Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

Quote from JohnDuffield

When you understand the electron you understand mass. Then when you take the next steps you can understand electron capture and beta decay.

I'm not so sure about this. The electron is a special manifestation of charge. Inside the nucleus the mass associated with charge sometime doubles (neutron case). Without understanding how charge is generated you will not manage to understand the electron.

The picture of the photon being a sinus wave is wrong as there is no chance that E/B field are 0 at the same moment. This would imply that the energy is stored in a fantastic medium called ether that should exhibit its property absolutely symmetric to a wave. Better classic pictures show the E/B wave field with a 90^o offset (phase). Now it's up to you to find the true angle between E,B wave.

Just to clarify some points above:

You're clinging to misunderstanding Huxley. Light exists, and light moves. Reference frames do not exist. They are abstract things. The observational results that makes it clear that the speed of light varies is provided by NIST optical clocks. The lower clock goes slower because light goes slower when its lower. There is no actual thing called "time" flowing through those clocks.

As I've now stated twice (this is third time) "the lower clock going slower" is indeed observable, if the clocks are brought back to the same place and compared. Whether you choose to say that light has a different speed "lower" depends on how you define speed.

I've little sympathy with this argument because you avoid saying how light speed is measured (which would need you to consider reference frames, and how you measure things in non-inertial frames) I don't agree with strong statements from you which don't mean anything because they are not precisely defined.

LHC guys (quoted by THH): This clearly shows that the interaction strength depends on the particle mass: the heavier the particle, the stronger its interaction with the Higgs field.

W: This is exactly what the SO(4) strong force equation shows. Coupling depends on mass....

This is going round in circles. The context here is a comment that Higgs field interaction - theoretically supposed to give rest mass, does indeed correlate with mass when measured.

You don't accept existence of Higgs so I've no idea what you are saying about Higgs field.

Existence of aether doesn't violate density fluctuations of it and existence of Higgs field - on the contrary. Thanks to Brownian noise we can observe Higgs-like effects even for vortices at the water surface. And similarly to vacuum we can observe them there both at small scales, both largest scales. Casimir and Yukawa forces are also evidence of Higgs field. The presence of Higgs field would also occasionally break SO(2) symmetry, which is maybe why Wyttenbach doesn't like it.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I'm not so sure about this. The electron is a special manifestation of charge. Inside the nucleus the mass associated with charge sometime doubles (neutron case). Without understanding how charge is generated you will not manage to understand the electron.

The picture of the photon being a sinus wave is wrong as there is no chance that E/B field are 0 at the same moment. This would imply that the energy is stored in a fantastic medium called ether that should exhibit its property absolutely symmetric to a wave. Better classic pictures show the E/B wave field with a 90^o offset (phase). Now it's up to you to find the true angle between E,B wave.

See section 11.10 of John Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics where he says “one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field F_µv rather than E or B separately”. It’s similar for electromagnetic waves. See the Wikipedia electromagnetic radiation article and note this: “the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time”. The orthogonal sinusoidal electric and magnetic waves in the depictions are misleading. The electric wave is the spatial derivative of the electromagnetic wave, whilst the magnetic wave is the time derivative. For an analogy, imagine you’re in a canoe at sea. Imagine something like an oceanic swell wave or tsunami comes at you. Let’s say it’s a 10m high sinusoidal hump of water without a trough. As the wave approaches, your canoe tilts upward.

The canoe analogy, E= tilt, B=rate of change of tilt

The degree of tilt denotes E, whilst the rate of change of tilt denotes B. When you’re momentarily at the top of the wave, your canoe is horizontal and has momentarily stopped tilting, so E and B are zero. Then as you go down the other side, the situation is reversed. The important point to note is that there’s only one wave there. Like Oleg Jefimenko said: “neither Maxwell’s equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents”. That’s why E and B are always in phase. That's why the picture of the photon being a sinusoidal wave is right. The energy is in space. It is an aether of sorts. Zephir's aether wave heory isn't as wrong as people think. Make sure you read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…eories#General_relativity

Quote from THHuxleynew

As I've now stated twice (this is third time) "the lower clock going slower" is indeed observable, if the clocks are brought back to the same place and compared. Whether you choose to say that light has a different speed "lower" depends on how you define speed.

I've little sympathy with this argument because you avoid saying how light speed is measured (which would need you to consider reference frames, and how you measure things in non-inertial frames) I don't agree with strong statements from you which don't mean anything because they are not precisely defined.

You don't need to bring the clocks back to the same place. See interview with David Wineland of NIST: “if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at”. That's something like the parallel-mirror gif below. We can see that the lower light pulse is going slower than the upper light pulse:

Gif image by Brian McPherson

It's ludicrous to claim that the two pulses are moving at the same speed. But amazingly, that's what people do. See Comments on “Note on varying speed of light theories” by John Moffat and João Magueijo. They talk about a tautology.

To understand it, note that people define the second to be “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom”. The radiation is light in the wider sense. In essence they count light waves going by, and when they get to 9,192,631,770 they say a second has elapsed. Then they use the second along with the light to define the metre as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458^th of a second”. They use the motion of light to define the second and the metre. And then they use them to measure the motion of light. It doesn’t matter how fast the light is moving, they will always end up saying the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. That’s the tautology. This is why people think the speed of light doesn't vary, even though it does.

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy, Huxley?

Like I said, vacuum behaves like foam: if we squeeze it in one direction, it will expand in another one. From this aspect of behavior duality of magnetic and electric fields and also SO(4,2) symmetry follows

But behavior of real foam is more complex and it gets more dense when it gets shaken or deformed too much. Fine structure constant says, that if we squeeze vacuum in some direction, it also gets more dense in 1/137 ratio, i.e. it brings proportionality of mass and gravitational lensing to charge. Therefore the SO(2) symmetry will get always broken and existence of photons (gauge boson in generals) follows. Without it all forces would be mediated by harmonic spherical waves only

We can see that the lower light pulse is going slower than the upper light pulse. It's ludicrous to claim that the two pulses are moving at the same speed.

Your sense of what is ludicrous is rooted in a universe where there is a single global time - in spite of the fact that you admit this does not exist. The difference in frequency of the bounces (unambiguously detected as per your gif) could be because of any one of:

1. Difference in separation of the walls
2. Difference in relative rate at which proper time flows
3. Difference in speed of balls.

You prefer the 3rd option. Most people don't when the balls are photons and therefore by definition have constant velocity.

The "balls" are light pulses. And they don't have a constant speed.

The lower light pulse is going slower than the higher light pulse, just as the lower NIST optical clock goes slower than the higher NIST optical clock. Again see what EInstein said here. Look at the second paragraph. "The curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".

Do you understand yet how you are very similar to a Young Earth Creationist? I show them the fossils and the strata, and they still believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I show you Einstein and the evidence, and you still think the speed of light is constant. Let's try it again shall

Duffield: Huxley, which light pulse is going slower? The lower one or the higher one?

Huxley: Neither. They're both moving at the same speed.

And I repeat: have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy, Huxley?

PS: The images aren't showing. Quote this post to see them.

Dear moderators; I am concerned that JD here is taking up a lot of space repeating stuff that is incorrect and/or inconsequential, and when this is pointed out just repeats it without addressing the corrections.

See this post and preceeding context.

I don't see it is helpful for us to be arguing here about this. The standard formulation is precise, and correctly answers all questions of this type, and you would need great care in how you redefined things (which JD does not have) to make any non-standard formulation equivalent and therefore also correct. Further, JD's formulation leads him to make definite mistakes in what he says about e.g. event horizons, so I don't think it can be consistent.

Quote from JohnDuffield

You don't need to bring the clocks back to the same place. See interview with David Wineland of NIST: “if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at”.

How do they "see" the difference in rates? The "seeing" would involve photons it? You are presuming some preferred frame from which you are viewing everything but you are not taking this into account.

Quote from Alan Smith

@THH. We have endless space for polite posters. If you don't wish to engae further then I suggest you block JD.

JohnDuffield isn't being polite.

I do think that blocking is a good solution for THH though.

Quote from Bruce__H

How do they "see" the difference in rates? The "seeing" would involve photons it? You are presuming some preferred frame from which you are viewing everything but you are not taking this into account.

The NIST guys just look at their optical clock readings. It's like you have two clocks in front of you, one a foot higher than the other. If the clocks are sufficiently accurate, you can see that the lower clock is going slower.

Quote from Shane D.

I am willing to entertain any ideas, especially new ones that are well explained, with good graphics. JD offers both, and would be a good teacher the way he presents things. Maybe misleading his students if he is wrong as THH claims, but they will at least be knowledgeable in the pseudoscience he teaches. Einstein once said, if you can not explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough. Yes, I know that can take you only so far, and after that it takes a solid grasp of the advanced maths (that defy simple visual explanations) to go any further, but up to a point it is a good rule of thumb.

That said, we are geared towards LENR. Maybe I missed it, but where do JD's concepts allow for it? That is what we are looking for after all. I believe McKubre mentioned at his ICCF22 interview with Macy, that he expects the eventual theory will have to include some new physics. Doubtful it will be found fully in the SM IMO. Although, I believe it was Teller who in the beginning said he could make it work with a slight tweak.

The thing to note Shane, is that I'm quoting Einstein here. I'm not making this stuff up. Here's some more Einstein quotes:

1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.

1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”

1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

Einstein said repeatedly that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field. He said it year after year. The evidence of the NIST optical clocks says it too. It isn't me misleading the students.

As for the LENR angle, I should talk to you guys about the nuclear force.

Quote from JohnDuffield

The NIST guys just look at their optical clock readings. It's like you have two clocks in front of you, one a foot higher than the other. If the clocks are sufficiently accurate, you can see that the lower clock is going slower.

How do the NIST guys look at the optical clock readings? They use photons travelling through a gravitational field. And the NIST observers are, themselves in an accelerating (gravitational) field. You haven't accounted for any of this.

Quote from Bruce__H

How do the NIST guys look at the optical clock readings? They use photons travelling through a gravitational field. And the NIST observers are, themselves in an accelerating (gravitational) You haven't accounted for any of this.

It doesn't matter how they look at the optical clock readings. Whatever method they use, they get a reading that says the lower optical clock goes slower than the upper optical clock. No observer sees the lower clock going faster. I don't need to account for photons travelling through a gravitational field. Not when I can show you Einstein saying "the speed of light is spatially variable” year after year. Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#Einstein's_updated_proposals_(1905–1915)

Whatever method they use, they get a reading that says the lower optical clock goes slower than the upper optical clock. No observer sees the lower clock going faster.

No-one disagrees with this statement.

You have been arguing for 3 pages that it implies a variable speed of light when as I pointed out above there are two other possible things that could cause it: a change in relative time rate, or a change in distance travelled.

THH

Quote from JohnDuffield

The lower light pulse is going slower than the higher light pulse, just as the lower NIST optical clock goes slower than the higher NIST optical clock.

It should be the other way round because gravity at the lower clock position squeezes the orbit.

Quote from JohnDuffield

so E and B are zero.

This would, imply that the photon at a certain point in space/time has no energy at all....