What if the EMF is affecting the medium in which the photon is passing through; the vacuum (aka the Higgs field). .
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:47 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Is this phenomena accepted by the physics community? This is the first > time that I have heard of it and find it very interesting. > > The first question that comes to mind is why does it behave in a > transient manner? The interference pattern would not return to a stable > display if the actual frequency of the photons was permanently modified. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 6:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship > > The round trip time of light is always constant because that is how a > clock ticks and is the definition of time itself. > > To the Photon Acceleration Effect > Moon, > Russell<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Moon,+R&fullauthor=Moon,%20Russell&charset=UTF-8&db_key=AST> > American Physical Society, Texas Section APS/AAPT/SPS Joint Spring > Meeting, March 23-25, 2006, abstract #POS.008 > > Using the principles of the Vortex Theory, it was theorized that when a > photon encounters an electromagnetic field, both the velocity and the > frequency of the photon will increase. To prove this revolutionary idea an > experiment was devised using a laser interferometer and two electromagnets. > The electromagnets were arranged so that when the beam splitter divided the > initial beam of laser light into two secondary beams; one of the two > secondary beams passed back and forth between the two magnets. With the DC > current to the electromagnets turned off, the two beams formed an > interference pattern on the target screen. When the current to the > electromagnets was suddenly turned on, the pattern fluctuated wildly until > the two beams again reached a quiescent state creating a stable pattern on > the screen; when the current to the electromagnets was suddenly turned off, > again the pattern fluctuated wildly until it reached a quiescent state > forming the initial stable pattern on the screen. It was determined that > this new effect was a phenomenon created by the increasing frequency of the > laser light whose velocity is increasing as it passes between the expanding > electromagnetic field of the magnets. Because it is a new phenomenon in > science revealing that the speed of light is not a constant but indeed can > be varied, it possesses great historical significance. It is called the > Photon Acceleration Effect. Although much more detailed work needs to be > done investigating this new and revolutionary phenomenon in nature, it is > reasonable to conclude that it was created by an increase in the frequency > of the photons passing through the electromagnetic. Also, it must be stated > that the discovery of this effect was predicted and discovered using the > principles of the Vortex Theory. 1. . Konstantin A. Gridnev, Russell G. > Moon, Victor V. Vasiliev. Experiment that discovered the Photon > Acceleration Effect, Book of abstracts International Symposium on Origin of > Matter and Evolution of Galaxies (OMEG05), New Horizon of Nuclear > Astrophysics and Cosmology, November 8-11, 2005, University of Tokyo, > Tokyo, Japan, p. 77. 2. Russell Moon, Fabian Calvo, Victor Vasiliev. About > of the Conservation of Lepton Number, Bulletin of the American Physical > Society http://www.phys.ufl.edu/sesaps05.html72nd Annual Meeting of the > Southeastern Section of the APS November 10-12, 2005. Gainesville, Fla, > USA, p. 8, BC.00008 3. R.G. Moon, V.V. Vasiliev. Explanation of the > Conservation of Lepton Number, Book of abstracts 55 National Conference on > Nuclear Physics, Frontiers in the Physics of Nucleus, June 28-July 1, 2005, > St.-Petersburg, Russia, 2005, p. 347 > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 16/11/2013 6:04 AM, David Roberson wrote: >> >> jwinter says: >> >> >> >> >> *"That is correct. However for us to measure how fast our signal leaves >> our ship, we need 2 clocks - Say one at the back of the ship where the >> signal is launched from and one at the front of our ship to time how long >> it takes to travel the length of the ship. The signal *only* leaves our >> ship at the speed of light *if* we have taken care to re-synchronise our >> clocks (using the so-called Einstein method) after reaching a steady >> speed. If instead we kept the same synchronisation that we had before we >> started to accelerate, then we would measure the same speed that any >> previously stationary observer (remote or otherwise) measures (ie the light >> pulse would travel *much* slower than c travelling from the back of our >> ship towards the front, and *much* faster than c in the reverse direction! >> (this is not well known and is a surprise even to many physicists). The >> important thing here is that once we have reset our clocks to be >> synchronous in our new high speed inertial frame, (or once we consider >> ourselves to be at rest), then all distances with respect to our new >> coordinate system have changed. In particular the 10 light year remote >> star, has now instantly (with the synchronism or the consideration that we >> are stationary) become only 1 light year away. That is why it will only >> take us one light year to reach it. Distances in the reverse direction >> (places behind us) are likewise increased (instead of decreased) simply by >> the change of inertial reference frame. However if we consider ourselves >> using our initial clock synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated >> speed because we can see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit >> faster than us (it takes the pulse a very long time to travel from the back >> of the ship to the front) and so we are travelling just a shade slower than >> c. Also since any clock tick rate is given by an oscillation time, if we >> use the round trip time of a light pulse travelling from the back of the >> ship, to the front and back again, as our oscillation tick time, then we >> know that our time is ticking a lot slower than it was before we >> accelerated. If we divide the known distance (10 light years) by our speed >> measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts) then we know how many ticks of >> our (slowed down) clock will happen in that distance - and it will be 1 >> years worth. Since our clock seems to us to be ticking at its normal rate, >> we will get there in what feels to us like a year."* >> >> Why would we need two clocks to measure the speed of light leaving our >> ship? >> >> Quite simply because that is how we measure the speed of anything >> (distance travelled / time taken). When it is relatively slow (like a 100 >> meter dash) we can signal from end to end with light and only use a single >> stopwatch. But if we want to measure the one-way speed of light itself, >> then we need 2 clocks - one at each end, and read the time near where the >> light pulse is launched, and read the time at the other end when the pulse >> arrives. If we try to do it with one clock, then we can only measure the >> round trip time. The round trip time of light is always constant because >> that is how a clock ticks and is the definition of time itself. >> >> We were only subjected to a 10 G acceleration for the 1 year drive >> period. Does the problem encountered accumulate throughout the entire time >> that the acceleration is applied? For example, radiation emitted by our >> drive engine at the very beginning of the trip would simply be measured by >> all observers as having a velocity of c. Also, those on board the ship >> plus every clock on board would determine everything was normal except for >> the constant 10 G acceleration due to the drive. It is normally assumed >> that the ship is rigidly constructed so that the front remains a constant >> distance from the rear of the device. >> >> Pretty much correct - but since it is a one-way measurement that is >> "measured by all observers", you have assumed that they all have the >> equivalent of two separated clocks which they have synchronised by some >> means - and usually by assuming that they are stationary. So observers >> moving with respect to each other synchronise their clocks differently - >> and that is how they can all read the same speed (when it is obviously not >> the same if they all agreed on synchrony!). >> >> If the people on board ship (who are being accelerated) want to consider >> themselves as being at rest, then they have a continually changing >> synchrony. From the point of view of external unaccelerated observers they >> are slowly acquiring a time-shear from the front of the ship to the back. >> But the effect can also be measured by the people on board ship. Clocks >> near the front tick slightly faster than clocks near the back. If they >> transport one of clocks to be next to one that has long been separated from >> it (so that their times can be compared directly without light signalling >> between) then the one that has spent a while further forward will be found >> to be fast in comparison to one which was located further back. >> >> The same effect happens in a gravitational field (since it is the same as >> an acceleration) and has been measured on earth. If one clock is taken to >> the top of the Eiffel tower (the front of the ship) then it runs slightly >> faster than the one at ground level (the back of the ship). With a careful >> measurement an observer at ground level could measure that "light" from the >> clock at the top is slightly blue-shifted (because it has fallen through a >> gravitational field and picked up energy) and vice-versa. An observer at >> the back of the space ship could measure the same effect - when the "light" >> from the clock at the front was emitted it had a particular frequency, but >> as the back of the ship accelerates to encounter it, by the time it is >> encountered it is blue shifted. >> >> This blue-shift / red-shift effect accumulates for the 1 year drive >> period, so that at the end of it the clocks are significantly out of sync. >> You can think of the time difference accumulation between the separated >> clocks as simply accumulating your acceleration to provide a velocity >> reading, which you could otherwise do electronically. When the clock >> separation divided by the time difference accumulation is equal to the >> speed of light, at that point (if your time had not slowed down) you would >> be breaking through the speed of light barrier! >> >> ...Is there any special reason that we would synchronize our clocks by >> taking into account our original velocity? >> >> If we had two clocks, and synchronised them at the start of the trip >> (before we started to accelerate), then whatever process you choose to do >> it by assumes our original velocity to be zero. It doesn't matter if we >> keep the clocks separated and signal between them through wires or with >> light, or if we put them together to synchronise them and separate them >> afterwards. All presently available methods take into account our original >> velocity and assume that it is zero. If we signal between them with light, >> and if we are "really" moving with respect to an absolute reference frame >> then our signals are delayed differently in different directions and we >> have synchronised them with a built-in time-shear. If we synchronise them >> when the are next to each other and then separate them, then during the >> motion of separation one clock travels faster w.r.t the "really" moving >> absolute reference frame and so ticks slower for the period that the >> separation motion occurs and acquires a time-shear offset from the other. >> It turns out (as it always does!) that these methods have the identical >> effect and if we are "really" moving during clock synchronisation, we >> cannot avoid synchronising them with a time-shear that matches our initial >> velocity. >> >> Since that could have been any velocity, it is not clear why it is >> important. Suppose we happened to be going at a velocity of c/2 relative >> to some observer. No one can determine that he or we are at any particular >> velocity. Was that not one of the rules guiding SR and GR? >> >> It doesn't matter what velocity it is. By synchronising your clocks >> you have simply calibrated your present speed to read zero. Comparing the >> ongoing synchronisation of separated clocks then simply indicates to what >> velocity, and in which direction you have accelerated with respect to that >> initial reference frame. >> >> >> If we adjust our calculations in such a manner as to take into account >> what other at rest observers determine, then we leave the local frame which >> I am attempting to analyze. Let's remain on board the ship until we can >> milk as much knowledge as possible from this location. We should assume >> that we have reached a static constant velocity state once the acceleration >> period has ended. Then we look at the world from that point of view to >> determine our fate. We are aware of the distance measurement conducted >> before our acceleration that the star was 10 light years distant. This >> information is important and allows us to calculate the time it should take >> to cover it at our assumed velocity. Any distance contraction can now be >> measured by sending a radar probe toward the star. The reflected beam >> yields both velocity as shown in the Doppler shifted signal as well as >> distance calculated by the time delayed return. At this point the ship is >> essentially stationary in space and the observer and star are heading >> towards us. >> >> Do you see a way that this paradox can be resolved without prior >> knowledge of absolute velocities? >> >> I don't actually see a paradox. Unless different observers agree on a >> what reference frame to use, then they cannot even agree on the order in >> which two events separated in distance happened in time. This is because >> the time-shear effect that occurs during synchronisation of slightly >> separated clocks, when extended to great distances produces very different >> "now"s. Observers on earth will consider that "now" on the 10 light year >> distant star is ~9 years different from the "now" that observers on the >> space ship contemplate. After all they will be there in 1 year and so only >> a years worth of history will pass while they are travelling. But to >> earthbound observers 10 years worth of history will pass while the ship >> makes the journey. >> >> Supposing that according to observers on earth who are in (very slow) >> communication with the remote world (which shares the same reference >> frame), a nuclear holocaust occurs 5 years after the ship departs on its >> journey. According to the travellers who have just started their trip and >> just reached top speed, when they arrive they will find that it happened 5 >> years ago. So in their time-sheared frame of reference at the start of the >> trip the holocaust had already occurred 4 years ago before they left >> earth! So the travellers in their travelling reference frame say that the >> holocaust preceded their departure by 4 years, whereas the earthbound >> observers say that the departure preceded the holocaust by 5 years. Can >> they both be right? According to Einstein's relativity they are both as >> right as each other because there is no preferred reference frame. >> >> Here is an interesting question. Supposing one of the travellers had a >> dearly beloved relative on the distant planet who dies in the holocaust. >> And supposing, as is so often reported as happening on earth, appears in >> the traveller's bedroom momentarily after death. At what point before or >> during the trip should the apparition occur? If you want that this >> occurrence should be almost "immediate" regardless of distance then you >> need to have a preferred universal reference frame - such as the CMBR. >> Then all can agree on simultaneity, and instantaneous mental telepathy and >> suchlike over large distances become non-problematic. >> >> >
