaction, and this is indeed the way in which electro-magnetic waves propagate, including light. Discrete quanta of photonic energy are emitted and absorbed by the particles in a transmitting medium so long as the source of excitation of those particle is maintained. Turn all the lights off in a windowless room and this behavior ceases. "Photons" are little packets of energy, and are themselves not responsible for luminosity. Luminosity and degrees of brightness are interpretations of the brain as the result of the excitation of the molecules which make up the retinas in our eyes by the propagating EM waves, and which are converted to bio-electronic signals via the optical nerve pathways.
Einstein made no mistake in this regard. What is required to understand that is a paradigm shift of sorts. It is the rate of the particle interaction between the particles in a propagating medium which is constant, and this is independent of the distance which separates those particles. The distance through which EM waves propagate through a medium for a given time frame is a function of the amount of space which separates particles in that medium, which brings us back to the apparent "velocity of light" through water, compared to air, as observed by Foucault. Water is denser than air.
When physicists,especially those involved in quantum computation research, refer to a photon, they are actually referring to the single half-cycle of an atom's oscillation. What is remarkable about this research is that physicists are now capable of capturing and training this very incremental moment in time.
__________________ "There is nothing permanent except change"
Linear Mode
