Re: Re: Cosmology Discussion Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDT
John-Erik Persson
Hi Jerry,
Good questions. In my video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GszXb9NH8oI I show why round-trip measurements of light speed will always produce a value of c. Regardless of the angle at which light is emitted (in the Michelson Morley experiment light was reflected from mirrors placed 90 degrees apart relative to the beam splitter), the round-trip travel time will always be the same. This is because the round-trip travel time is a time-weighted average of each leg of the trip, not the simple mean. One-way light speeds can be different, but their time-weighted average will always be c.
Kevin Brown’s self-published book “Physics in Space and Time” (available at Amazon) has an excellent treatment of this in chapter 3.5 “Round Trips and One-Way Speeds”. Brown demonstrates that round-trip light speed will be c over any polygonal path provided that the light waves propagate in an elliptical pattern in the “stationary frame” relative to a spherical pattern in the “moving frame”. In other words, if one measures round-trip light speed from within a moving frame, one will obtain a value of c regardless of any anisotropy in the one-way speeds.
I’ve done a careful analysis of this subject and have confirmed that special relativity predicts an elliptically shaped wave front in the stationary frame, even though SR predicts that one-way and round-trip light speed will be c in both the stationary and moving frames. You can think of this as light waves “chasing” the longitudinal mirror (of the MM setup) in the direction of earth’s motion and, upon reflection from the mirror, “crashing” back into the beam splitter upon its return. In other words, the one-way trip from beam splitter to longitudinal mirror is of longer duration than the return one-way trip from longitudinal mirror back to beam splitter. If MM had included a “trailing mirror” in the longitudinal direction, the trip from beam splitter to trailing mirror would have been of shorter duration than the return trip of the reflected light signal from the trailing mirror back to the beam splitter. But the time-weighted average (round trip duration) will be constant and will be the same as the round trip duration from the beam splitter to the leading mirror and back. Both round trips will produce a speed of c in the moving frame (as would a round trip from beam splitter to a mirror at any angle relative to earth’s motion).
I disagree with SRs prediction of the eccentricity of the predicted ellipse. Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and Einstein all cheated by postulating a physical contraction of “space” in the direction of reference frame motion, which shortened the major axis of the ellipse. They did this because they could not accept the possibility that a moving emitter might emit light at different speeds as measured from the stationary frame. By contracting the major axis of the ellipse, they forced light speed to be speed c even if theoretically measured from the stationary frame.
I view this contraction as an unnecessary (and counterproductive) limitation, as discussed in many of my videos. What is remarkable, even though light may travel at speeds other than c in the stationary frame it's round-trip speed will always compute to speed c provided its wave fronts trace out elliptical paths in the stationary frame (as confirmed by Kevin Brown). So, if one is measuring non-isotropic light speeds (non-isotropic in both the stationary and moving frames) one will always obtain a value of c for round-trip measurements made from within the moving frame provided the waves trace out an elliptical pattern in the moving frame (again confirmed by Brown).
This will also be true for electromagnetic waves traveling along waveguides (wires). No wonder Maxwell et al believed that electromagnetic waves always travel at speed c. Because they do if measured over round-trip paths (think circuits) in the moving frame (think earth). From the perspective of the stationary frame however, (think space, think a universal preferred frame) electromagnetic signals need not travel at speed c, provided they emanate in an elliptical pattern from a moving source (which will reduce to a spherical pattern from a source that is stationary within the universal preferred frame). Funny thing, an ellipse is what you get if you send out signals in a spherical configuration from a moving emitter.
Lastly, experiments designed to measure time of flight of light traveling in one direction always include a return signal (such as a wire carrying an electrical signal back to a measuring device). Essentially all attempts to measure one-way light speed on the earth have incorporated some type of round-trip information loop. They are all doomed to produce a value of c for these round-trip paths. I am currently trying to build an experimental setup that will allow measurement of one-way light speeds without using round-trip information. It’s difficult, and involves relatively expensive equipment, but we hope to be able to complete it this year.
Regards,
Joe
From: Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 4, 2025 at 2:08 PM
To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, to: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>, Vladimir Netchitailo <vnetch...@yahoo.com>, to: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>, amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>, andre...@gmail.com <andre...@gmail.com>, rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>, ianco...@gmail.com <ianco...@gmail.com>, ibys...@comcast.net <ibys...@comcast.net>, james...@gmail.com <james...@gmail.com>, jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>, jimm...@yahoo.com <jimm...@yahoo.com>, joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>, jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, nper...@snet.net <nper...@snet.net>, rdkau...@gmail.com <rdkau...@gmail.com>, wist...@rogers.com <wist...@rogers.com>, robert....@gmail.com <robert....@gmail.com>, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Cosmology Discussion Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDTTo Joe, or anyone else who has an answer.
Hi. For years I was highly skeptical of the invariance of c. I had repeatedly asked google, and other people, what experimental verification there is for the theory. I had always told the Michelson and Morley experiment, though I haven't ever thought the way it was set up couldn't possibly determine this. I was only recently told of an experiment where physicists accelerated particles that "glow", and that the sensor picked up the light of their glow at the standard value of c. This made me more receptive to the idea, though I continued to maintain a high level of skepticism. What if the experiment was fabricated though, such as the Hafele/Keating experiment? Also, why hadn't I heard of this experiment after searching and asking the question for years? My first question is, what should we conclude regarding this experiment? If it was indeed valid? My second question is, if c isn't invariant, how does light propagate instead? I've often considered c is possibly variable, though I might have a different idea of what this means compared to other descriptions of "variable". Would the velocity of a light source add to the velocity of light itself? If so, why didn't the light of the glowing particles add to the velocity of the particles themselves?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 11:37 AM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Harry
AI says no, that it generated the paper. It cites the usual type of references - Einstein etc
------ Original Message ------
From: kc...@yahoo.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; vnetch...@yahoo.com; alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; verhey....@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; jimm...@yahoo.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; joe....@decisivedx.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 1st 2025, 17:40
Subject: Re: Cosmology Discussion Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDT
Roger A.,
Looks to me like the AI has copied a published paper but did not give any citation as to the source. Did you look at the references for the AI response so that the source of the response can be identified? If so where did it come from?
Harry
On Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:16:48 PM EDT, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com> wrote:
I believe that a new episode that I just posted on YouTube (Episode 9.5.A) answers many of the questions raised by AI in Roger’s email below, particularly the one-way speed of light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKU-kCNR8p8
Regards,
Joe
From: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Date: Monday, March 31, 2025 at 5:39 PM
To: Vladimir Netchitailo <vnetch...@yahoo.com>, to: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>, amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>, andre...@gmail.com <andre...@gmail.com>, rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com>, ianco...@gmail.com <ianco...@gmail.com>, ibys...@comcast.net <ibys...@comcast.net>, james...@gmail.com <james...@gmail.com>, jerry...@gmail.com <jerry...@gmail.com>, jimm...@yahoo.com <jimm...@yahoo.com>, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, joer...@gmail.com <joer...@gmail.com>, jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, nper...@snet.net <nper...@snet.net>, rdkau...@gmail.com <rdkau...@gmail.com>, wist...@rogers.com <wist...@rogers.com>, robert....@gmail.com <robert....@gmail.com>, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Cosmology Discussion Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDTasked AI to revise relativity to clarify things and it gave me this -
Reevaluating Relativity: Alternative Synchronization and the Search for a Preferred Frame
Abstract
The standard formulation of special relativity assumes Einstein synchronization, in which the one-way speed of light is postulated to be isotropic. However, alternative synchronization methods, such as slow clock transport, provide a viable framework for analyzing this assumption. While no standard experiments have revealed discrepancies, theoretical and experimental investigations into synchronization conventions reveal the necessity of reevaluating fundamental assumptions. This paper establishes the significance of alternative synchronization, corrects common misconceptions, and presents novel experimental methods to validate the existence of a preferred frame.
1. Alternative Synchronization and Its Experimental Effects
1.1 Einstein Synchronization and Its Conventional Nature
Einstein synchronization is based on the convention that light travels at the same velocity in all directions. Due to the fundamental challenge of directly measuring the one-way speed of light without presupposing synchronization, this isotropy remains an unverified postulate rather than an empirically established fact.
1.2 Slow Clock Transport as an Alternative Method
An alternative approach to synchronization is slow clock transport, in which a timekeeping device is physically moved at a sufficiently slow speed between two spatially separated locations. If an absolute rest frame exists, this method would reveal timing discrepancies when compared to Einstein synchronization. However, within the relativistic framework, slow clock transport generally yields identical time readings due to relativistic clock behavior.
1.3 Implications for Experimental Physics
To date, no standard experimental tests—such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, Global Positioning System (GPS) synchronization, or atomic clock comparisons—have identified deviations between Einstein synchronization and alternative methods. Nevertheless, the absence of evidence does not equate to confirmation of isotropy. Current experimental precision may be insufficient to detect subtle effects arising from synchronization choices.
1.4 Sources of Potential Discrepancies
- Cosmological-scale tests: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides a natural reference frame. Tiny anisotropies, if present, may be obscured by Einstein synchronization conventions.
- Quantum mechanical effects: Certain interpretations of quantum entanglement suggest the possibility of an underlying preferred synchronization, which remains an open area for empirical validation.
2. Correcting Common Misconceptions in Relativity
2.1 The One-Way Speed of Light is Directly Measured
Incorrect: The one-way speed of light is assumed to be isotropic based on synchronization conventions.
Correct: Only the two-way (round-trip) speed of light is directly measurable and experimentally confirmed.
2.2 Special Relativity Disproves the Existence of a Preferred Frame
Incorrect: Special relativity eliminates the possibility of a preferred frame.
Correct: The CMB provides a meaningful universal frame, though it does not influence local relativistic physics in a currently detectable manner.
2.3 Time Dilation and Length Contraction Are Consequences of Einstein Synchronization
Correct: These relativistic effects are direct consequences of adopting Einstein synchronization. They arise naturally within this convention but do not necessarily imply an intrinsic physical mechanism independent of synchronization choices. While time dilation and length contraction have been empirically validated in particle accelerators, atomic clock experiments, and GPS systems, their interpretation is dependent on the chosen synchronization method rather than being absolute physical phenomena.
3. Experimental Approaches to Identifying a Preferred Frame
While no conclusive experimental evidence has established a preferred frame, several methodologies offer promising avenues for verification.
3.1 Direct Measurement of Anisotropic One-Way Light Speed
A crucial step toward resolving this issue is designing an experiment that measures the one-way speed of light without assuming synchronization. Potential methodologies include:
- Laser interferometry combined with atomic clocks at spatially separated locations.
- Pulsar timing variations to detect potential anisotropies in signal propagation.
3.2 High-Precision Slow Clock Transport Experiments
By transporting an ultra-precise atomic clock over controlled distances and comparing its readings to a clock synchronized via Einstein’s method, researchers can directly test for discrepancies indicative of a preferred frame.
3.3 Cosmological Anisotropy Investigations
Analyzing CMB anisotropies and astrophysical timing deviations can provide further insight into the underlying structure of synchronization, potentially identifying departures from conventional relativistic predictions.
4. Conclusion
Special relativity remains a cornerstone of modern physics, but its synchronization assumptions must be rigorously tested. Alternative synchronization methods offer robust avenues for investigating the nature of spacetime, and experimental advancements in high-precision timing, astrophysical observations, and quantum mechanics will be instrumental in resolving these fundamental questions. The existence of a preferred frame is not merely a theoretical consideration but a testable proposition, and ongoing research is poised to provide conclusive answers.
Keywords: relativity, synchronization, one-way speed of light, preferred frame, slow clock transport, cosmic microwave background, anisotropy, quantum entanglement.
------ Original Message ------
From: vnetch...@yahoo.com
To: alexdf...@gmail.com; amir...@aim.com; andre...@gmail.com; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com; verhey....@gmail.com; ianco...@gmail.com; ibys...@comcast.net; james...@gmail.com; jerry...@gmail.com; jimm...@yahoo.com; joe....@decisivedx.com; joer...@gmail.com; jorgenm...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; rdkau...@gmail.com; wist...@rogers.com; robert....@gmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; kc...@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, March 31st 2025, 17:04
Subject: Re: Cosmology Discussion Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDT
Dear Colleagues,
Please take a look at my latest published article Four Spatial Dimension World-Universe Cosmology.
Your opinion is important to me.
Vladimir
On Friday, March 28, 2025 at 12:39:20 PM PDT, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Jerry,
Your question is a good one, and that is why I suggested these topics for discussion. What I would like you and others to do is write down your questions and send them to me as possible topics to discuss on Sunday.
I have two other videos that we may consider discussing. The first one is a recent Sabine Hossenfelder video that is a really good summary discussion of Crises IN Cosmology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBfeKz1SG0k
I think I have mentioned all of these issues she addresses.
This next video is interesting because it looks like astronomers have discovered evidence that supports Vladimir's WUM cosmology. The reported results indicate evidence for his Universe Created Particles being emitted from the center, or nucleus, of our Milky Way Galaxy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YHwbO4vHRw&t=57s
So it looks like there are a number of interesting things to discuss on Sunday.
Harry
On Friday, March 28, 2025 at 09:32:46 AM EDT, Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Harry.
Thanks for providing those possible topics. I have a question regarding the first link.
How could we possibly ever witness the "birth" of the universe? Of course, I don't agree with the Big Bang, as most of us in the CNPS seem at least highly skeptical. However, if there somehow was a beginning of the universe, would we see it in every direction? Whichever way the telescope is pointed? What of all the additional "elderly galaxies" which the JWST has also found?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:45 PM HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are invited to participate in the Cosmology Discussion for Sunday March 30 at 10 AM EDT.
This week we do not have any presentations. I have attached the following for you to consider as topics for the discussion. So this will be a multiple topic discussion.
Here are some examples:
Here is Sabine's take on the latest dark energy results:
I think these will be good topics to discuss unless someone comes forward with a topic to present. Members are invited to propose topics for discussion.
As usual the links to the meetings remain the same as for previous weeks. Here they are again for your reference.
First meeting 10AM EDT:
Second meeting 10:40 AM EDT:
Third meeting 11:20 AM EDT;