(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
(Carlos L) wrote in message . com...
(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Note: I posted this 5 days ago but since that post has not appeared I
remove the follow_ups to sci.physics.research and sci.astro research
and I post it again (because I don't want to leave the impression that
I've been convinced that my ideas on this issue have been proven
wrong).

Oops. The post has just appeared in sci.physics.research and
sci.astro.research and has been repeated here. I perhaps should have
waited a bit more.

These monitored forums are reserved for discussions on currently
accepted orthogox theories and ideas that can be directly related
to them.
No other ideas will be discussed.

It used to be like that, but it seems that in the last months their
moderators are allowing for less orthodox issues to be discussed.
Anyhow, I prefer to omit the follow-ups to moderated groups when
discussing non orthodox ideas at a qualitative level.

[...]

I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it.

Isn't that somewhat contradictory with what you say in the previous
sentence?

It isn't contradictory if we imagine that an emission is like an
explosion in which we can find fragments of many different speeds and
we imagine that a detector catches only the fragments of speed c
relative to it (e.g. acts like those speed selectors used in some
experiments that let through only the particles of a given speed).
From what you say below I guess that you actually admit the
consistency of this idea (even if you don't like it).

You do imply here that velocity c of EM energy, although independent
of the source (which implies that c may be an absolute velocity for
EM energy in vacuum), would not be independent of the velocity of
a physical apparatus that would detect it.

Yes

That's what brought my comment. If c were an absolute velocity in vacuum
for EM energy, it seems to me not to be reconcilable with the idea that
it could at the same time be relative to an apparatus that may itself
have a velocity. I would agree if said apparatus could be immobilized
with respect to vacuum, but how could this be achieved?

Aren't we confronted here whith the age old lack (or perceived lack) of
an absolute reference with respect to which such zero velocity could
be achieved in vacuum?

You seem to be thinking, like Einstein, of an aether that can not be
assigned a specific state of movement since it must be at rest
relative to all observers. That is not the only possibility as I am
explaining.

The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong).

I see your point, but ref to my interrogation above.

An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds.

Your postulate seems to imply this of course, but I personally lean
towards concluding, from all experimental evidence that I considered,
that c would be an absolute velocity in vacuum, unless experiments
could show otherwise.

I'm glad to hear that you are open to consider the possibility that
"experiments could show otherwise". Nobody (in mainstream Physics)
seems open to accept that possibility. In spite of the claims that SR
has been confirmed by "all" sorts of different experiments there still
exist some type of experiments that have never been done. e.g. I
sketched one in an old post of the thread "Three questions" of URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.bcn.ttd.net

(I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). [...]

I would be willing to discuss but I must say that I have been convinced
for long time that velocity of EM energy is invariant in vacuum and not
relative to any source or observer.

Thanks.
[...]

Consider that both Pioneers are the first small bodies that have
been sent on hyperbolic escape trajectories from the Solar system
with us receiving EM signals from them for quite a while.

This is the first data available for small bodies on such trajectories.
I am not that surprised that our physics theories (classical as well as
relativistic) may not be able to predict with precision observed
behaviour that could be observed only in such cases and that had not
been observed before.

But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision

As I said, according to the state of our theories, which are based on
the only data that was available previously.

and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position".

If the Doppler data is ok, then I say our theories simply need to be
reconsidered in light of this new data on top of all previously verified
data.

I believe that what is happening is that the *interpretation* of the
Doppler data is *not* ok, not because of a deficient experimental
handling of the data but because of more fundamental reasons.

(2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component.

Yes, making the Doppler data all the more significant in my view,
almost "ideally" significant.

Significant yes, but not necessarily reliable if the data are wrongly
interpreted (by the mainstream theory).

[...]

... But in view of the fact that it is the
first time in history that we lay hands on Doppler data (that in all
other cases proved trustworthy) from small bodies sent on hyperbolic
escape trajectories, I lean rather towards thinking that our theories
simply need a long overdue final shake down to integrate and explain
coherently this behavior in light of all that we now know.

I think that our theories do indeed need a shake, but a big one.
[...]

Best regards
Carlos L

Carlos L.
André Michaud