http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780142003619,00.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: "VERY SILLY....A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!....Specifically, I began to speculate about the possibility that light traveled faster in the early universe than it does now. To my surprise, I found that this hypothesis appeared to solve at least some of the cosmological problems without inflation. In fact, their solution appeared inevitable in the varying speed of light theory. It was as if the riddles of the Big Bang universe were trying to tell us precisely that light was much faster in the early universe, and that at some very fundamental level physics had to be based on a structure richer than the theory of relativity."

Very silly Joao Magueijo should have taken more notice of what very clever John Norton says:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

If very silly Joao Magueijo had taken more notice of what very clever John Norton says, his "varying speed of light theory" would have coincided with Newton's emission theory of light and "the riddles of the Big Bang universe" would have found a much better solution.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were) very silly Joao Magueijo's followers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

RE: Pentcho Valev, VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS, October 3 2008 at 7:49 AM

From: http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780142003619,00.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: ”This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!”


That statement is true iff the observers add or subtract their speed relative to the beam of light. Then (and only then) will they obtain the speed of the light being observed. The thing, the only thing, that MM proved was that the motion of a body can not be detected by observations (visual or otherwise) made within the body being observed. The only way MM could have detect the motion of the Earth would have been if the light beam in their test had “passed through the Aether” which it (the light beam) did not!

More from Joao,
Scenario 1. ”A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed.”

False.

And,
Scenario 2. ”If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train.”

True.

Conclusion,
”You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster.”

Ambiguous and mis-leading conclusion. One conclusion is being drawn from conflicting scenarios.

bob s,
Scenario a. Light flashed “from” a moving train will not share the speed of the train.

Scenario b. light flashed “forward on” a moving train will share the speed of the train.

Conclusion, not mis-leading nor ambiguous.
An observer to either scenario a. or b. who is determining the speed of the light must factor in or factor out their speed depending on their direction of motion relative to the direction of motion of the light.

Example A. If I am an engineer on a train moving at .9 c transmitting a beam of light at c “within” the train, I will detect the light speed to be c.

Example B. If I am the engineer on a train moving at .9c and I emit a beam of light at c “forward from the train”, I will detect that light speed to be .1c relative to my train.

If I am an observer to example A., I will detect the speed pf the light to be .9c + c.

If I am an observer to example B., I will detect the speed of light to be c.

Conclusion,
For the results to be otherwise would (and in the case of SR does) violate the laws of physics.

bob s

The misinterpretation of the MM experiment is the bigest problem in the entire field of relativity physics. It can not be applied to conclusions about light velocity. The experiment only demonstrated the following. The Fresnel aether theory that the aether was at rest relativite to the sun is inconsistent with the experiment. That is all that can be inferred. The experiment was however used to infer that there is no aether. It does not do so. The Lorentz aether theory was immunised by the Lorentz FitzGerald length contraction hypothesis. Hence the aether theory was made fully consistent with the experiment. Once done the experiment cant disprove that theory.

The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was an attempt to falsify the Lorentz aether theory. The claim was that it was inconsistent with the Lorentz contraction hypothesis. However, the author's claimed to have proved the relativity of time instead. So if you accept the KT experiment than you can possibility claim it disproves the sun centered aether theory of Lorentz. Of course this does not disprove earth centered aether theories such as by Stokes, Beckman, and Zapffe.

The MM experiment says nothing about the one way velocity of light, except that if the reference frame is not moving then it is clear the velocity is always the same since there is no movement. The problem is that movement is assumed to exist and not measured. Notice the fact that the experiment rests on the assumption of movement, which assumption is disproved by the result of the experiment. This is not a very good logic upon which to rest a theory of physics.

Consider what the Universe looks like for a beam of light.

A beam of light moves through space at the same rate it moves through time.


Yesterday is "back there". Now is "right here". Tomorrow is "that way".


Understand that, and you will understand what Einstein was saying about time and why he invoked light.

But you missed the obvious part about the next instant being the result of what happened now. As Aaron pointed out, every tiny piece of matter is different. Every place in the Universe is unique. Every instant that happens is unique. Its fractal. do you understand fractal?

Wait a minute, What is Crazy Curt mumbling about: "Every tiny piece of matter is different." Now that's B.S. Everybody knows that all atoms of gold, for example, are identical. Where's he live, I'm having him committed!

OK, sucker, here's how each is different. It is in a different place. GET IT?

Commit yourself, save us the trouble.

Each piece is in a different place and different time.

Ah, I missed you invoking Now.

Now doesn't exist.

Now is dead, I know, it was a dear friend, but it did nothing to help you out.

Now only confused you.

So come with me and let go of Now, so you can truly understand Time!

Are you smoking rope, or drinking adult beverages in your bliss?

Now is reality.

The past has happened.

The future is yet to be.

Read your dictionary.

If the words don't mean the standard things, you need to supply your definitions. I try to use words the same way I find others use them. Apparently you don't.

I could argue the same thing about your viewpoint.

Now is just the portion of time you see.

The state of that portion and the rate you move through time depends on your motion and velocity.


Now is not reality.


The past does not stop existing when you see a now.

The future doesn't miraculously become the present when you see a now.


Godel killed Now, it is a non-entity, even Einstein wanted to deny it, but he had to admit that Now is dead.

The A-series motion through time you observe is an illusion, time is not an alchemical transformation of the past into the future.

Your motion through time only gives that illusion.

Prospect One: The sun is approximately 8 minutes away in light speed from the Earth. All information, which includes the heat and light are equally attributed to the arrival time of eight minutes.
Prospect Two: The sun is approximately 8 minutes away in light speed from the Earth. Anything in the form of heat cannot travel faster than light, but the image of the sun itself, its circular image, exists instantly from the standpoint of every observer.
Conventionally, since the object, the image of the sun is actually 8 minutes ahead in the sky. It is considered a virtual image.
Question:
Name another virtual image which can produce blindness in a matter of seconds if you look at it?
There is nothing in common with the sun's virtual image as compared with any other virtual image we can think of.

Actually, GogoJF, the apparent position of the sun is only ahead of its 8-minute position with an angle of light of light aberration of about 20 seconds of arc due to the orbital velocity of the earth.

That isn't even a good argument.

The sun gave off enough energy to blind you 8 minutes ago.

It arrived here in time for you to stare into it and go blind now.

Sure I wuz. The Earth's orbital speed is not the speed of light. It's just the wave front's speed getting here that takes the 8 minutes. Since the Earth moves while the wave front travels, we see a different portion of the wave front than if the wave front moves instantly, or the Earth stood still for the 8 minutes.

Is the aberration of starlight equal to the special theory of relativity? Do you have some information on this subject? More importantly, how is this information derived, from the standpoint of special relativity, or from the standpoint of the angle of aberration?

Surely there must be some example, where the speed of light shows itself in the universe. And Jupiter's moons are not an accurate example.

An example where the speed of light shows itself for what?


When you look at a star, you're looking hundreds to thousands of years into the past.


Any star, pick the brightest star you can see in the sky, use a star chart and find out what it's name is.

Go to google and google that name to find out how far away it is.


You will get a distance of some number of light years, like 124 Light Years.

1 Light year is something like 6 trillion miles.

186,000 miles per second
times 60
times 60
times 24
times 365

Light is fast, and space is wide.


I'm not sure where to approach your question though, until you give me more detail.

We should not have to go to the stars for the answers to these questions. If we are willing to have strict control over our earth bound, man-made instruments, then we should certainly be able to come up with a synthesis, of sorts, within our own solar system which contains profound meaning.

I'm still confused as to what you mean.


Do you have a yardstick with a meter designation on it?


That meter is 1/299,792,458th of the distance a beam of light travels in a second in a vacuum.


We can determine the speed of light very accurately, is that what you're referring too?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372828/posts
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. (...) Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology."

Obviously very silly cosmologists and their LHC sycophants do not care about "investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang" but then they should immediately stop celebrating and wasting so much money:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=the-lhc-isnt-running-but-scientists-2008-10-03
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "The LHC isn't running, but scientists are throwing a party anyway....After a much-ballyhooed first proton beam run on September 11, the LHC won’t actually be operational until next year, thanks to a few early mishaps. Not exactly the results LHC operators were hoping for – but why let a little thing like failure get in the way of celebrating?..... Good to know there will be a return on the $8 billion the world has splurged on the LHC."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Hey man, you're right.

What good will it do being able to finally distinguish once and for all through hard experimental evidence whether any of the major models of the universe are tied to the most fundamental nature of matter or not.


Totally a waste of money.


I hate people that complain about the LHC almost as much as I hate the ones that got the SSC shut down.

I recognized what the SSC was going to investigate, and what it could tell us about the Universe.

The day Congress canceled it's funding is the day I realized Government is a bunch of useless old bastards who aren't worth a fart in a sock.


Just because some crackpot theory with no basis in reality isn't being researched doesn't make it a bad thing.

Guess what, the information from the LHC will be free to the public, everyone will be able to investigate the data from it.


Honestly, that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against a scientific project of this magnitude. "Waahh, my pet theory isn't supported."

So what, if your pet theory has any basis in reality, you should be able to benefit from the data obtained, if not... well, you probably aren't describing the same Universe as the one the LHC exists in.


My pet theory isn't supported by it, but I've got a lot riding on the findings of the device, because I know what it will do, and how to interpret the data it should produce.

I detect hate speech. Hate speech is against the law. I heard they want to apply the death penalty if you get convicted. We don't want that! Don't do it unless you know who your friends are.

"Now" exists for every tiny place in the universe. You are absurd to suggest otherwise. Godel just thinks he killed "Now." In order to kill "now" he would have to travel to every tiny place in the universe to do a thorough job of it. Faulty logic only kills those who use it.

See, you just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the observation of a wave front and the actual event that radiated it. Get real Max™.

I told you that there is no reason to prefer my NOW slice of time over your NOW slice of time.


You misunderstood the statement.

As a matter of fact.

If I am driving past you in a car, and you're sitting in your yard.

The times we claim as NOW will not be the same.


Just from a simple amount of 30 mph difference between us, this can be shown.


What you perceive as the universe transforming through the NOW and only existing in a NOW, is an artifact of your motion through time.


The silliness of the claim is, as I mentioned before, like saying when you move left, the universe only exists HERE, and is transforming to provide the illusion of your movement.


What you claim is HERE, I will not claim is HERE, I will say it is THERE.


You say you're in a universal privileged NOW.

I describe your now as THEN.


One of us is seated firmly in reality, simple thought experiments, or even actual physical experiments can determine which is which.

I've performed them for myself, have you?

You did this? In a car? At 30mph? You have a portable spectrograph, or did you use gratings?

Max™, Some day you'll have an epiphany, You'll slap that beautiful head of yours, and say "Oh, yeh, gees, all this time.

I already had my epiphany, it was roughly a decade ago, when I realized what Relativity was about.

I've been trying to share it with you guys, so you'll stop claiming it is wrong for the wrong reasons.


At least then, if you were going to poke holes in the theory, it would be from a basis of understanding.

Max™ said: "I've been trying to share it with you guys, so you'll stop claiming it is wrong for the wrong reasons."


OK, I'm all eyes and ears: Quickly, now before you change the subject: Tell us why it is wrong for the right reasons."

I don't find major flaws in it.

I just hate seeing people claim it is wrong for reasons like x' = x - vt, or that they don't understand what Now is.

Pentcho: If very silly Joao Magueijo had taken more notice of what very clever John Norton says, his "varying speed of light theory" would have coincided with Newton's emission theory of light and "the riddles of the Big Bang universe" would have found a much better solution.

cinci: If very silly Pentcho looked beyond his prejudices, he would find out tht the Michelson-Morley experiment is not the only experient ever performed on light. And some very different experiments show that the emission theory is wrong.
*************************

Nobody takes very silly cosmologists's idiocies seriously anymore and the next Newton (not next Einstein) is expected to come:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=859062
"The big bounce vs. the big bang....."The universe seems to go through cycles of some kind ... Our universe is what I call an aeon in an endless sequence of aeons," Prof. Penrose said in an address enlivened by his breezy Oxbridge banter (10 to the power of 64 years is, for example, "a jolly long time"), and illustrated by overhead transparencies so artful in their multi-coloured, hand-drawn penmanship that they would not have been out of place alongside a baking-soda volcano at a grade school science fair. But this was top level, cutting-edge physics, hosted by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. He described data he received just this week that appears to show traces of the previous aeon in the microwave background radiation that fills the universe and is regarded as the lingering "flash" of the Big Bang. If it actually does, a lot of science will have to be reconsidered. But no one gasped in awe. There were no hoots of surprise, no muttering about this seeming heresy, this contradiction of everything the general public thinks they know about the creation of the universe.....Of course, this is all just theory. Dapper and decorated as Sir Roger may be, physics still awaits the breakthrough of the next Newton...."

I think clever cosmologists should first reconsider very carefully the breakthrough of the original Newton:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I still say the big bounce is just the description you would give for a black hole contracting, and then being freed to expand.


Also: people still overlook this factor, as late as Einstein was around, people believed the Aether was a substance which filled space.

Think about that.


Something besides space, which fills space, and which has no properties except it transmits light.



People mistook E=mc^2 and the remarks on the corpuscular properties of light to imply particulate aspects.


Rather, it was the other way around, there are no particles at all, everything is just light. Light is just motion in the fabric of space. So everything is just space. :D

Max™, How do you explain the impedance of space? Once EMR leaves the near field, it feeds into the farfield impedance.(376.73 Ohms)

Maybe there is an aether after all. Maybe its property is inertia. Did you ever think of that possibility?

Please answer in the common language that the rest of us know and love.

There is an inertial aether already suggested, you know.

That Einstein guy proposed it, he called it space-time.

lol

It doesn't exist beside space, it IS space.


There is no evidence for an aether which is not space, it is dead, it was a bad conjecture, move on.

Max™, How do you explain the impedance of space?

A good theory would have an answer.

The vacuum expectation value?

It is based on the "ground" energy level of gravitons, if that is what you're talking about.

I model spacetime as a 4-D mesh of gravitons though, much like loop quantum theories.


The ONLY totally unique thing about my theory is the time interaction function.


Everything else is already around in some form or another, I just noted that my time proposal ties everything else together.

Why don't you look up the impedance of space (the ether), then you might know how to make an intelligent response. See if it has anything to do with the permittivity of the ether, while you are at it.

You're dealing with terms which I've resolved away into other aspects.


Vacuum impedance is a result of space resisting the twisting of electromagnetic fields, in my model.


Vacuum expectation in quantum mechanics gives the whole infinite points infinite sums problem.

That's why I introduced the thread idea, and LQC brought up the loop and braid networks for spacetime.

It isn't an infinite points problem, it's a finite amount of points related to the size of the universe.

As the size of the universe increases, the minimum vacuum expectation value decreases. This interaction gives the appearance of dark energy causing an accelerating expansion.


We're talking on two completely different levels here.

It's looking more and more like the expansion you depend upon, doesn't exist.