You could get a GR book, or you could take a class. This way , you would find out. The speed of light in the EFE solutions is the local speed, independent of observer. The distant observer is introduced in order to complete the derivation, that's all. Do you want me to recommend a good textbook for you?
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
You could get a GR book, or you could take a class. This way , you would find out. The speed of light in the EFE solutions is the local speed, independent of observer. The distant observer is introduced in order to complete the derivation, that's all. Do you want me to recommend a good textbook for you?
No he didn't. He said it in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, and in Relativity: The Special and General Theory. And please, call me John. What's your name by the way?
That's the best way I can demonstrate it to you. Now answer the question. Are those two light pulses moving at the same speed? You'd have to be crazy to claim they are.Tach said:
You mean the same as per those two parallel-mirror light clocks? The two clock rates are only different because the speed of light is different at the two locations. Of course you could make a schoolboy error and measure the speed of light using a light clock.Tach said:
Unfortunately for you, the pulses move at the same speed, Duffield. You have been pushing your misconceptions about science in general and relativity in specific for many years , John. Ever got tired of being told that you don't know what you are talking about?
Nope, take a class, Duffield. No one buys your "books".
Tach, your post was presented as a demonstration of how science is done! But you were sloppy about it. Most of the science I read about, goes the extra step to connect those kinds of dots.
All you had to do was to connect the dots. Instead you turn and try to attack anyone who questions you, even those times when all that is required is a clarification.
And you still have not answered the question I ended my last post with, which is a better reference, theory or experimental proof?
No, you simply don't have the basics to understand the physics.
You can find the exact proof in several textbooks. Let me repeat my offer, do you want me to recommend a textbook for you? Because you clearly need it.
Beats your incessant trolling about things that you aren't equipped to follow.
You can't have the experimental verification without having the theory predicting the outcome first. BTW, out of curiosity, do you know what experiment I've been referring to? It has a specific name.
Actually it was a 30cm difference, see this interview with David Wineland of NIST.
To duck the issue. Tach will not admit that the lower light pulse is going slower, and he will not offer a reasoned alternative. Hence he attempts to put up a smokescreen as he beats a hasty retreat.
Given that clocks do not literally measure "the flow of time" like an hourglass with time pouring through it, and instead always feature some kind of cyclical regular motion which they accumulate and display as "the time", the only explanation is that electromagnetic processes go slower at a lower elevation. That includes the hyperfine transition, and light.
Actually, the mainstream derivation shows exactly the opposite. And, you have been given the mainstream derivation. The fact that it contradicts your oft-repeated fringe claims is another story.
Nope, I am right here, rubbing your nose in your own errors.
This is demonstrably false, Maxwell's wave equation is the same in curved spacetime as the equation in flat spacetime.
Are you collecting "thoughts" for your follow-on "book", "Relativity++"? Your first "book", "Relativity+" was panned and you got no buyers, Duffield, so are you collecting your "discoveries" in a second edition?
Oh really? Let's have another look at them shall we?
Ummm, no they don't. If they were moving at the same speed, those two clocks at different elevations would run at the same rate. And they don't. Do they?
Not by you, Tach. Irony isn't your strong suit, is it? Tell me more about those two pulses going at the same speed. Let's have a another laugh at your expense.
I'm giving the class here. And the book isn't on sale any more. Apart from a few second-hand copies at collector's-item prices.Tach said:
Edit: yes, I'm thinking of doing a new updated book including all the things I've found out since 2009. It can't be too samey though.
Duffield,
You tried (and failed) to do "physics" all your life via gifs. Your "book" ain't selling and no one is buying your fringe ideas.
Mainstream physics says that you are wrong but knowing you cannot follow simple derivations, I am not surprised.
Delusion, delusions. How about that Nobel prize you were dreaming of?
Because you never sold a copy.
Must be for the comics.
I sold loads of copies. Now come on Tach, stop wriggling, take a look at those two light pulses. Are they going at the same speed?
Nope.
But go local to each pulse and measure its speed with your light clock, and why lummee, you measure the same speed!
Has the penny dropped yet, Tach?
LOL.
Nope.
But go local to each pulse and measure its speed with your light clock, and why lummee, you measure the same speed!
Has the penny dropped yet, Tach?
LOL.
The feedback shows that you are lying. Again.
Despite your repeated fringe claims, yes, the light speed is the same. I cannot help you if you are incapable of learning.
The above is a blatantly false statement. There have been many discoveries which were not the intended objective of the experiment where they were first discovered. Experimental results and conclusions do not have to have begun with a theoretical basis. In fact many are the result of findings that had little or nothing to do with the original research.
I haven't really been following the discussion as a whole, and for the most part even less your contributions.., so I went back over the last four pages, that about covers my involvement.., and I could not find even one place where you mentioned let alone referred to any experiment. If what you refer to is deep in the roots of the thread, I am not interested in searching back through that much of your past hostilities... But generally, I would to assume that somewhere someplace you have referred to an experiment, or maybe you just thought about it? Either way it is not worth the trouble to dig it out.
Well, this one isn't, the theory came first. Still, the diversion course that you are trying continues to prove that you know nothing on the subject.
You did, this is why I am asking you to name the experiment. So, do you even know what experiment it is?
Follow your own link. You are not making sense at all now.
You asked if I knew what experiment you were referring to. I could not find the reference in the last four pages and it seems neither could you.
No one could answer a question that is not based in reality. No one can tell what experiment you were referring to, when you did not refer to any experiment.
I'm done for now.
Yes, please read that and note what Wineland says, "So, the other part of this physics is that it does involve mathematics." Farsight will never, ever produce a mathematical description of a physical scenario because he is wise enough to have learned that he makes basic mathematical mistakes. The internet is littered with them Unfortunately for Farsight, it also means that he cannot do physics.
According to Farsight, the person who ducks the issue is the person who presents the math, not the person who presents an animated drawing with no evidence that it represents anything found in the physical world.
You are dodging the question. Enough of your lying and deception, just try to show us how your animation matches any actual physical scenario. Show us the math.
Why do you say that it contradicts E=mc² when that equation does not apply to particles with mass?
Markus Hanke
Registered Senior Member
Another good example just how bad things have gotten with you - I am quoting the Einstein Field Equations, and in response you accuse me of ignoring Einstein ?! How laughable.
And btw, I have specifically asked you to point out just where in these field equations you see a relation for the speed of light as a function of position. Once again you have failed to respond.
Don't try and twist things around ! No one here was saying that "c varies with wavelength" - what a silly thing to even imply. The argument is, and always has been, that the deflection angle is frequency-dependent if the speed of light varies across a region of space, and not the other way around. That is precisely Snell's Law, as mentioned earlier on. Remember that this discussion is about gravitational light deflection, so don't try to change subjects now.
My argument still stands - inhomogeneous space, with a variable speed of light, implies a frequency dependent refraction of light rays. Which, needless to say, we don't observe in reality. This is basic physics, and nothing you have said thus far counters this simple fact in any way, shape or form. The other basic issue is of course that the Einstein Field Equations, as published by Einstein himself, is most certainly not a relation which has anything at all to do with the speed of light; it is a tensor relation equating the Einstein tensor with the SEM tensor, up to a proportionality constant. Stating anything else as if it was fact is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.
You are lying now, the link points to the fact that you refered to experiment. It is obvious from the exchange that you have no clue what the experiment would be as you have already demonstrated that you have no clue about the theoretical explanation of the experiment.
OnlyMe Aside from that my point was said:
So, let me ask you one last time, what "experimental proof" would that be? What is the name of the experiment you are referring to? Do you even know? Apparently not.
Good.
Ah! Now I think I understand. Here is your initial question.
But instead of linking to my first reference to experimental proof below, where it is clear that I was not claiming to recall or cite the experiment..,
You link to a later post and at least begin by claiming you were referring to the experiment yourself. Since you seem to suggest a knowledge of the specific experiment, and it was clear that I did not recall sufficient detail to provide a link.., why don't you just provide the link?
As with so many of your posts, this discussion has devolved to the point it is no longer about any science.
If you go back and read my first post, leading into this sidetrack, you would see that I was not really questioning the substance of your statement as a whole. I was just questioning the way that you presented it.
Which then leads to my un-cited reference to the offending experiment, again.
I must assume from your responses that my passive recall was correct and experimental evidence is available.., so once again why not reference the experiment instead of a theoretical dialog?... And since you do seem to remember the, "specific experiment" just provide the link yourself. I wouldn't mind re-reading and clarifying the substance and conclusions.
In short, you have no clue what experiment verifies the theory I presented. So, you are reduced to (repeated) trolling. The bottom line is that the theory I presented is basic textbook material and that you demonstrated (repeatedly) that you know nothing about it.
To put an end to your trolling, the theory shown is the basic textbook explanation for the Pound-Rebka experiment. Like I said several times, your time would be better spent taking an introductory class.