ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:42 PM   #1
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Light Inertia / On Variable Speed of Light

Hello!

The photons have inertia and so variable speed. This can be proven by this device:
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7555

Regards,
Emil
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:44 PM   #2
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,895
Nope
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:50 PM   #3
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
The link is not active because this is my first post. You can try > GS Journal > Special Interference.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:04 PM   #4
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 16,605
Here's the problem:

Quote:
Purpose Of Site
Dedicated to the Free Expression of Scientific Theories
Purpose:

The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both.
Without peer review, the silliest things can be passed off as "published" science.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:18 PM   #5
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by gerdbonk View Post
Without peer review, the silliest things can be passed off as "published" science.
No doubt about it. But what do you think about the paper itself?
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:22 PM   #6
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
No doubt about it. But what do you think about the paper itself?
Garbage.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:27 PM   #7
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Thanks anyway.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:36 PM   #8
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 16,605
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
No doubt about it. But what do you think about the paper itself?
The paper is of no consequence. The source already confesses to publishing nonsense. Unless reading nonsense is their hobby, no scientist has the time to read every piece of junk put out by journals such as these.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:06 PM   #9
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
But what do you think about the paper itself?
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:16 PM   #10
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,363
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello!

The photons have inertia and so variable speed. This can be proven by this device:
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7555

Regards,
Emil
1) Well, let's assume that that your statement is what you intended. Do you understand that "can be proven" is not the same as "has been proven"? In other words, you are making rather large claims and providing no experimental evidence. Whatever.

2) The paper states, "These simple experiments". Again, what experiments? You have provided conceptual layouts. You have not performed experiments. And there is a difference, which you need to learn.

3) Some aspects of your proposed experiments are, well, peculiar. Your first layout, for instance, uses prisms to change the direction of light by refraction rather than reflection. You state that
Quote:
The first prism equalizes optical paths and the second one dephases rays.
. Given the symmetry of the setup, I frankly don't see how this makes sense.

4) Finally, just as a tip, I assume that "dephases" means "produces a phase shift". You should be aware that this is a very non-standard term and you would do well to demonstrate that you know how to use standard terminology.

Overall, your paper is simply a collection of experimental geometries which you assert will produce an effect. You support it with neither calculation nor experimental evidence. Granted, in some circles the old rhetorical device of Proof by Blatant Assertion is much favored, but I'm afraid it's not going to get you much of a sympathetic reception in scientific circles. You will not get any sort of respect until a) you settle on a geometry, b) you show by calculation what the existing theory of light propagation predicts for that theory, c) you show your alternative calculations and predict the difference, and d) you experimentally show that your calculations are correct.

Good luck.

P.S. Oh yes, and a single reference with a 110-year-old source does not inspire confidence.

Cheers.

Last edited by WhatRoughBeast; 2nd January 2019 at 05:20 PM.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:20 PM   #11
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,398
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
But what do you think about the paper itself?
I prefer Mead multi-purpose typing paper, 8-1/2" x 11, medium weight, white.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:36 PM   #12
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Nice questions WhatRoughBeast. I'll try to keep it simple.

Yes these experiments are yet to be done, and yes I am sure about the results of the experiments; this is long story why.
I choose this type of expressing used also by Einstein with his gedanken experiments.

The interference needs Complete symmetry of the ray path, that is why is the first prism there.

You also can find calculation there, it is not perfect, but works.

This paper is preliminary, don't judge it too strong. I am making another paper.

Thank you again!
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 06:50 PM   #13
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Nice questions WhatRoughBeast. I'll try to keep it simple.

Yes these experiments are yet to be done, and yes I am sure about the results of the experiments; this is long story why.
I choose this type of expressing used also by Einstein with his gedanken experiments.

The interference needs Complete symmetry of the ray path, that is why is the first prism there.

You also can find calculation there, it is not perfect, but works.

This paper is preliminary, don't judge it too strong. I am making another paper.

Thank you again!
Aw crap it's a long story just believe him.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 06:59 PM   #14
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
The main reason is the effect of Bradley (star aberration).
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 07:33 PM   #15
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,558
HERE is the link to the article, should anyone wish to read it. It is not very long.

It does not seem to indicate whether the apparatus referred to exists, and whether any verifiable results have been recorded from its use. It seems reasonable that if "these simple experiments" are so simple, there would be evidence that they were performed.

e.t.a. I see Emil has acknowledged that the simple experiments have not been done.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 2nd January 2019 at 07:35 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 07:37 PM   #16
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Thanks!
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 03:23 AM   #17
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,256
Is this not similar to the Sagnac effect?


Georges Sagnac


Quote:
In 1913, Georges Sagnac showed that if a beam of light is split and sent in two opposite directions around a closed path on a revolving platform with mirrors on its perimeter, and then the beams are recombined, they will exhibit interference effects. From this result Sagnac concluded that light propagates at a speed independent of the speed of the source.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 04:09 AM   #18
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,997
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello!

The photons have inertia and so variable speed.
The speed of light in a consistent medium is a constant. This has been proved.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 04:10 AM   #19
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,997
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
No doubt about it. But what do you think about the paper itself?
Utter rubbish showing a lack of understanding of physics and the scientific method.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 04:41 AM   #20
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,651
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
The main reason is the effect of Bradley (star aberration).
I'm not an expert on relativity, but as far as I can see stellar aberration has been completely explained within Einstinian relativity, and indeed there are no viable explanations that posit a variable photon speed.

Your paper is more of a suggestion than an analysis. You propose certain experiments, then assert that the results of those experiments must prove your claim. The history of science, and in particular the history of relativity, is rich in examples of experiments whose results were thought in advance to be obvious in terms of classical physics, but where the predictions turned out to be completely incorrect because classical physics was not a good enough approximation to describe them; the Michelson-Morley experiment is an obvious one, but in fact Bradley's detection of stellar aberration is another. Your certainty about the results of the experiment is therefore worthless; only the actual results are significant, and you present none.

What I think about the paper, therefore, is that there is as yet nothing worth thinking about.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:11 AM   #21
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,809
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
But what do you think about the paper itself?
I think you are making an unfounded conclusion. Light will indeed, under proper conditions *), exhibit a Coriolis effect. However, this is not due to inertia, but due to the fact that light has a finite speed.

In fact, in most other examples of Coriolis, inertia is not the primary cause. E.g. a cannonball fired, say, North will appear to veer east because its true direction is a vector between the Earth surface's eastward motion and the north velocity of the cannonball. As it moves north, the surface under it will have lower eastward velocity, and this causes the effect. The inertia of the cannonball is what enables it to keep moving North, but it is not directly the cause of the Coriolis effect.

Hans

*) I'm not sure such condition are present in your set-up.
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:22 AM   #22
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Is this not similar to the Sagnac effect?
No, it's not Sagnac effect, actually the Sagnac effect is a special case of the effect shown in the article. It's rater Coriolis effect of light.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:29 AM   #23
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
The speed of light in a consistent medium is a constant. This has been proved.
Of course, but there is no medium in the "empty" space.

The Emission theory is already proven by the experiments of Sagnac and Michelson together. Michelson do not register rotation of the Earth, but Sagnac do it.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:29 AM   #24
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello!

The photons have inertia and so variable speed. This can be proven by this device:
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7555

Regards,
Emil
This does not sound right to me.

After all, if photons had inertia, then that would mean that photons also have mass.

However, while photons do have momentum, photons do not have mass so I do not see how photons could have inertia.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 BobTheCoward said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:34 AM   #25
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,658
Awesome! And here I thought the science was settled on this.
Are you getting ramped up to publish in a peer reviewed journal?
Do you have your excuse ready already as to why you were shown to be wrong?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:44 AM   #26
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,651
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
This does not sound right to me.

After all, if photons had inertia, then that would mean that photons also have mass.

However, while photons do have momentum, photons do not have mass so I do not see how photons could have inertia.
It isn't right, but not in that sense. Photons do not have rest mass, because the concept of a photon at rest is meaningless; however, they have a relativistic mass equal simply to the energy of the photon, the product of its frequency and Planck's Constant, divided by c. Whether they have inertia is a rather misleading question, because it depends on context how inertia is defined. In general it's defined as the scientific principle that objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted on by an external force; in other words, it's simply a shorthand for Newton's First Law, and therefore everything possesses inertia because it's a fundamental property, not of an object, but of the laws of physics. In another context it can be taken to mean momentum, and a photon certainly possesses momentum. What isn't right, therefore, is the bald assertion that possession of inertia implies variable speed.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:48 AM   #27
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,361
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Of course, but there is no medium in the "empty" space.

The Emission theory is already proven by the experiments of Sagnac and Michelson together. Michelson do not register rotation of the Earth, but Sagnac do it.
Space is not empty, and it surely is a "medium"..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:55 AM   #28
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'm not an expert on relativity, but as far as I can see stellar aberration has been completely explained within Einstinian relativity, and indeed there are no viable explanations that posit a variable photon speed.

Your paper is more of a suggestion than an analysis. You propose certain experiments, then assert that the results of those experiments must prove your claim. The history of science, and in particular the history of relativity, is rich in examples of experiments whose results were thought in advance to be obvious in terms of classical physics, but where the predictions turned out to be completely incorrect because classical physics was not a good enough approximation to describe them; the Michelson-Morley experiment is an obvious one, but in fact Bradley's detection of stellar aberration is another. Your certainty about the results of the experiment is therefore worthless; only the actual results are significant, and you present none.

What I think about the paper, therefore, is that there is as yet nothing worth thinking about.

Dave
Good arguments Dave.

As per the effect of Bradley, it's really a long story.
1) De Sitter is wrong about Bradley, because every galaxy has own rare atmosphere of plasma, i.e. the space is not empty and speed of photons is equalized in the plasma by the effect of Fizeau. This has been shown in some different articles.
2) The effect of Bradley is consistent with both classical and relativistic theory. It's yet to be proven which one is correct. I have an argument in favor of classical emission theory, but let me keep it secret for now, it will appear in a new article.

Also, that article is preliminarily, so do not overcriticise it.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:09 AM   #29
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think you are making an unfounded conclusion. Light will indeed, under proper conditions *), exhibit a Coriolis effect. However, this is not due to inertia, but due to the fact that light has a finite speed.

In fact, in most other examples of Coriolis, inertia is not the primary cause. E.g. a cannonball fired, say, North will appear to veer east because its true direction is a vector between the Earth surface's eastward motion and the north velocity of the cannonball. As it moves north, the surface under it will have lower eastward velocity, and this causes the effect. The inertia of the cannonball is what enables it to keep moving North, but it is not directly the cause of the Coriolis effect.

Hans

*) I'm not sure such condition are present in your set-up.
Hello Hans.

Excuse me, but you are contradicting yourself. Inertia is exactly the reason for the Coriolis effect.

Anyway, I have a proof that the dephasing of the rays in the article is exactly due to effect of Bradley and so the speed of light is variable, but let me show it in a next article, not now.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:17 AM   #30
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,576
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello!
Hello!

Quote:
The photons have inertia and so variable speed.
This is a claim that must be proven. However, it appears that you have not yet proven it. You should say instead:

"Do photons have inertia and so variable speed?"

This is a question that we might answer.

Quote:
This can be proven by this device:
This is another claim that must be proven. But again, it appears that you have not yet proven it. You should say instead:

"This can be tested by this device."

Quote:
Regards,
Emil
I hope this helps. Have a nice day!

theprestige
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:18 AM   #31
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
This does not sound right to me.

After all, if photons had inertia, then that would mean that photons also have mass.

However, while photons do have momentum, photons do not have mass so I do not see how photons could have inertia.
You read too much Einstein fellow.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:29 AM   #32
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Awesome! And here I thought the science was settled on this.
Are you getting ramped up to publish in a peer reviewed journal?
Do you have your excuse ready already as to why you were shown to be wrong?
Thanks mate, I'm not sure what you mean, but yes I would like to publish in a big peer reviewed journal, who knows. As per excuses, I don't rely on them but on known facts in physics.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:50 AM   #33
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Hello!
This is a claim that must be proven. However, it appears that you have not yet proven it. You should say instead:

"Do photons have inertia and so variable speed?"

This is a question that we might answer.


I hope this helps. Have a nice day!

theprestige
As I mentioned before, that type of expression was used by Einstein, that's why I choose to use the same. And I also don't like it and don't want to use it.

Have a nice day as well!
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:58 AM   #34
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Good arguments Dave.

As per the effect of Bradley, it's really a long story.
1) De Sitter is wrong about Bradley, because every galaxy has own rare atmosphere of plasma, i.e. the space is not empty and speed of photons is equalized in the plasma by the effect of Fizeau. This has been shown in some different articles.
2) The effect of Bradley is consistent with both classical and relativistic theory. It's yet to be proven which one is correct. I have an argument in favor of classical emission theory, but let me keep it secret for now, it will appear in a new article.

Also, that article is preliminarily, so do not overcriticise it.
My hilite.

Can you cite some please?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 11:34 AM   #35
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
My hilite.

Can you cite some please?
Well, here is one:
Postulate of Light Speed Invariance is Wrong in Principle
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journal.../Download/7433

It says:
"In fact, de Sitter's observations do not confirm the postulate of invariance and the independence of the speed of light from the motion of the source in absolute emptiness, since light from stars goes to the Earth not in absolute emptiness, but in a real gaseous medium transparent for light. And with regard to this medium, which differs from the Earth's atmosphere only in the composition and density of the gas, the light travels at the same speed, independent of the motion of the stars. "

Last edited by Emil; 3rd January 2019 at 11:52 AM.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 11:50 AM   #36
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,809
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello Hans.

Excuse me, but you are contradicting yourself. Inertia is exactly the reason for the Coriolis effect.
No, and no.

Quote:
Anyway, I have a proof that the dephasing of the rays in the article is exactly due to effect of Bradley and so the speed of light is variable, but let me show it in a next article, not now.
No, you have no such proof.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 12:21 PM   #37
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Thanks.
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Well, here is one:
Postulate of Light Speed Invariance is Wrong in Principle
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journal.../Download/7433

It says:
"In fact, de Sitter's observations do not confirm the postulate of invariance and the independence of the speed of light from the motion of the source in absolute emptiness, since light from stars goes to the Earth not in absolute emptiness, but in a real gaseous medium transparent for light. And with regard to this medium, which differs from the Earth's atmosphere only in the composition and density of the gas, the light travels at the same speed, independent of the motion of the stars. "
Do you have a source that is published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal?

FWIW, the paper you cite is, well no need to sugar-coat it, nonsense.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 12:38 PM   #38
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Do you have a source that is published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal?

FWIW, the paper you cite is, well no need to sugar-coat it, nonsense.

The so-called "relevant" journals do not publish criticism of Einstein, no matter what.

You can convince yourself in the reality of the galactic atmosphere here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

And you can see it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...rom_Hubble.JPG
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 12:49 PM   #39
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Thanks.
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
The so-called "relevant" journals do not publish criticism of Einstein, no matter what.
And no doubt you have objective, independently verifiable evidence of this, um, astonishing assertion?

Quote:

You can convince yourself in the reality of the galactic atmosphere here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

And you can see it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...rom_Hubble.JPG
I need no convincing about the existence of the ISM (interstellar medium) and IGM (intergalactic medium).

What you have failed to provide, so far, is that c in such media varies by amounts that are measurable with any technology available today.

Oh, and I find it curious that you do not mention the IPM (interplanetary medium); may I ask why?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 01:00 PM   #40
Emil
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
What you have failed to provide, so far, is that c in such media varies by amounts that are measurable with any technology available today.
Surely you're joking.

Can you provide evidence that there is no effect of Fizeau in the galactic atmosphere?
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.