The Pioneer anomaly

[Viv Pope]

Could This be the ‘New Physics’?

One of the most disturbing developments in modern experimental physics is the discovery that, virtually, the ‘gravitational constant’, G, long regarded as sacrosanct in its dependability, is not a constant but a variable. This means that some of the planets, satellites, space-probes, etc., are not where they should be according to the standard Newtonian equations. This has prompted physicists, particularly those connected with space-probes, such as Pioneers 10 and 11 and others, seriously to contemplate the necessity for a ‘new physics’. As NASA scientist, John Anderson puts it:

 

In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set.

 

Unfortunately, to flip from one ‘mindset’ to another, as radically as may be necessary, is not easy. Indeed, as history attests (witness Galileo, et al.) it may even be socially traumatic. In any case, if there is such a new physics in the offing, it is obviously not something that can be just ‘plucked out of the air’ or manufactured, ad hoc on the spot. Fortunately, over the last half-century there has been developed a radically new paradigm of physics, based on the ideas of relativity’s originator, Ernst Mach, who was Einstein’s Philosophy mentor. This Machian relativism differs from Einstein’s in that instead of opposing quantum theory in the way Einstein’s theory so notoriously does, it actually incorporates it as part and parcel of its physics. Also, in its predictions of varying G, not only does it propose a natural solution of the Pioneer anomaly, but also of the anomalous ‘missing mass’ in current astrophysics, that is, without having to postulate the completely undetectable ‘dark matter’ that mystifies modern physics.

 

Spam removed...

[Viv Pope]

Could This be the ‘New Physics’?

One of the most disturbing developments in modern experimental physics is the discovery that, virtually, the ‘gravitational constant’, G, long regarded as sacrosanct in its dependability, is not a constant but a variable. This means that some of the planets, satellites, space-probes, etc., are not where they should be according to the standard Newtonian equations. This has prompted physicists, particularly those connected with space-probes, such as Pioneers 10 and 11 and others, seriously to contemplate the necessity for a ‘new physics’. As NASA scientist, John Anderson puts it:

 

In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set.

 

Unfortunately, to flip from one ‘mindset’ to another, as radically as may be necessary, is not easy. Indeed, as history attests (witness Galileo, et al.) it may even be socially traumatic. In any case, if there is such a new physics in the offing, it is obviously not something that can be just ‘plucked out of the air’ or manufactured, ad hoc on the spot. Fortunately, over the last half-century there has been developed a radically new paradigm of physics, based on the ideas of relativity’s originator, Ernst Mach, who was Einstein’s Philosophy mentor. This Machian relativism differs from Einstein’s in that instead of opposing quantum theory in the way Einstein’s theory so notoriously does, it actually incorporates it as part and parcel of its physics. Also, in its predictions of varying G, not only does it propose a natural solution of the Pioneer anomaly, but also of the anomalous ‘missing mass’ in current astrophysics, that is, without having to postulate the completely undetectable ‘dark matter’ that mystifies modern physics.

 

The full account of this radically new approach to modern physics is presented in a recent (2008) book entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, by A. D. Osborne and N. V. Pope. This book describes the neo-Machian philosophy of Normal Realism and its Physics spin-off, POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis). The book is available from some bookshops, such as Borders, as well as in some libraries and from the distributors listed on the website spam link deleted

 

 

The Pioneer Anomaly as a POAMS-Effect

 

The POAMS Effect is described in the new book mentioned above was written mainly for post-graduate students of mathematics (see website spam removed - Recall, here, that ‘POAMS’ stands for the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis). Some readers of the book regard it as too 'highly mathematical' for their unserstanding, especially in relation to the Pioneer anomaly. The following is attempt to make that point about the Pioneer anomaly more accessible to non-mathematicians.

 

To reiterate, Briefly, the POAMS effect is the effect of varying G due to spin angular momentum of freely orbiting bodies. Despite its 'highly mathematical' treatment in the book, the POAMS Effect is susceptible of a simple commonsense paraphrase. Briefly, it is that if the total kinetic energy of an orbiting body consists of the kinetic energy of the orbit plus that of the spin, then, logically, changing the spin energy must change the orbital energy, hence the radius of orbit in the way NASA has discovered.

 

Such changes in orbital parameters due to spin are, of course, counter to Newtonian mechanics, according to which the ‘gravitational’ effect on bodies is the same whether or not they are spinning, so that for Newton, G is G , no matter what. However, to incorporate the spin angular momentum into the equation for the total angular momentum of an orbiting body in the way POAMS does, necessarily alters the value of G. And that, in a nutshell, is the POAMS effect.

 

So the Pioneer experiment has discovered varying G, and POAMS predicts varying G. If this is not the explanation of the Pioneer anomaly, then what is?

 

Listening out,

Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

Dear 080528jk

 

I have received the following =e-mail message:

 

080528jk has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - The Pioneer anomaly - in the Alternative theories forum of Science Forums.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot locate your reply. All I get in the e-mail is a string oif strange hieroglyphics. Sorry,

Viv Pope

[Moontanman]

Robert Foot suggests the Pioneer anomaly can be explained by Mirror Matter. Mirror matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Boerseun]

Hi Viv,

 

Interesting stuff in the original post, until I saw this at the end of it:

The full account of this radically new approach to modern physics is presented in a recent (2008) book entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, by A. D. Osborne and N. V. Pope.

So here you are promoting your own book that supposedly topples Einstein.

 

It's called spam, and we don't take very kindly to it.

 

We can't participate in discussing matters pertaining to your original post if it requires we first buy a book you wrote. We had a guy here who wrote "The Final Theory", something he sucked out of his thumb, and he simply refused to disclose anything unless you pay the $30 fee for his book.

 

That is not Science.

 

If you're serious about your alternative theory, please:

 

1) Refer us to a peer-reviewed publication in which it appeared

2) Give us some info of what its about (...and no, we're not going to buy the book, nor are you allowed to use our readership as a free billboard for your book).

3) The strategy of "yes, I know it's technical, but page seventeen of the book (available at whatever.com) explains it beautifully) doesn't hold sway here. If that's your approach, this thread will most likely be deleted and your account be removed.

 

...and I'm not nasty, I'm interested in any new scientific developments. But not the charlatans who continuously keep cashing in on ignorance.

At post number three we don't know you well enough to know in which category you fit, you see.

[C1ay]

So here you are promoting your own book that supposedly topples Einstein.

 

It's called spam, and we don't take very kindly to it.

 

****Hocus Pocus **** POOF

 

Spam gone

[Viv Pope]

Boerseun says:

So here you are promoting your own book that supposedly topples Einstein.

It's called spam, and we don't take very kindly to it. We can't participate in discussing matters pertaining to your original post if it requires we first buy a book you wrote.

 

Viv replies

I'm sorry, Boerseun, if it looked that way. However, that was far from being the true purpose of the website. Unfortunately, the pictures of the books were plonked in by our webmaster with, yes, sales in mind. But in his zeal he almost obliterated the list of Sections dealing with the true purpose of the site. If you look again at the front page, ignore the books and examine the strip on the left-hand side, you will see the list of Sections that not only explain the various aspects of the project but also offer, in the Relevant Pulications section, conference papers, lectures, Proceedings, etc., which can be downloaded for free.

 

Thanks, anyway, for alerting us to this problem of the website looking, at first glance, like nothing but a sales pitch for the books when, in fact, it is nothing of the kind. What it really is, is a conscientious attempt to advance science in the true, traditional way by an analysis of concepts at its cutting edge.

 

As for your assumption that I am trying to 'topple Einstein', that is definitely not true. At the risk of being accused of 'name-dropping', I am very grateful to Einstein for a short correspondence with him, in 1954, which set me on the course I am now on. This is definitely to build on Einstein, not 'topple' him.

 

By the way, I hope there are some subscribers in this group who are serious thinkers. I will not respond to mere Clever-Dick one-liners.I'm sure you agree that Science is a serious subject, not something to serve the egos of ignoramuses. With this firmly in mind, I intend to subscribe some bits of my long philosophical odyssey for serious and intelligent consideration. I trust that these pieces will be examined studiously before responses are posted.

 

By the way, my philosophical mantras are:

'It isn't who is right but what is right that counts'; and

'I don't know what The Truth is, but I sure as hell know what isn't!'

 

Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

In his previous posts, Viv says

'I intend to subscribe some bits of my half-century long philosophical odyssey for serious and intelligent consideration. I trust that these pieces will be examined studiously before responses are posted.'

Here is one such post reiterating, in different words, the proposed solution to the Pioneer anomaly.

 

Pioneer and Commonsense

The answer to the Pioneer anomaly is, surely, just plain commonsense. All the NASA space-probes have to spin so as to maintain their orientation with regard to Earth.

 

Now angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so the total angular momentum of a space-probe is that of both its orbit and spin. This means that for a given amount of angular momentum imparted to a space-probe at the start, barring any externally applied force, the probe will maintain that amount of angular momentum throughout its journey through space. (Note: we are talking about magnitudes here, not vectors. It is these magnitudes that are conserved, not vectors.)

 

It follows, then, that insofar as that total amount of angular momentum is conserved, the larger the spin angular momentum of the probe the smaller its orbital angular momentum, and, by standard dynamics, the smaller the orbital angular momentum the smaller the orbital radius hence the faster the orbital speed.

 

However, standard orbital dynamics, in its classical Newtonian mould is based on the notion of ‘gravitational attraction’ between masses, which takes no account of any spin those masses might have. Now the velocities of NASA’s probes, fast as they are, are too small seriously to involve Relativity, so NASA’s calculations of the orbital trajectories of their probes are virtually Newtonian, which means that they take no account of spin. And if the spin angular momentum of the probe is ignored, then the shortening of the orbit radius and increase in orbital velocity, with regard to its centre of orbit (the earth, Saturn, the sun or whatever) presents an anomaly.

 

But, of course, this ‘anomalous acceleration’ of the probes towards its centre of orbit, be it the earth, the sun or whatever, is precisely what NASA have discovered. So, where’s the ‘anomaly’? Not in nature, surely, but in Newton.

 

Viv Pope

The Website of Science-Philosopher Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

Reiteration: In his previous posts, Viv says

'I intend to subscribe some bits of my half-century long philosophical odyssey for serious and intelligent consideration.' I trust that these pieces will be respected for what they are and examined studiously before responding'

Here is another such post dealing, this time, with Relativity.

 

Relativity from Pythagoras

Modern Physics has become unnecessarily complicated and esoteric. Its central ideas are getting old and well in need of a good service and overhaul. Take Special Relativity for instance. That theory has not been seriously checked over for more than a century. It has done a lot of mileage but now it is clear some bits of it are in urgent need of repair. Take, for instance, Einstein’s Second Axiom. This is clearly nonsensical. It states, in effect, that the ‘speed of light’ in vacuo is c, which is constant, not only for all observers, regardless of how they move relatively to one another but also to space (the vacuum) itself, which is logically incoherent.

 

However, there is no need of that assumption, for the true fact is that c is no more than a constant ratio of observational distance-units to time-units. This is obviously the same for all observers, regardless of their motions relative to one another in the same way that for those same observers there is a constant ratio of 39.37 inches to the metre and 2.2 pounds to the kilogram. The fact that c has the dimensions of a velocity doesn’t make it a velocity, any more than the fact that all women are human makes all humans women.

 

Besides, there can be no knowing what light ‘does’, when conceived as ‘travelling all alone and unseen in the void’. This generates theoretical fantasies. The simplest and safest interpretation of c, then, is that it is simply the ratio of 3.3 nanoseconds to the metre. This makes no difference whatsoever to the mathematical consequence of any equation in which c appears, so the notion that c is a ‘velocity’ is altogether redundant hence a source of unnecessary metaphysical speculation.

 

There is also the fact that Einstein’s time equation, which is perplexingly written as tR = 1/√[1 – (v^2/c^2)], can be derived from the much simpler Pythagorean equation tR = √(s^2 + t^2 ), where s is the observed distance travelled by a body in units of metres/c per second, t is the time in seconds of that motion as registered on the body itself (as viewed by the home observer), and tR is, by Pythagoras, the resultant in seconds (the hypotenuse) of the two dimensionally rectangular time-measures s and t. [*] Note that all these measures are now expressed uniformly in units of seconds. This makes it more logical to think of Einstein’s equations as deriving from Pythagoras than to think of Pythagoras deriving from Einstein. Or else, of course, one may dispense with the Einsteinian equation, together with all this conversional rigmarole, and deal in terms purely of Pythagorean time-measures. This is similar to the way in which it is now customary to measure journeys in the time they take (e.g., ‘It is no more than about five minutes down the road’ or ‘It’s three hours from here to Birmingham’.)

 

In this way, a whole new way of thinking (or paradigm) of relativity, based on purely observational, or phenomenalist [***] space-time dimensions, has been developed in the name of POAMS, the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis. This can be accessed on the website POAMS - The Neo-Machian, Digital Physics Website .You don’t have to buy the books advertised on that site. Just trawl through the Sections list on the left of the front page and download, for free, some of the most relevant conference papers and Proceedings on this subject.)

 

Viv Pope The Website of Science-Philosopher Viv Pope

 

NOTES

[*] The relative velocity, v, is s/tR. From this we have s = vtR . Substituting this equivalent expression vtR for s in the Pythagorean equation and simplifying the result produces the Einsteinian equation.

[**] metres/c = metres/ (3 x 10^8 metres/second) = 3.3 x 10^-9 seconds.= 3,3 nanoseconds.

[***] The most well-known exponent of phenomenalism (radical relativism) was Ernst Mach, significantly, the relativistic predecessor and mentor of Einstein.

[CraigD]

Here is another such post dealing, this time, with Relativity.

…

Take, for instance, Einstein’s Second Axiom. This is clearly nonsensical. It states, in effect, that the ‘speed of light’ in vacuo is c, which is constant, not only for all observers, regardless of how they move relatively to one another but also to space (the vacuum) itself, which is logically incoherent.

…

Besides, there can be no knowing what light ‘does’, when conceived as ‘travelling all alone and unseen in the void’.

In order to confirm that I understand the point Viv intended to make with these statements, let me restate my read of it:

“The concept of the speed of light in vacuum © is logically incoherent, because the speed of light cannot be measured in a system consisting only of light in vacuum.”

 

However, I’ve not previously encountered a definition of the c as “the speed of light measured with only vacuum”, and am practically certain this is not the definition intended to be used in the Second Postulate of Special Relativity:

The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

(source: wikipedia article “special relativity”)

 

The usual definition of the speed of light in any medium is the same as that of the average speed of anything: [math]v = \frac{\Delta d}{\Delta t}[/math], where [math]\Delta d[/math] and [math]\Delta t[/math] are changes in distance and time. Although direct measurement of [math]\Delta t[/math] for practical values of [math]\Delta d[/math] were experimentally impractical 100 years ago, they are no longer (eg: see “A small tabletop experiment for a direct measurement of the speed of light”, Aoki and Mitsui, 2008).

 

Although, to a person subscribing to a corpuscular theory of light (eg: Isaac Newton and many other 18th century natural philosophers), the idea that a direct measurement of the speed of light results in a constant value regardless of the motion of the emitter or receiver of the light is counterintuitive and unexpected, such results are reproduced literally many times a second worldwide, in particular by the GPS. The precision of the clocks and signal shapes of the GPS and other systems performing long-distance speed of light measurements is sufficient that a violations of the second postulate would be easily detected. No such violations are detected.

 

Therefore, rather than being nonsensical, as Viv claims, the second postulate seems to me superbly supported by experiments.

 

Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

If so, what is your experimental evidence for violations of the second postulate, or explanation for why violations are not experimentally detectable?

[Viv Pope]

Dear Craig D,

Thanks for your interest and for giving me the opportunity to make myself clear.

 

Actually, I am by no means saying that Einstein's Second Axiom is wrong in the measurement sense of c. I thoroughly agree that the value of c is 2.99792458^8 m/s, also that this has been confirmed time and again by all sorts of measurements, to the extent that it now remains practically inviolate. That is not the sense in which I regard Einstein's axiom as wrong. In the 1960s, Herman Bondi and I concurred that, as Bondi writes in his book: Assumption and Myth in Physical Theory

 

Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is . . . not

an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an

attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard

metre in Paris in terms of time-units.

 

[Cambridge University Press, 1965. p.28.]

 

 

Both Bondi and I, in our different ways, came to the same conclusion that by regarding c as a pure constant instead of a 'velocity' - but, as I say, with the same value and dimensions - the Special theory of Relativity is much simplified and improved. This replacement of c, the 'velocity' by c the constant makes no difference to the mathematical consequences of Relativity - except, of course to simplify them in the way I have shown. ((that is to say, leaving aside the philosophical significance, which is immense.)

 

What is so significant about this is that it changes our whole conception of what Einstein called 'the velocity of light in vacuo'. For instance, we no longer have to think of what light 'does' in winging its was through the void for perhaps millennia till it happens to strike something. It obviates any need to think of light as 'waves', 'photons', 'wave-particles' or whatever. Indeed, it opens-up a whole new mind-set away from classical 'God's-eye-view' mechanism (e.g.., quasi-ballistics) and into phenomenalism which is an altogether radical 'New Paradigm' of Physics; I say 'new' but, historically, this has been 'waiting in the wings' for centuries to get its cue to come 'on stage' as a replacement for the now seriously flagging extant paradigm. Revolutionary new paradigms have always been the life-blood of growing Science, so why should they stop now? And, whenever these have occurred they have invariably been accompanied by the sort of mental trauma which makes people feel like limpets prised off rocks.

 

One remaining caveat to this is that, logically, it makes no sense to judge a new paradigm from the standpoint of the old, any more than it does to criticise one contemporary language system from the standpoint of another. Making radical changes in a concept-system is always hard, but I'm sure you will agree that for the sake of progressive science it should be regarded as an adventure not a catastrophe.

 

Thanks again

 

Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

In order to confirm that I understand the point Viv intended to make with these statements, let me restate my read of it:

“The concept of the speed of light in vacuum © is logically incoherent, because the speed of light cannot be measured in a system consisting only of light in vacuum.”

 

However, I’ve not previously encountered a definition of the c as “the speed of light measured with only vacuum”, and am practically certain this is not the definition intended to be used in the Second Postulate of Special Relativity:

The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

(source: wikipedia article “special relativity”)

 

The usual definition of the speed of light in any medium is the same as that of the average speed of anything: [math]v = frac{Delta d}{Delta t}[/math], where [math]Delta d[/math] and [math]Delta t[/math] are changes in distance and time. Although direct measurement of [math]Delta t[/math] for practical values of [math]Delta d[/math] were experimentally impractical 100 years ago, they are no longer (eg: see “A small tabletop experiment for a direct measurement of the speed of light”, Aoki and Mitsui, 2008).

 

Although, to a person subscribing to a corpuscular theory of light (eg: Isaac Newton and many other 18th century natural philosophers), the idea that a direct measurement of the speed of light results in a constant value regardless of the motion of the emitter or receiver of the light is counterintuitive and unexpected, such results are reproduced literally many times a second worldwide, in particular by the GPS. The precision of the clocks and signal shapes of the GPS and other systems performing long-distance speed of light measurements is sufficient that a violations of the second postulate would be easily detected. No such violations are detected.

 

Therefore, rather than being nonsensical, as Viv claims, the second postulate seems to me superbly supported by experiments.

 

Viv, do I appear to understand your claims? If not, how have I erred?

 

If so, what is your experimental evidence for violations of the second postulate, or explanation for why violations are not experimentally detectable?

 

Viv Pope replies:

Dear Craig D,

Thanks for your interest and for giving me the opportunity to make myself clear.

 

Actually, I am by no means saying that Einstein's Second Axiom is wrong in the measurement sense of c. I thoroughly agree that the value of c is 2.99792458^8 m/s, also that this has been confirmed time and again by all sorts of measurements, to the extent that it now remains practically inviolate. However, that is not the sense in which I regard Einstein's axiom as wrong. In the 1960s, Herman Bondi and I concurred that, as Bondi writes in his book: Assumption and Myth in Physical Theory

 

Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is . . . not

an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an

attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard

metre in Paris in terms of time-units.

 

[Cambridge University Press, 1965. p.28.]

 

Both Bondi and I, in our different ways, came to the same conclusion that by regarding c as a pure constant instead of a 'velocity' - albeit, as I say, with the same value and dimensions - the Special theory of Relativity is very much much simplified and improved. This replacement of c, the 'velocity' by c the constant makes no difference to the mathematical consequences of Relativity - except, of course to simplify them in the way I have shown. ((that is to say, leaving aside the philosophical significance, which is immense.)

 

What is so significant about this is that it changes our whole conception of what Einstein called 'the velocity of light in vacuo'. For instance, we no longer have to think of what light 'does' in winging its way through the void for perhaps millennia till it happens to strike something. It also obviates any need to think of light as 'waves', 'photons', 'wave-particles' or whatever. Indeed, it opens-up a whole new mind-set away from classical 'God's-eye-view' mechanism (e.g., quasi-ballistics) and into phenomenalism which is an altogether radical 'New Paradigm' of Physics - I say 'new' but, historically, this has been 'waiting in the wings' for centuries to get its cue to come 'on stage' as a replacement for the now seriously flagging extant paradigm. Revolutionary new paradigms have always been the life-blood of growing Science, so why should they stop now? And, whenever these have occurred they have invariably been accompanied by the sort of mental trauma which makes people feel like limpets prised off rocks.

 

One remaining caveat to this is that, logically, it makes no sense to judge a new paradigm from the standpoint of the old, any more than it does to criticise one contemporary language system from the standpoint of another. Making radical changes in a concept-system is always hard, but I'm sure you will agree that for the sake of progressive science it should be regarded as an adventure not a catastrophe.

 

Thanks again

 

Viv Pope

 

PS

As for Einstein not having stated that the 'velocity of light 'is constant relative to the void, what else is to be made of his definite statement that the 'velocity of light' is 'constant in vacuo'? If I say to you that the speed of sound is constant in water, then what else could I mean by that except that this speed (whatever it is) is constant relative to water?

[CraigD]

There is also the fact that Einstein’s time equation, which is perplexingly written as tR = 1/√[1 – (v^2/c^2)], can be derived from the much simpler Pythagorean equation tR = √(s^2 + t^2 ), where s is the observed distance travelled by a body in units of metres/c per second, t is the time in seconds of that motion as registered on the body itself (as viewed by the home observer), and tR is, by Pythagoras, the resultant in seconds (the hypotenuse) of the two dimensionally rectangular time-measures s and t.

Viv, how did you derive

[math]t_R = \sqrt{s^2+t^2}[/math]

from

[math]t_R = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

,

[math]v = \frac{s}{t}[/math]

and

[math]c = 1[/math]

?

 

I believe you’ve made an algebra or typing error.

[math]\sqrt{s^2+t^2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{s^2}{t^2}}}[/math]

fails for any real values of [math]s[/math] and [math]t[/math] greater than zero. Example, [math]s=1[/math], [math]t=2[/math]:

[math]\sqrt{1^2+2^2} \not= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{1^2}{2^2}}}[/math]

[math]\sqrt{5} \not= \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}[/math]

[CraigD]

To head off any notational confusion, I’ve changed “c is 2.99792458^8” in the quoted text to [math]2.99792458 \times 10^8 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]. The value is the speed of light in vacuum in m/s is exactly 299792458, which is [math]2.99792458 \times 10^8 [/math], not [math]2.99792458^8[/math], which is about 6525 . Though this may seem needlessly nit-picky, hypography has some history of time-wasting confusion due to notational irregularities which has shown us its important to use accepted notational conventions. Though IMHO the best means to do so is via the LaTeX markup provided by the site’s [math] tag feature, acceptable text-only equivalent of [math]1.2 \times 10^3[/math] include “1.2*10^3” and “1.2e3”.

Actually, I am by no means saying that Einstein's Second Axiom is wrong in the measurement sense of c. I thoroughly agree that the value of c is [math]2.99792458 times 10^8 ,mbox{m/s}[/math], also that this has been confirmed time and again by all sorts of measurements, to the extent that it now remains practically inviolate.

This is reassuring. Science websites such as hypography are notorious magnets for people who flatly disbelieve all experimental data showing that c is a constant, often to the point of accusing the many science professionals, amateurs, and students that have conducted them of being parties to a conspiracy of deception. While your CV lead me to believe you were not such a person, statements such as

Take, for instance, Einstein’s Second Axiom. This is clearly nonsensical. It states, in effect, that the ‘speed of light’ in vacuo is c, which is constant, not only for all observers, regardless of how they move relatively to one another but also to space (the vacuum) itself, which is logically incoherent.

, are common among such “relativity deniers”. The very concept of “how they move relative to space” implies belief in a privileged inertial frame, a common belief among this cohort.

 

I’d recommend care in avoiding even unintentional similarity between your writing and theirs. Unfortunately, many otherwise open-minded science and philosophy readers are prone to recognizing these similarities and ignoring writing that shows them.

In the 1960s, Herman Bondi and I concurred that, as Bondi writes in his book: Assumption and Myth in Physical Theory

Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is . . . not

an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an

attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard

metre in Paris in terms of time-units.

Confusion and debate among laypeople, technicians, and standards body members over the definition of units of distance, time, and velocity have, I think, an interesting history (summarized nicely IMHO, in the BIPM webpage “The BIPM and the evolution of the definition of the metre”). I’d say that since 10/21/1983, when the BIPM adopted the definition

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

, Bondi’s definition above coincides, but for a specific integer constant, with the “officially” one. Together with:

The second is 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.

We now have the meter defined purely in terms of two natural phenomena, electromagnetic radiation and the hyperfine splitting of a specific atom, leading to such delightful trick question as

“Will future improvements in technology will result in measurements of the speed of light more precise than 299,792,458 m/s?”

In 1960, the correct answer was “yes”. Since 10/21/1983, the correct answer is “no”.

 

Both Bondi and I, in our different ways, came to the same conclusion that by regarding c as a pure constant instead of a 'velocity' - but, as I say, with the same value and dimensions - the Special theory of Relativity is much simplified and improved.

I don’t understand your use of the term “pure constant”. As I’m familiar with the phrase, it’s a synonym for “unitless” or “dimensionless” constant, or “pure number of constant value”, a number that by definition does not change when the conventional system of units is changed. For example, [math]\pi[/math], the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle in the Euclidean plane, is a pure number because it is the same regardless of whether one measures diameter and circumference in meters, feet, or a bit of cat whisker picked up off the floor. Numbers defined as ratios of quantities of the same fundamental kind of unit – length/length, mass/mass, time/time, etc. – are pure, as are numbers that count the cardinality of a collection of by definition indivisible things, such as the number of intact eggs in a basket or the spin of a subatomic particle.

 

Speed, however, be it of a light signal in vacuum in gravitationally flat space, of a light signal in a non-vacuum medium and/or gravitationally curved space, of a chicken crossing a road, or of any other phenomena measured by dividing distance by time, is not a pure number, because the number changes when the conventional units are changed. By definition, the speed of light in vacuum is [math]1 \,\mbox{c}[/math] (where c is the Planck units system unit for speed), [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math], [math]\frac{374740572500}{381} \,\mbox{feet/s}[/math], [math]1079252848.8 \,\mbox{km/hour}[/math], etc. The number of this exactly defined constant depends on ones choice of system of units, regardless of whether one chooses a system in which it is 1 or some other number.

 

:QuestionM Viv, what’s your definition of a “pure constant”? Without understanding it, and how it differs, if at all, from my (or wikipedia’s) definition of “pure number”, I don’t think I can begin to fathom the new paradigm you intend to describe, or why you believe it’s “waiting in the wings” rather than currently “on stage”. My initial impression of statements such as

What is so significant about this is that it changes our whole conception of what Einstein called 'the velocity of light in vacuo'. For instance, we no longer have to think of what light 'does' in winging its was through the void for perhaps millennia till it happens to strike something. It obviates any need to think of light as 'waves', 'photons', 'wave-particles' or whatever. Indeed, it opens-up a whole new mind-set away from classical 'God's-eye-view' mechanism (e.g.., quasi-ballistics) and into phenomenalism which is an altogether radical 'New Paradigm' of Physics; I say 'new' but, historically, this has been 'waiting in the wings' for centuries to get its cue to come 'on stage' as a replacement for the now seriously flagging extant paradigm.

is that this “new” paradigm is about the same one drilled into me via my few (4 credit hours lecture, 4 lab) Modern Physics classes as a 1980-1983 Math undergraduate.

[Viv Pope]

Viv Pope replies:

 

Viv wrote:

Dear Craig D,

Thanks for your interest and for giving me the opportunity to make myself clear.

 

Actually, I am by no means saying that Einstein's Second Axiom is wrong in the measurement sense of c ... etc.

 

As a rider to his thing about c not being a 'velocity', here is a paper I delivered at ANPA (the Alternative Natural Philosophy group) in Cambridge, some years ago.

 

Ten Proofs that the Constant c cannot be a Velocity

 

1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.

 

2. Herman Bondi says: ‘Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is…not an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.’ Also, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of Einstein’s Theory, both Special and General, can be deduced much more simply by adopting Bondi’s interpretation of c as a pure ‘conversion factor’ for interconverting measures in metres into time-measures in seconds.

 

These two above arguments were aimed to prove that c need not necessarily be a ‘velocity’. The following eight arguments contend that c cannot, logically, be a velocity.

 

3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.

 

4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light … and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.

 

5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.

 

6. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Nils Abramson. However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms therefore has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between its source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to photograph or otherwise detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected, that is, in vacuo.

 

7. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) put it, ‘the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!’ So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? The whole concept is meaningless.

 

8. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If a powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980, two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking or interference whatever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around, it would be amazing if visual acuity were possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting around in all directions would be as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity militates against the validity of any such experimentalist claim.

 

9. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers, as Einstein’s Relativity requires and as experiment confirms. Therefore, logically, c cannot be a velocity.

 

10. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as light travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate. If we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum? And if we think of what ‘travels’ as ‘photons’, then if those ‘photons’ travel at the ‘speed of light’, then their mass has to be relativistically infinite at that ‘speed’. The mass of a single photon would be as great as that of the whole universe. To escape this consequence by assuming that the ‘stationary mass’ of the 'photon' is zero – as some physicists have claimed – then how can that ‘zero mass’ be conceived as a ‘particle’? And, anyway, when is a photon ever regarded as stationary, since its alleged ‘velocity’ is c in all observational frames, bar none?

-----------------------

 

We can, of course stick to our traditional view of light with conventional superglue. But I appeal to anyone who understands the true purpose and spirit of a forum such as this to think hard about the prognosis for this ailing notion of light as something travelling inscrutably in the void. The paradigm shift this entails is truly revolutionary, but that was ever the way with developing science.

 

Viv Pope

 

[/font]

[Viv Pope]

To head off any notational confusion, I’ve changed “c is 2.99792458^8” in the quoted text to [math]2.99792458 times 10^8 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]. The value is the speed of light in vacuum in m/s is exactly 299792458, which is [math]2.99792458 times 10^8 [/math], not [math]2.99792458^8[/math], which is about 6525 . Though this may seem needlessly nit-picky, hypography has some history of time-wasting confusion due to notational irregularities which has shown us its important to use accepted notational conventions. Though IMHO the best means to do so is via the LaTeX markup provided by the site’s [math] tag feature, acceptable text-only equivalent of [math]1.2 times 10^3[/math] include “1.2*10^3” and “1.2e3”.This is reassuring. Science websites such as hypography are notorious magnets for people who flatly disbelieve all experimental data showing that c is a constant, often to the point of accusing the many science professionals, amateurs, and students that have conducted them of being parties to a conspiracy of deception. While your CV lead me to believe you were not such a person, statements such as , are common among such “relativity deniers”. The very concept of “how they move relative to space” implies belief in a privileged inertial frame, a common belief among this cohort.

 

I’d recommend care in avoiding even unintentional similarity between your writing and theirs. Unfortunately, many otherwise open-minded science and philosophy readers are prone to recognizing these similarities and ignoring writing that shows them.Confusion and debate among laypeople, technicians, and standards body members over the definition of units of distance, time, and velocity have, I think, an interesting history (summarized nicely IMHO, in the BIPM webpage “The BIPM and the evolution of the definition of the metre”). I’d say that since 10/21/1983, when the BIPM adopted the definition

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

, Bondi’s definition above coincides, but for a specific integer constant, with the “officially” one. Together with:

The second is 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.

We now have the meter defined purely in terms of two natural phenomena, electromagnetic radiation and the hyperfine splitting of a specific atom, leading to such delightful trick question as

“Will future improvements in technology will result in measurements of the speed of light more precise than 299,792,458 m/s?”

In 1960, the correct answer was “yes”. Since 10/21/1983, the correct answer is “no”.

 

I don’t understand your use of the term “pure constant”. As I’m familiar with the phrase, it’s a synonym for “unitless” or “dimensionless” constant, or “pure number of constant value”, a number that by definition does not change when the conventional system of units is changed. For example, [math]pi[/math], the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle in the Euclidean plane, is a pure number because it is the same regardless of whether one measures diameter and circumference in meters, feet, or a bit of cat whisker picked up off the floor. Numbers defined as ratios of quantities of the same fundamental kind of unit – length/length, mass/mass, time/time, etc. – are pure, as are numbers that count the cardinality of a collection of by definition indivisible things, such as the number of intact eggs in a basket or the spin of a subatomic particle.

 

Speed, however, be it of a light signal in vacuum in gravitationally flat space, of a light signal in a non-vacuum medium and/or gravitationally curved space, of a chicken crossing a road, or of any other phenomena measured by dividing distance by time, is not a pure number, because the number changes when the conventional units are changed. By definition, the speed of light in vacuum is [math]1 ,mbox{c}[/math] (where c is the Planck units system unit for speed), [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math], [math]frac{374740572500}{381} ,mbox{feet/s}[/math], [math]1079252848.8 ,mbox{km/hour}[/math], etc. The number of this exactly defined constant depends on ones choice of system of units, regardless of whether one chooses a system in which it is 1 or some other number.

 

:QuestionM Viv, what’s your definition of a “pure constant”? Without understanding it, and how it differs, if at all, from my (or wikipedia’s) definition of “pure number”, I don’t think I can begin to fathom the new paradigm you intend to describe, or why you believe it’s “waiting in the wings” rather than currently “on stage”. My initial impression of statements such as is that this “new” paradigm is about the same one drilled into me via my few (4 credit hours lecture, 4 lab) Modern Physics classes as a 1980-1983 Math undergraduate.

 

Viv Pope replles:

Yes, it IS nitpicking, CraigD. You are picking up mere typos as if they were bits of constructive argument. OF COURSE it is 10^8, Anyone with any sense should have seen that, without making a Big Production of it.

 

There is just about NO similarity between the conceptual structure of my (our POAMS} paradigm and any other contemorary one. The only similarity is between POAMS and the 19th century phenomenalism of Ernst Mach in the traditon of 'English Empiricism'. But that is scarcely surprising since POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis) is based on it - as should be obvious to anyone accessing the site and seeing that POAMS is described as 'The Neo-Machian Philosophy'. Now, where else on the Web can you see anything else making that particular claim?

 

A 'pure constant', for Bondi and myself is not a dimensionless number. For instance, 39.37 inches to the metre is a constant but is not dimensionless. Its dimensions are inches and metres, like c^2, whose dimensions are joules and kilograms. I dont care what you read elsewhere; that is what our thesis contends, and if you can't understand that, then, as you say, you've no hope of understanding the thesis.

 

In short, then, I was disappointed with your response. It wasn't the most tardy and negative response I've ever had, but it was close! My impression, therefore is, with respect, that you would be wasting your time and mine engaging in any further dialogue on this issue. Why don't you access the literature that is downloadable for free on the POAMS website, and then perhaps, we can talk

 

Best wishes,

 

Viv Pope

[Viv Pope]

Hi Viv,

 

Interesting stuff in the original post, until I saw this at the end of it:

 

So here you are promoting your own book that supposedly topples Einstein.

 

It's called spam, and we don't take very kindly to it.

 

We can't participate in discussing matters pertaining to your original post if it requires we first buy a book you wrote. We had a guy here who wrote "The Final Theory", something he sucked out of his thumb, and he simply refused to disclose anything unless you pay the $30 fee for his book.

 

That is not Science.

 

If you're serious about your alternative theory, please:

 

1) Refer us to a peer-reviewed publication in which it appeared

2) Give us some info of what its about (...and no, we're not going to buy the book, nor are you allowed to use our readership as a free billboard for your book).

3) The strategy of "yes, I know it's technical, but page seventeen of the book (available at whatever.com) explains it beautifully) doesn't hold sway here. If that's your approach, this thread will most likely be deleted and your account be removed.

 

...and I'm not nasty, I'm interested in any new scientific developments. But not the charlatans who continuously keep cashing in on ignorance.

At post number three we don't know you well enough to know in which category you fit, you see.

 

Viv Pope replies

I trust it is now generally realised that your cursory impression, from the way our the books appeared to you on the POAMS website, was wrong, that you had failed to notice the strip on the left hand side of the front page indicating that most of the talk papers, Proceedings papers, journal articles, etc., were downloadable for free.

 

I have received no appology for being put 'offline' for your summary assumption that my aim in joining this forum was purely 'commercial'. I guess that in the present climate of cynicism and gereral loss of integrity, apologies, like so much else that is honourable, have gone out of fashion.

 

Viv Pope