[Physics] Constant light speed

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

Yes, I used my language very carefully that is why I used the phrase
*effectively* at rest. So please ponder over the following reasoning, :

Newton Law of Inertia states that “An object shall continue to be in state
of rest or state of motion with constant velocity unless acted upon by a
Force. This is a very powerful statement indicating some equivalence
between state of mass particles at rest or state of motion with constant
velocity, which leads us to two possible interpretation:


   1.

   The term state is characterized by some property, perhaps geometrical
   property, of mass particles which is unchanging at constant velocity.
   2.

   Even the apparent state of rest is in some sense a state of motion with
   constant velocity.


So once you will have time, you may provide your feedback on  "So the
important point here is the variance..."  and on above reasoning, to
possibly explore together the notions of  "*Rest Velocity" *and* "Moving
State of Rest" *

By the way, I mostly agree with your following statements:

Your  reference to stronger gravity slowing down time is incorrect. It is
the atomic clock which has slowed down, not time. If you use a pendulum
clock, you will find that "time" speeds up with stronger gravity. Gravity
affects both clocks, but in opposite sense, yet relativists acknowledge the
one, but not the other. This is inconsistent.

And then in a separate email Mike mentioned that background is both like
something and like nothing. Is it something like this:

(1/2)  +(-1/2) = 0 = Nothing

|1/2|  +|-1/2| = 1 = Something

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On Jun 12, 2017 10:46 PM, "carmam at tiscali.co.uk" <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

Tuffail, you said : "Source and receiver made of matter are both effectively
at rest wrt background medium." This is definitely not correct. If they are
both at rest WRT the background medium, they must both be at rest WRT each
other. I am assuming here that you mean that the background medium is one
contiguous medium moving as one between source and receiver, and that is a
very unusual circumstance, which is not true in general. Each star system
the light passes will have its own speed and its own entrained medium. The
system could have any velocity and any direction, as will the medium. Then
there is interstellar gas, which also could be moving in any direction and
with any velocity.
What does effectively mean?
Your paragraph starting "So the important point here is the variance..."
needs more time to evaluate than I have right now, so will have to wait.
Your  reference to stronger gravity slowing down time is incorrect. It is
the atomic clock which has slowed down, not time. If you use a pendulum
clock, you will find that "time" speeds up with stronger gravity. Gravity
affects both clocks, but in opposite sense, yet relativists acknowledge the
one, but not the other. This is inconsistent.
Tom Hollings.

----Original Message----
From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
Date: 11/06/2017 20:57
To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy
discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>
Subj: Re: Constant light speed


Tom,


Off-course, meaning of constancy speed of light is not so straightforward.

Constant speed of light has its roots in Maxwell equations, which is
inverse of c squared is equal to product of permittivity and permeability.
If c is variable then permeability and permittivity should also vary.
Before we declare that speed of light is not constant, we need a consistent
explanation along with implication of this variability of c over
permittivity and  permeability. Assuming that we do not have a consistent
explanation (or if you have then please share), we can only discuss the
meaning of this constant speed, and in this context di-sitter experiment
seems to be meaningful. Where we discuss velocity the first question that
is obvious is with respect to what. And here are some  statements trying to
find the answer to this question, to which I have commented below:

>>>>But if light is a constant WRT the medium or the gravitational field of
any nearby object, then the two stars would be seen in their "correct"
places at all times.


So speed of light is constant wrt medium( which is different from
gravitational field as per my point of view). Source and receiver made of
matter are both effectively at rest wrt background medium. This perfectly
explains the constancy. Speed of A(matter) wrt B(medium) is zero, speed of
C(light) wrt B is c. Hence speed of A wrt C is also c. I agree that this
bizarre effective rest , needs a physical explanation. But definitely an
intuitive explanation  exists for such a bizarre state of rest, despite the
relative velocity of motion.

>>>>The beam from the moving laser strikes the glass at a higher velocity
and its light waves will appear to have a frequency 10% higher. This
frequency will be preserved throughout the process. And the observer will
see the moving laser beam as having a higher frequency – a Doppler shift!
But the final velocity of both beams will be the same: c.

So the important point here is the variance of frewuency or energy content
per unit time. Let me try to explain, how this could happen. Let the
source(star) emits a constant amount of energy per unit area per unit time
t’, which is constant for all source, irrespective of the observed frequency
. Instead of thinking of Doppler Effect to possibly change the relative
travelling speed similar to the  case of sound waves, here the source can
be modelled as emitting photons consisting of sub-energy packets. All
energy sub-packets are released wrt medium at the instanraneous position of
source. So if the source is moving away, then number of energy sub-packets
travelling per unit length toward the receiver will reduce. These energy
sub-packets will be received by source into a packet of single photon
collected over a constant period of time t’. Time frequency 1/t’ of all
photons is same. What we see in equation hf, is measure of space frequency.
Long ago I answered this question on Quora.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-strong-gravity-slow-
down-time/answer/Tufail-Abbas-1


The answer though is not accurate but it only draws analogies, so not to be
taken too literally, but it gives an idea about what I am saying about
sub-packets. If the logic seems plausible or otherwise if it create more
doubts , then please provide feedback

Regards,

Tufail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170612/4810c196/attachment.html>