Re: Relativistic aberration

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:18:23 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Thank you for your response, to which I would add two clarifications:
During the Gran Sasso group experiment and the fantastic revelations of
supramumin neutrinos, I immediately warned that the examiners must have
been wrong.

I immediately thought they were wrong, too, because the neutrino
energies
being detected were much too high for their speed to be any discernible
difference from that of light.

Proof that I hold my theoretical positions very firmly, where
others were ready to abandon one of the essential pillars of the SR.
I repeat: “There will therefore be an OBSERVABLE speed limit which will
extend to all particles and all the laws of physics”.

That is not an essential pillar of SR, as Bilaniuk, Deshpande and
Sudarshan
pointed out.

In a thousand years, or in a hundred thousand years, we will still say
the same thing,

I think it's a bit huaghty to make such a pronouncement.  Scientists
have
done such things in the past and have been humbled by subsequent events.

like we will say that it is impossible to find a natural
number between five and six.

As I said, that's not a valid comparison since there are an infinity of
whole numbers above 299792458.

Secondly, I would like to come back to the supernovae of 1987, which
posed a small problem of understanding, and it was said: "The neutrinos
arrived six hours before the photons, and therefore they were faster
than the light."
Another proposition was made, in my opinion completely false, "it is
because the neutrinos left the heart of the star, and the light took
longer to leave the surface".

That's not the one the astrophysicists rely on.  They believe the star
chuffed out gobs of matter before actually exploding.

I think a third explanation could be valid, and since I like to play, I
won't tell you, but I'll give you some biscuits.
What if it was the neutrinos that moved at the speed of light and not
the light?
What if, sometimes, like in air, the speed of light was slowed down in
space? Are there not, in the immense space existing between the earth
and the supernovae, a few gas molecules capable of slowing down light,
while neutrinos have an instantaneous transfer, that is to say an
observable speed? What does the light not have in this case?
Do you understand my argument?
>
R.H.

Yes, I understand what you're saying.  What needs to be understood is
just how many molecules make up the normal matter around us (think
Avogadro's number).  Interstellar space contains between 20 and 50
hydrogen atoms per cubic cm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
Half of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is outside our
galaxy,
so the density is even lower.  At 50/cm3, the entire 168,000 light years
amounts to only a two meter thickness of hydrogen at STP!  So I'm afraid
the astrophysicists cannot use that to save their precious
speed-of-light
skins.
"Why is the speed of light so slow when the universe is such a really,
really big place?" -- G. L. Harnagel