At Rest with our Hubble view

[quantum_wave]

I was referring to Einstein-Cartan gravity. It can be shown that if torsion is allowed to be non-vanishing in the context of this model, gravitational singularities ( both at the BB, and "inside" black holes ) cannot form. Furthermore it provides a natural mechanism for gravitational spin-orbit coupling, and implies that fermions must be spatially extended, eliminating the QFT problem of ultraviolet divergences. There are also cosmological implications in that the Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce".

I realize that currently there is no experimental evidence on the basis of which to choose Einstein-Cartan gravity over GR ( and I am not advocating such a course of action ), but I still think it is nonetheless a very interesting and viable alternative / extension to GR.

Here is the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Cartan_theory
*
Oh well, forget it because Brucep says ixnay.

But wait. Since when is Brucep a reliable source of unbiased information?

And furthermore, he is wrong to trash can this theory on the basis that it is falsified by WMAP. Even an accelerating expansion of the observable universe can support a cosmology that features crunch/bangs, sometimes referred to as the collapse bounce of a big crunch.

 

[przyk]

Oh come off it przyk. Einstein said things like "We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum".

Einstein also, in one of your all time favourite passages from the Leyden address, says "space" while referring to what is actually the spacetime metric:

This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials $$g_{\mu\nu}$$), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.​

So it is not tenable to say that Einstein consistently used the word "space" exclusively to refer to literal three-dimensional space.

I remember watching a video of his where he depicted a photon as a blue dot.

Well there's your problem right there. You based your understanding of David Deutch's view on a picture.

The simple fact that David Deutch is a proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation (whether you agree with it or not) means he can't possibly think of the photon as something as simple as a billiard ball. For starters, the Many Worlds interpretation assumes the reality of the wavefunction as one of its basic tenets.

You were unable to rebut my post #158.

This is a lie. Your post #158 fails at scientific rigour at even the most basic level. It is based entirely on quote mining, superficial analysis of evidence (that we could already explain), and a personal set of views you have on space, spacetime, and motion that nobody reading your post would have any reason to take as fact.

Furthermore, since physics is a quantitative science and we all know your level of mathematical literacy is basically nil, this means you are crippled in two ways that nobody calling themselves a physicist should suffer from:

1. You have no way of checking the correctness of any reference you might try to use in your support (and so must take it on faith that all your sources are accurate).
2. You have no way of being sure that you have understood any such reference the way the authors intended it to be understood.

Seriously. It's as if you'd heard somewhere that good science involved "evidence" and "references", but you never bothered to learn where and how to use them.

And there was no need to do so because it was "thoroughly rebutted" even before I wrote it?

Your post #158 was basically a regurgitation of arguments that had already been demolished beyond any reasonable hope of repair by a number of individuals for basically as long as you have been appearing on this forum.

Not that I used that as an excuse to ignore your post #158. I responded in a number of posts in the same thread, starting with my [POST=3067535]post #227[/POST]. Post #227 in particular included a lengthy explanation of why your interpretation of certain material written by Einstein was not consistent with how he defined general relativity in his 1916 paper on the subject. Your [POST=3067796]response[/POST] was very far from adequate. All of this is on record where anyone who cares to can read it, so you are lying when you say that your post #158 has never been rebutted.

Seriously, when are you going to face reality? You are the only person who is impressed with yourself and your post #158.

 

[brucep]

Einstein also, in one of your all time favourite passages from the Leyden address, says "space" while referring to what is actually the spacetime metric:

This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials $$g_{\mu\nu}$$), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.​

So it is not tenable to say that Einstein consistently used the word "space" exclusively to refer to literal three-dimensional space.




Well there's your problem right there. You based your understanding of David Deutch's view on a picture.

The simple fact that David Deutch is a proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation (whether you agree with it or not) means he can't possibly think of the photon as something as simple as a billiard ball. For starters, the Many Worlds interpretation assumes the reality of the wavefunction as one of its basic tenets.




This is a lie. Your post #158 fails at scientific rigour at even the most basic level. It is based entirely on quote mining, superficial analysis of evidence (that we could already explain), and a personal set of views you have on space, spacetime, and motion that nobody reading your post would have any reason to take as fact.

Furthermore, since physics is a quantitative science and we all know your level of mathematical literacy is basically nil, this means you are crippled in two ways that nobody calling themselves a physicist should suffer from:

1. You have no way of checking the correctness of any reference you might try to use in your support (and so must take it on faith that all your sources are accurate).
2. You have no way of being sure that you have understood any such reference the way the authors intended it to be understood.

Seriously. It's as if you'd heard somewhere that good science involved "evidence" and "references", but you never bothered to learn where and how to use them.




Your post #158 was basically a regurgitation of arguments that had already been demolished beyond any reasonable hope of repair by a number of individuals for basically as long as you have been appearing on this forum.

Not that I used that as an excuse to ignore your post #158. I responded in a number of posts in the same thread, starting with my [POST=3067535]post #227[/POST]. Post #227 in particular included a lengthy explanation of why your interpretation of certain material written by Einstein was not consistent with how he defined general relativity in his 1916 paper on the subject. Your [POST=3067796]response[/POST] was very far from adequate. All of this is on record where anyone who cares to can read it, so you are lying when you say that your post #158 has never been rebutted.

Seriously, when are you going to face reality? You are the only person who is impressed with yourself and your post #158.

His entire function is to troll the forum with his brand of nonsense. The moderation here can't seem to be consistent about recognizing and getting rid of folks trolling nonsense in the physics and math section. Maybe it's because they can't recognize the difference between physics and bullshit nonsense to start with. Instead of wasting effort correcting everything this 'goofball' posts the discussion might go beyond trying to teach basics to uneducable uninterested cranks.

 

[PhysBang]

Are the two light pulses moving at the same speed?

Can you show how your gif relates in any way to any physical situation? I am sure that you won't answer that question, but I am also sure that you will lie about always answering questions.

 

[Farsight]

Your are probably right. I'm just saying, GR has three "shapes" that the universe could have, and the "flat" shape is the pencil standing on end. He realized that.

As far as I know Einstein thought the universe was a hypersphere, which is the first picture here. My understanding of GR is that the universe is flat. On the large scale space is inhomogeneous, as per the FLRW metric, which "starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Curved spacetime equates to inhomogeneous space, so if you start by assuming homogeneous space, you've got a flat universe. Which is what WMAP has found. Two out of those three "shapes" were always going to be wrong anyway.

He also realized that in any small patch of the universe, something I would call a finite volume of space, motion of objects in that finite volume of space follows the curvature of space-time as quantified by the EFEs.

Fair enough. But be wary of objects "following" the curvature of a mathematical model. When they move in a curved path they do it for a physical reason which the model quantifies.

Lol, what would we have to talk about if no one abused anybody.

Physics and cosmology.

No, but this business of space being created with the big bang, and time starting at the same time is part of the theory that requires us to leave our sensibilities and venture into the mathematical universe. Anyone want to disparage me for saying that, have a ball.

It does get very conjectural. IMHO saying the universe was born of a quantum fluctuation isn't much better than saying God did it.

My point is that in GR, the collapse of all matter into a final big crunch is one of the possible outcomes accommodated by the theory. I'm not sure that means that any space will be collapsed; but then I have to deal with my own sensibilities.

The universe didn't collapse when it was small and dense, so it isn't going to collapse now.

That is certainly an interesting thought; time dilation to the max. That is also what would occur in a gravitational collapse of all matter into a big crunch. But as the matter collapses the curvature of my so called finite patch of space

Spacetime, not space! When spacetime is curved, space is inhomogeneous.

would increase due the accumulating matter/energy influencing the motion of objects through that space. I would view it as matter leaving the space in place and accumulating around the center of gravity. That center translates to the point of net highest energy density in the local space, and objects move toward it through space.

Good stuff.

Yes, but SR and GR started like a small snow ball rolling down hill and so the consensus was already changing in 1919 when Eddington observed the eclipse. Wasn't it within ten years after that Hubble redshift hit the popular media and Einstein was front page?

He was front page news in 1919. But still SR wasn't mainstream until the late twenties. Physics has always been full of diehards.

Let me test my understanding of the light clocks on the equatorial-plane. A light clock in any given location will give a reading based on the altitude. There are high and low altitudes across the equatorial surface. The light will go faster as the altitude increases. A light clock at a lower location will display slower light, hence the GIF that you have posted showing the two light clocks?

Yep. But note by equatorial plane I meant a horizontal slice though the Earth and the surrounding space. Light-clocks near the surface run slower than those out in space.

Forgive me for not being able to make the distinction between the speed of light and the rate at which particles function; particles have to be composed of energy, why not wave energy?

They are. The wave nature of matter is rock-solid science. We can diffract electrons.

To me the gravitational time dilation which is observable corresponds to the difference in energy density between the mountain top and the river valley, for example.

To me too. It's there because the energy density varies. Not because there's a curvature in the energy density when you plot it out.

Are you sure? What about the time delay of the effect of an asteroid colliding with a planet? The distant objects don't "feel" the change in planetary motion instantaneously, do they. There is the matter of a gravitational wave isn't there, maybe gravitons? That is action at a distance isn't it?

I'm sure. There is no action-at-a-distance. There is no magick.

Nobody is perfect ...OK, we agree that the space through which light travels can differ. I say it differs because of and depending on the energy density of that space as determined by the presence of matter/energy in the sense that Einstein meant it, right?

Right.

We agree the the speed of light increases as the altitude increases. Why is that different from the reason that light slows down in glass (a dense medium) and speeds up as it emerges from the glass to a less dense medium like space?

Because the latter involves interactions with electrons etc, which vary according to wavelength.

I have to agree with the description, but not with what makes the space "not uniform". It seems to make sense that the energy density of the medium of space varies relative to the presence of matter/energy.

That sounds good to me.

 

[rr6]

Eternally realative

Fullers toy-model--- jitterbugging cubo-octahedron --- presents itself in all three of well l known cosmic spatials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#Two_methods_of_measurement

1) positive space, albeit the Eucledean( straight line ) version of positive curvature associated with spherical ergo spherical polyhedron of any frequency,

2) negative space i.e. the jitterbugging VE infolds to a quasi-2D saddle-shaped space,

3) seeming, quasi-2D, flat space of jitterbug occurs in 5 distinct polygonal shapes;

..1) 2 frequency triangle--see my heat death scenarios to understand how this 2-1 ratio determine a primarily matter vs anti-matter Universe,

..2) square with 4 triangles bordering the square---and this is the precursor for the jitterbug folding into theEuclidean, double EM sine-wave pattern,
..here 2 above and 3 as follows are intimately related
..3) 4 triangles,

..4) triangle---8 triangles fold into seemingly one 2D triangle,

...5) hexagon--albiet a tainted 2D triangle as some of its 6 triangles will have various numbers of vectorial edges and radials.

Physical/energy = motion/dynamic eternally and all individual pattern integrities are eternally in relationship to all others, minimally via gravity.

The jitterbug expresses the 6 cosmic fundamental motions of Universe;

..1) contraction-expansion-- and some configurations are both occurring at same time

..2) torque/twist/skew--left-right

..3) precession---most often at 90 degrees--left right,

..4) spin--left-right,

..5) inside-outing and outside-out--think of turning a glove or sock inside-out---

..6) orbit.

In addition the jitterbug/VE/cubo-octahedron infolds or out-folds to other exotic spatial shapes--- ex complex octa(8)gon as a rippled space --- while maintaining its systemic and structural integrity.

There exists no known toy-like model-- that I'm aware of --that does more to exhibit the operational functioning of our finite, Universe, than of jitterbug/VE/cubo-octahedron.

Oh yeah, in its higher frequency sphericity phase's expresses some basics of black hole phenomena regarding the information inside of black hole being expressed on the black holes event horizon surface.

Want to see a singularity, the understand what happens when the minimal 3D structure of Universe is brought to zero-volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#Two_methods_of_measurement

Equilibrium is what appears to happen along with radiational phenomena.


r6

Think of this as cycles of cosmic infoldings and out-foldings and one of the best models for seeing this is Fullers jitterbug.
Fullers Vector Equilibrium(VE)/cubo-octahedron, in his toy-like jitterbug model, creates more exotic space shapes--- ex EM sine-waves, negative space, positive space, flat, seemingly 2D space, rippled-space etc ----then any other toy-like model known to humans albeit I'm only familiar with his Euclidean( straight lined ) version ergo we are left to translate or guess-timate what this model would configure in a curved model.

L1} .3…………….…....3…..= 6 circumferential/outer

L2} ..…3……………..3…....= 6 circumferential/outer

L3}.......…3………3…......= 6 circumferential/outer

L4}.............6……........= 6 circumferential/INNER
.................total------= 24 vector/nodal values for one, equlibrius, subdivided hexagonal plane.
r6

 

[Farsight]

Evidence can only distinguish between theories that make different predictions. All the evidence you routinely cite is already perfectly consistent with general relativity at a quantitative level.

I know. And it's perfectly consistent with what Einstein said.

You're asking a loaded question. No, the dots in your picture aren't moving at the same speed.

Thank you.

But you posted that picture with no argument at all about why it should be an accurate or fully general depiction of the situation according to general relativity.

I have done so previously, in for example post #235 addressed to Tach. The parallel-mirror light-clocks are a simplified version of the NIST optical clock. See this interview with David Wineland re "when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at". Einstein said repeatedly that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, which is recognised by the Baez article. wherein light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Markus doesn't recognise it, and paints himself into a tautological corner wherein light curves because it curves. The Baez article says "This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity". That sounds reasonable. However the article later says "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". How can something be perfectly valid and make good physical sense, and not make sense? The article contradicts itself.

In this instance, your graphic is misleading because it depends on an arbitrary coordinate convention. The only thing it actually depicts is an example of a variable coordinate speed of light.

That's right, przyk. And that's the speed of light. The locally-measured speed of light is only constant because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre. This is the "most fundamental" way of doing that, due to the wave nature of matter. But the result is that we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre and then use them to measure the motion of light. Tautology again.

That is something that is revealed if you analyse the situation in more detail based on how general relativity is actually mathematically defined. Of course, you routinely refuse to engage on that level because what you'd find would be detrimental to the position you are trying to push on everyone.

I engage, przyk. Others don't. In my last exchange with Markus I pointed to the use of c in an expression which demonstrates that Einstein was giving a local-viewpoint description rather than a big-picture description. After that Markus started calling me names in earnest. See page 21 post #436

 

[Tach]

I have done so previously, in for example post #235 addressed to Tach.

...and I explained in the next post why you are wrong, Duffield. Despite your crank claims, you are not "with Einstein".

However the article later says "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". How can something be perfectly valid and make good physical sense, and not make sense? The article contradicts itself.

You still don't get it , Duffield. Still stuck in your fringe claims of "variable light speed". You see, Einstein made a mistake in the beginning, it took him a while to realize it but he corrected it. You are still stuck with his initial, incorrect claim.

 

[przyk]

I know. And it's perfectly consistent with what Einstein said.

It's consistent with more than one possible interpretation of what Einstein said. Most importantly, it is all perfectly consistent with general relativity as we all understand it today.

The parallel-mirror light-clocks are a simplified version of the NIST optical clock.

There is no factual basis for that. There is no reason atomic clocks should be completely reducible to the parallel mirror light clock, and we certainly don't understand them that way.

See this interview with David Wineland re "when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at".

That is the end result: an experimental fact. It is not its own explanation.

Einstein said repeatedly that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, which is recognised by the Baez article. wherein light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Markus doesn't recognise it, and paints himself into a tautological corner wherein light curves because it curves.

I've been over this with you before. You are mischaracterising general relativity's account of things. Light technically doesn't curve in general relativity, it simply follows a geodesic path in curved spacetime. There's virtually nothing to explain here since light follows the simplest path it possibly can according to GR.

It is only the description of light's path in certain coordinate charts that appears curved. But there is no actual physical curving.

The Baez article says "This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity". That sounds reasonable. However the article later says "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". How can something be perfectly valid and make good physical sense, and not make sense?

How about: the interpretation in which the speed of light varies turns out not to make so much physical sense after all (i.e. upon more careful reflection).

Either way, his end point is perfectly valid: the (coordinate) speed of light is far too observer- and coordinate-system dependent to be considered a sensible physical quantity.

(In fact, many of the simple examples of a varying coordinate speed of light aren't actually new or unique to general relativity. So it's not accurate to say that the invariance of c postulate has been relaxed in any meaningful way. It's true in GR in exactly the same sense and with exactly the same limitations and caveats as it is in special relativity.)

The locally-measured speed of light is only constant because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre.

No it's not. Use some common sense here: special relativity was proposed by Einstein in 1905. General relativity in 1915-1916. These theories didn't automagically become true when and just because someone sitting in an office in 1983 decided that the metre should be defined a certain way.

In my last exchange with Markus I pointed to the use of c in an expression which demonstrates that Einstein was giving a local-viewpoint description rather than a big-picture description.

Huh? The Einstein field equation is only a "local-viewpoint" description in the trivial and obvious sense that it is a differential equation. It is no more or less a "local-viewpoint description" than Maxwell's equations or the Navier-Stokes equation. The c appearing in the EFE is a constant simply because that's what it needs to be in order for the equation to be correct and make sense. Why should it demonstrate anything more than that?

 

[Farsight]

Einstein also, in one of your all time favourite passages from the Leyden address, says "space" while referring to what is actually the spacetime metric:

This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials $$g_{\mu\nu}$$), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.​

So it is not tenable to say that Einstein consistently used the word "space" exclusively to refer to literal three-dimensional space.

You describe the state of space by referring to the spacetime metric which is all to do with measurement of things moving through space over time. There's no problem with that. The problems start when people confuse the metric with space. When the metric is curved there's a curve in your plot of equatorial-plane light-clock rates. But space isn't curved.

Well there's your problem right there. You based your understanding of David Deutch's view on a picture.

Come off it przyk, the guy has a website. Here it is: http://daviddeutsch.physics.ox.ac.uk/structure/Documents/Non-Technical/Frontiers.html . And here's an excerpt:

"A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes".

The simple fact that David Deutch is a proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation (whether you agree with it or not) means he can't possibly think of the photon as something as simple as a billiard ball. For starters, the Many Worlds interpretation assumes the reality of the wavefunction as one of its basic tenets.

He doesn't think of it as an extended-entity wave.

This is a lie.

No it isn't. You were unable to rebut my post #158.

Your post #158 fails at scientific rigour at even the most basic level. It is based entirely on quote mining, superficial analysis of evidence (that we could already explain), and a personal set of views you have on space, spacetime, and motion that nobody reading your post would have any reason to take as fact.

No it doesn't and no it isn't. It's all plain-vanilla simple physics. So simple that you feel the need to be disparaging about it rather than addressing it.

Furthermore, since physics is a quantitative science and we all know your level of mathematical literacy is basically nil

That isn't true.

this means you are crippled in two ways that nobody calling themselves a physicist should suffer from:

1. You have no way of checking the correctness of any reference you might try to use in your support (and so must take it on faith that all your sources are accurate).
2. You have no way of being sure that you have understood any such reference the way the authors intended it to be understood.

I don't take anything on faith, and I can refer to hard scientific evidence to check what the authors said.

Seriously. It's as if you'd heard somewhere that good science involved "evidence" and "references", but you never bothered to learn where and how to use them.

Yawn. You've got nothing przyk.

Your post #158 was basically a regurgitation of arguments that had already been demolished beyond any reasonable hope of repair by a number of individuals for basically as long as you have been appearing on this forum.

They haven't been demolished though, have they? Markus made a series of mistakes, lost the argument, and lost his cool. Sounds like you're following suit.

Not that I used that as an excuse to ignore your post #158. I responded in a number of posts in the same thread, starting with my [POST=3067535]post #227[/POST]. Post #227 in particular included a lengthy explanation of why your interpretation of certain material written by Einstein was not consistent with how he defined general relativity in his 1916 paper on the subject.

Your post #227 does not respond to my post #158.

Your [POST=3067796]response[/POST] was very far from adequate. All of this is on record where anyone who cares to can read it, so you are lying when you say that your post #158 has never been rebutted.

I'm not lying. You linked to a post that doesn't address my post #158. Previously you said you'd rebutted my post before I'd even posted it, and that I was failing on the rational logic front. And now you're saying I'm lying. It doesn't look too good przyk.

Seriously, when are you going to face reality? You are the only person who is impressed with yourself and your post #158.

I'm the one who is facing it. The speed of light is not constant, just like Einstein said. You're the one who won't face up to it, just as you won't face up to post #158. Just do the normal thing, do a quote and reply, and go through it point by point shooting down my argument. Only you can't can you? You can't face up to that either.

 

[Tach]

I'm the one who is facing it. The speed of light is not constant,

Few ideas but fixed.

 

[Farsight]

Can you show how your gif relates in any way to any physical situation? I am sure that you won't answer that question, but I am also sure that you will lie about always answering questions.

I have and you know it. See post #507 where I told przyk about what I've said previously. Now tell us all that the two light-pulses are moving at the same speed.

 

[Tach]

Now tell us all that the two light-pulses are moving at the same speed.

They are moving at the same speed, Duffield. What you don't know is that they are not spanning the same distance (they aren't). The problem with cranks like you is that you never learn , Duffield.

 

[przyk]

You describe the state of space by referring to the spacetime metric which is all to do with measurement of things moving through space over time.

No it's not. I can't imagine anyone who understood Riemannian geometry would want to put it that way.

Come off it przyk, the guy has a website. Here it is: http://daviddeutsch.physics.ox.ac.uk/structure/Documents/Non-Technical/Frontiers.html . And here's an excerpt:

"A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes".

So what does this have to do with thinking the photon is like a billiard ball?

He doesn't think of it as an extended-entity wave.

There's no reason he should.

And it's not like the photon either has to be a billiard ball or it has to be an extended-entity wave. That's a false dichotomy, and neither is an accurate summary of quantum physics.

No it doesn't and no it isn't. It's all plain-vanilla simple physics. So simple that you feel the need to be disparaging about it rather than addressing it.

Your plain-vanilla simple physics consists of quote mining, arguments from authority, and statements with no factual basis. The particular way you try to apply the few bits of evidence you consider consist of a logical fallacy.

That's what your post #158 amounts to. It was born dead. There was no chance it was ever going to convince anyone.

I don't take anything on faith

So you've personally checked GRs derivation of the perihelion advance of Mercury? You've personally gone through every line of the rederivation of Newtonian gravity from the Einstein field equation? You've actually properly studied Riemannian geometry, and you properly studied a mathematical definition of GR to make sure your interpretation of Einstein's words is actually consistent with the definition of the theory and the Riemannian geometry on which it is based?

If not, practically everything you say about general relativity is based on faith. You are not showing that general relativity can be understood as a theory based on inhomogeneous space. You are asserting it and simply taking it for granted that all the details will work out in the end.

and I can refer to hard scientific evidence to check what the authors said.

All the evidence you keep citing can already be accounted for perfectly anyway. So you cannot claim it supports you exclusively.

You understand that evidence can under no circumstances prove any possible given explanation for it, right? It is a logical fallacy to try to use evidence this way.

Previously you said you'd rebutted my post before I'd even posted it, and that I was failing on the rational logic front.

The basic errors in style and judgement that you make in your post #158 (see above) have been pointed out to you many times by many people. You have done nothing to try to fix that in the many years you've been active here.

You can't seem to grasp that there are fundamental problems in your whole attitude to physics. It's a problem of quality, not quantity. It's simply not something you can fix by posting more Einstein quotes or more pictures or more Google hits for the word "aether". You very fundamentally misunderstand science if you expect that to work on scientists.

When you post the same line of argument over and over again, and everyone with any sort of physics background consistently says "nope, not convincing", maybe you should start to wonder just what it is we're all seeing that you're not.

 

[quantum_wave]

They are moving at the same speed, Duffield. What you don't know is that they are not spanning the same distance (they aren't). The problem with cranks like you is that you never learn , Duffield.

I'd like to test my understanding here of the difference between what Farsight is saying from his perspective, and what Tach is saying which I presume is GR plain and simple.

GR explains the difference in observations of clock tick rates between two different frames by transforming the measurements of distance from one frame to the other. The equations include the constant speed of light as a common denominator and thus, they calculate what the difference in distance measurements would have to be between frames in order to make the speed of light come out the same, and thus to explain the observed difference in clocked time by a difference in the distance light has to travel. Yes?

Farsight, on the other hand, is saying that the speed of light is variable based on relative motion through space or based on the elevation in a gravitational field. In that case the difference in clock tick rates between frames can be transformed to calculate the difference in the speed of light, given that the distance travelled is the same in each frame, thus explaining why the clocks tick rates are different . Right?

 

[quantum_wave]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[brucep]

No it's not. I can't imagine anyone who understood Riemannian geometry would want to put it that way.




So what does this have to do with thinking the photon is like a billiard ball?




There's no reason he should.

And it's not like the photon either has to be a billiard ball or it has to be an extended-entity wave. That's a false dichotomy, and neither is an accurate summary of quantum physics.




Your plain-vanilla simple physics consists of quote mining, arguments from authority, and statements with no factual basis. The particular way you try to apply the few bits of evidence you consider consist of a logical fallacy.

That's what your post #158 amounts to. It was born dead. There was no chance it was ever going to convince anyone.




So you've personally checked GRs derivation of the perihelion advance of Mercury? You've personally gone through every line of the rederivation of Newtonian gravity from the Einstein field equation? You've actually properly studied Riemannian geometry, and you properly studied a mathematical definition of GR to make sure your interpretation of Einstein's words is actually consistent with the definition of the theory and the Riemannian geometry on which it is based?

If not, practically everything you say about general relativity is based on faith. You are not showing that general relativity can be understood as a theory based on inhomogeneous space. You are asserting it and simply taking it for granted that all the details will work out in the end.




All the evidence you keep citing can already be accounted for perfectly anyway. So you cannot claim it supports you exclusively.

You understand that evidence can under no circumstances prove any possible given explanation for it, right? It is a logical fallacy to try to use evidence this way.




The basic errors in style and judgement that you make in your post #158 (see above) have been pointed out to you many times by many people. You have done nothing to try to fix that in the many years you've been active here.

You can't seem to grasp that there are fundamental problems in your whole attitude to physics. It's a problem of quality, not quantity. It's simply not something you can fix by posting more Einstein quotes or more pictures or more Google hits for the word "aether". You very fundamentally misunderstand science if you expect that to work on scientists.

When you post the same line of argument over and over again, and everyone with any sort of physics background consistently says "nope, not convincing", maybe you should start to wonder just what it is we're all seeing that you're not.

Farsight just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. When he says the speed of light is variable he has mixed up a frame invariant local coordinate frame measurement [c] with the remote coordinate speed of light which is frame dependent. He conflates this nonsense by saying that's what Einstein meant after misinterpreting what Einstein said. What Einstein meant can be completely found in the theoretical model he built. GR and it's special case for flat spacetime SR. The derivation for the local coordinate speed of light and the derivation for the remote coordinate speed is really simple. The fact Farsight can't tell these two derivations describe different natural phenomena is comical.

The radial local coordinate speed of light

dr/dt=1. In geometric unit's c=1. [radial]

The remote coordinate speed of light

dr/dt = 1-2M/r. In geometric units c=1. [radial]

This is the 'extreme' difference between these two very different measurements. At the event horizon the local coordinate speed of light is predicted to be c. The remote coordinate speed of light is predicted to be 0.

IE

r=2M the event horizon for a non rotating spherically symmetric black hole.

dr/dt = 1-2M/r = 1-2M/2M = 0.

Farsight is saying his interpretations are Einstein's interpretations. Continuing this ridiculous trolling should result in a trip to the woodshed.

dr/dt=1-2M/r

By comical I mean really comical for someone who actually understands the physics Farsight claims he knows. You should have been able to figure this one out by now. But since you haven't I thought I spell it out for you.

 

[brucep]

deleted

 

[Cheezle]

There are 3 people and 3 light clocks. The people are a naive sighted man, a blind man and a scientist. As an experiment they set up two of the clocks in a field, one clock is 10 meters away and the other is 20 meters away. They all observe the clocks. They they all use the third clock as a reference to compare the ticks of the clocks and they all agree that the clocks are ticking at the same rate. The naive sighted man holds out his thumb at arms length and sights the clocks and notices that the first clock looks to be one thumb high and the second clock is half a thumb high. He knows how to calculate speed and declares that the light in the farther clock has slowed. The blind man takes the 3rd clock and walks to each of the two clocks in the field and measures the length of each clock with a braille tape measure. He declares that just as expected the clocks are exactly the same dimensions and the speed of light is the same in each clock. The scientist holds out his thumb and sights the two clocks and sees that one appears to be half as high. Then he paces off the distance to each clock and discovers that one clock is twice as far away. He pulls out a paper and pencil and calculates and finds that the speed of light is the same in each clock. He explains to the sighted man that vision is a projective system and that things that are farther away seem to be smaller by proportion.

Next the 3 men place one clock next to them in the field and the second clock on the top of a tall building. Both clocks are visible. Using the third clock as a reference, the sighted man can see that the clock on the high building is ticking faster. He declares that the light in the higher clock has sped up. He understands perspective now and is not fooled by the apparent size difference and so ignores it. The blind man takes the reference clock and finds the lower clock is ticking at the same rate as the reference. He then takes the reference clock up the to the top of the building and finds the clocks are ticking at the same rate. He declares that everything is working as expected, all the clocks agree. The speed of light is the same in all clocks. The scientist looks up the height of the building in a book, and using a handy chalkboard he does some math and declares that the blind man is correct. All the clocks are ticking at the same rate and the speed of light is constant. The scientists explains that GR, like visual perspective, is a projective system. This type of projective system will change the remote measurements of both length and time. Visual perspective projection is due to the geometric nature of flat euclidean 3-space. GR projection is due to the geometric nature of 4D spacetime.

A blind man is always correct because he has to make his measurements locally. Visual perspective is a very strong effect and we sighted persons are intuitively aware of it. I have read that people blind since birth are not necessarily aware of the existence of perspective. Perspective is so strong of an effect that it would swamp out any visual distortion due to GR. Time on the other had is not effected by perspective, but it does appear to change with GR. We can use scientific instrumentation to measure these apparent differences in time without too much difficulty. Remote measurements are always subjected to possible distortion due to visual perspective and GR. We say these distortions give “unreal” or incorrect measurements. But the systems of projective eyesight and projective spacetime are both real. The speed of light is a constant.

It is worth mentioning that Farsight is the naive sighted man.

 

[brucep]

There are 3 people and 3 light clocks. The people are a naive sighted man, a blind man and a scientist. As an experiment they set up two of the clocks in a field, one clock is 10 meters away and the other is 20 meters away. They all observe the clocks. They they all use the third clock as a reference to compare the ticks of the clocks and they all agree that the clocks are ticking at the same rate. The naive sighted man holds out his thumb at arms length and sights the clocks and notices that the first clock looks to be one thumb high and the second clock is half a thumb high. He knows how to calculate speed and declares that the light in the farther clock has slowed. The blind man takes the 3rd clock and walks to each of the two clocks in the field and measures the length of each clock with a braille tape measure. He declares that just as expected the clocks are exactly the same dimensions and the speed of light is the same in each clock. The scientist holds out his thumb and sights the two clocks and sees that one appears to be half as high. Then he paces off the distance to each clock and discovers that one clock is twice as far away. He pulls out a paper and pencil and calculates and finds that the speed of light is the same in each clock. He explains to the sighted man that vision is a projective system and that things that are farther away seem to be smaller by proportion.

Next the 3 men place one clock next to them in the field and the second clock on the top of a tall building. Both clocks are visible. Using the third clock as a reference, the sighted man can see that the clock on the high building is ticking faster. He declares that the light in the higher clock has sped up. He understands perspective now and is not fooled by the apparent size difference and so ignores it. The blind man takes the reference clock and finds the lower clock is ticking at the same rate as the reference. He then takes the reference clock up the to the top of the building and finds the clocks are ticking at the same rate. He declares that everything is working as expected, all the clocks agree. The speed of light is the same in all clocks. The scientist looks up the height of the building in a book, and using a handy chalkboard he does some math and declares that the blind man is correct. All the clocks are ticking at the same rate and the speed of light is constant. The scientists explains that GR, like visual perspective, is a projective system. This type of perspective system will change the remote measurements of both length and time. Visual perspective projection is due to the geometric nature of flat euclidean 3-space. GR projection is due to the geometric nature of 4D spacetime.

A blind man is always correct because he has to make his measurements locally. Visual perspective is a very strong effect and we sighted persons are intuitively aware of it. I have read that people blind since birth are not necessarily aware of the existence of perspective. Perspective is so strong of an effect that it would swamp out any visual distortion due to GR. Time on the other had is not effected by perspective, but it does appear to change with GR. We can use scientific instrumentation to measure these apparent differences in time without too much difficulty. Remote measurements are always subjected to possible distortion due to visual perspective and GR. We say these distortions give “unreal” or incorrect measurements. But the systems of projective eyesight and projective spacetime are both real. The speed of light is a constant.

It is worth mentioning that Farsight is the naive sighted man.

Nice. The local coordinate speed of light is an invariant in your clocks regardless where you place them in the universe. This means any measurement will be in the local proper frame of each clock. These measurements are invariant. For light it's c. The remote coordinate measurements are frame dependent. For the example I wrote for QW the remote coordinate speed of light reckoned from remote bookkeeper coordinates is 0. It's essentially a global reckoning of the light path over remote coordinates to the event horizon. IE it accounts for spacetime curvature over the entire path. The local measurement is an invariant because it's a direct measurement where the spacetime event occurs. In GR we get to do most the local physics using SR because the tangent space local to the points where spacetime events occur is ~ flat. An experiment where we have to account for gravitational effects is the GPS. Because even in the tangent space measurements in nanoseconds can be critical. If Farsight learned any of this stuff he'd have to be an Ostrich the rest of his trolling physics forums career. Just to clear it up none of this is a consequence of any distortion. If it was the theoretical model would be useless. If you think in terms of measurement all the vague interpretation hits the road out of physics town.