For the education of OnlyMe, the above is the textbook theory behind the Pound-Rebka experiment.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
For the education of OnlyMe, the above is the textbook theory behind the Pound-Rebka experiment.
These are completely dishonest posts Tach.
Your first reference was that you referred to an experiment. When I questioned that, not being able to locate the reference, you linked back to one of my posts, justifying yourself by saying I referred to the experiment. When I addressed that, admitting that I had qualified my reference with the introduction, "If I am not mistaken" and that I had no specific recall of the experiment, you now change your mind again.
I was not referring to the Pound-Rebka experiment, I specifically mentioned light clocks and a lab floor, neither of which are critical elements of the Pound-Rebka experiment. You never referred to any experiment, where you could point me to the reference, not even the Pound-Rebka experiment! You may have been thinking of the Pound-Rebka experiment, as a part of the background for your post, but you never referred to it.
Since your claim was first to an experiment you referred to, that you never referenced.., and that you then used misdirection claiming you meant my reference to an experiment.., and then you cite an experiment that you never referred to and had nothing to do with my mention of an experiment, your whole dialog here has been dishonest.
Again my initial post began on a relatively minor point about connecting two otherwise unrelated statements. From there you have drawn this out into the unsolvable mystery of, what on earth could Tach be thinking.., now!
This is no longer even tangentially connected to science.
The post trails shows who is dishonest (and incompetent) here.
The text of your post(s) shows clearly that you did. Not only once, but several times.
The theory I explained to you applies to any kind of clock, including light clocks. You are digging yourself deeper further demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.
Correct, I didn't since you are the one that kept asking about the value of experimental proof over theoretical derivation. Since I knew the experimental proof, I was curious to know if you did as well. You demonstrated that you didn't.
Your respective post showed ignorance about the theoretical textbook proof. You augmented that by demonstrating your ignorance about the experimental proof.
I agree with you, your posts are completely devoid of any science, on par with the ones of your idol, Farsight.
OnlyMe: forget it. You just can't talk to these guys. There's no sincerity, just a towering arrogance and ignorance that dismisses what Einstein said along with the patent evidence that he was absolutely right. And resorts to calling you a liar to boot, and slinging insults. I think it's shameful myself.
Markus Hanke
Registered Senior Member
You are always quick with the "abuse & insult" card, but not so quick to address the points raised. Why do you not want to elaborate how exactly
$$\displaystyle{G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }}$$
has anything to do with a varying speed of light ? Obviously that is because it really doesn't, and deep down you know it; you are just too proud to admit that you have been wasting years making untenable assertions. I have shown on my GR primer thread how the field equations are derived, and what the meanings of the tensors are; I suggest you take a close look at it. It is obvious that it has nothing it all to do with varying light speeds.
The theory of differentiable manifolds was worked out long before Einstein came along; by the time he worked on developing GR, the meanings of the various tensors, like the Riemann tensor, the Ricci tensor, the metric tensor and the SEM tensor and so on, where all rigorously defined. Einstein made use of a language which was already in existence, and it is clear that by publishing the above field equation ( which is a relation on manifolds between a curvature tensor and and energy tensor ) he was indeed talking about space-time curvature, and not some nonsense about "inhomogeneous space" and "varying speed of light". If Einstein wanted to publish a theory about varying speeds of light and how that affects local clock rates and ruler measurements (??!), then he would have done so, but he didn't. He published a tensor equation involving curvature tensors. There is no mention of changes in permittivity and permeability, nor is there any connection at all in the equations to the local speed of light. The tensors appearing in the EFEs have well defined, rigorous meanings, of which Einstein was perfectly aware. He used these geometric objects for a reason, and asserting anything else is simply intellectual dishonesty.
Now I suggest you at least consider the possibility that your understanding of things might not be correct, and go and do some study from one of the many good geometrodynamics textbooks. Perhaps then you see exactly where you went wrong. Remember, in this day and age of easy access to information, ignorance is indeed a choice.
All evidence we have is entirely consistent with a curved space-time, which is exactly what Einstein was talking about; so yes, he was absolutely right. Varying light speeds, on the other hand, fall down at even elementary hurdles, like light deflection.
The curvature of spacetime based on the presence of matter and energy is unobservable. The alternative view that there is variable energy density in space due to the presence of gravitational waves, is unobservable.
The effect of gravity is observable and measurable.
There doesn't seem to be any question that the presence of matter and energy is the foundation of the observed effects. The cause of gravity is the issue, and it hasn't been resolved to the extent that the mechanism behind the observations is known.
From those on the spacetime side of the issue, there is no need for a mechanism because the presence of matter and energy has a geometric effect on spacetime. From the side of those who see variable wave energy density of space requiring a mechanism, there is a question about how the presence of matter and energy causes the observed effects of gravity.
It is incorrect to call what Farsight presents an "alternative view". It is equivalent to saying that one theory of dog barking is that they make the sound with their lungs and throat and an alternative view is that they have tape recorders in their stomachs. In both cases, there are things that we should be able to observe if the theories are true and in both cases, what we have already observed means that one has to be seriously deluded or deceitful to present the so-called alternative view as a serious case.
Also, it would be like the person advocating the bark-tape-recorder theory told everyone that the people who actually looked inside dogs were liars while lying about the contents of veterinary textbooks and journals and claiming that the existence of audiobooks about dogs was evidence that dogs contained tape recorders.
I stated the particular alternative as being energy density in space caused by the presence of gravitational energy founded on the presence of matter and energy density.
In your analogy, the option of dog barking being caused by a tape recorder is seriously deluded, but not deceitful. There is no deceit involved in an honest difference in interpretation of the observational evidence around an issue that is a bit more complicated to resolve than by cutting open a dog. To say it is deceitful is you flaming.
It is deceitful to offer statements that one does not believe. The person offering the bark-recorder theory is probably delusional, but there is a chance that he is presenting the theory in order to appear important, in order to sell battery-shaped dog treats, or in order to sell a self-published book on the subject.
And there is also a chance that someone actually saw that there were people using a tape recording of a dog barking to deter burglars, and in a fit of honest ignorance they over reached from the tape recordings sold for use in security systems to the cause of barking in real dogs. It is possible, but also it is ignorant of the true cause of barking. My point is we don't know the true cause of gravity.
Gravitational lensing proves your above statement to be false. Light bending proves your statement false.
You are a big champion of "alternative views". Only that they are false.
Gravitational lensing is the observation of light, not curvature of spacetime. Curvature of spacetime is a characteristic of the theoretical explanation for the observation.
Light bending does not prove that curved spacetime is observable, it is an observation of light bending around massive objects. It does not make any statement about the cause of the bending to be right or wrong.
*That is meaningless.
Repeating the same falsity doesn't make it right.
Repeating the same falsity doesn't make it right.
That is true, though we believe it from our individual perspectives.
Science is a matter of facts, not beliefs. What you are doing has nothing to do with science, quite the opposite.
Tach, the curvature of spacetime is a conceptual interpretaion of observation not a fact. If it were proven fact, GR would no longer be called the "general theory of relativity".
Repeating the same falsity does not make it true.
Is that supposed to be an argument against me agreeing with you?
Only for people like you, like Farsight, etc. That is, for mainstream deniers. Experiment(s) falsify your claim(s).
I totally agree, so you need to stop posting them.
I've addressed the points raised. I get abuse and insult from people who don't.
I've explained this umpteen times via restatements of the fabulous post #158 which you have spectacularly failed to address. $$T_{\mu \nu }$$ describes elastic space, $${G_{\mu \nu$$ describes your measurements, which exhibit a curvature when you plot them. Meanwhile you always measure the local speed of light to be the same because of the wave nature of matter. When light goes slower you and your light clock is going slower too, so you still measure 299,792,458 m/s. But the seconds aren't the same, so two speeds aren't the same. It's patently obvious when you look at the parallel-mirror gif, which is another thing you have spectacularly failed to address. It's under your nose, and you will not give a sincere response to it. You duck it instead.Markus Hanke said:
I read it, and said it was very good, but I was gracious enough not to derail that thread by reiterating your confusion concerning space and spacetime and "what clocks do". You're the one who is too proud to admit that Einstein said what he said, and that it squares with the gif, not with what you say.Markus Hanke said:
It was Einstein who referred to the varying speed of light and inhomogeneous space. He didn't refer to curved spacetime.Markus Hanke said:
Because his description is from a local viewpoint.Markus Hanke said:
He said what he said about the speed of light varying with gravitational potential. Asserting that he didn't, and asserting that the "modern interpretation" of GR is identical to Einstein's view is intellectual dishonesty.Markus Hanke said:
I've done this, I understand it, you don't. Now go and look at that gif. Stop dismissing patent scientific evidence in favour of abstraction.Markus Hanke said:
I've blown away your straw-man which asserted that refraction in glass involves a variable c. And I've given you the quotes where Einstein referred to the non-constant speed of light. Now you give me the quotes where he referred to curved spacetime. Guess what, you can't. Because The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with. And he didn't agree with it because spacetime is an abstract mathematical space which presents all times at once and is therefore static. Light doesn't move through it, it moves through space. Thus curved spacetime cannot be the cause of a curvature of the rays of light. The cause of that is the speed of light varying with position, like Einstein said. Which you dismiss as "nonsense". Talk about pompous.Markus Hanke said:
This isn't strictly true, in that you could place light-clocks in an equatorial plane around the Earth, and plot the readings. The lower clocks go slower, and your plot exhibits a curvature. You can observe this. That's what curved spacetime is. But it's a plot, a "map". Space isn't curved. There's a curvature in your plot of motion through space over time. Gravity is of course directly observable in that you can drop a pencil, or see that light curves when it skims the Sun. The issue is one of cause and effect. Markus is effectively saying the lower light clocks go slower because your plot of light-clock rates is curved. That's wrong. Those lower light-clocks go slower for a reason, but that isn't it.
Einstein did say matter/energy "conditions the surrounding space". It alters its properties. It doesn't curve it.
I'm on the spacetime side of the issue too, but I'm saying curved spacetime isn't curved space, it's just a curvature of your measurements of things moving through space. Using things like light-clocks. As for the mechanism, Einstein used the stress-energy-momentum tensor. See wiki. See the shear stress? The mechanism is essentially elastic. Like space is elastic. When you subject it to pressure you alter its properties. Note the energy-pressure diagonal. Imagine space is a big block of gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. With some deft gedanken surgery you insert of sphere of jelly into the block. You've now got a pressure gradient all around the sphere.quantum_wave said: