At Rest with our Hubble view

[Tach]

Grumpy
Strangely enough Tach has done me a favor in #1299. By rebutting your unwarranted doubt about Shapiro's ability and validity of effect he measured, even though Tach emphasizes it's 'just time delay'. Well in my book if there is time delay, then 'going slow' is a good explanation for that.

It is Time Delay with respect to the time predicted by Newtonian physics. Try reading a textbook, would you? Let me dispell your crank misconception, GR predicts a roundtrip time of:

$$\Delta t =\frac{1}{c}(X_1+X_2+2m log \frac{X_1X_2}{R^2})$$

The extra delay $$\frac{1}{c}(2m log \frac{X_1X_2}{R^2})$$ over the Newtonian prediction of $$\Delta t =\frac{1}{c}(X_1+X_2)$$ is caused by the fact that light follows a geodesic that is not a straight line. If it were a straight line, the Newtonian prediction would hold true. But light follows a curve, so the velocity changes while the speed, contrary to your (and Farsight, and Undefined ) crank claims , DOESN'T.

 

[Q-reeus]

It is Time Delay with respect to the time predicted by Newtonian physics. Try reading a textbook, would you? Let me dispell your crank misconception, GR predicts a roundtrip time of:

$$\Delta t =\frac{1}{c}(X_1+X_2+2m log \frac{X_1X_2}{R^2})$$

The extra delay $$\frac{1}{c}(2m log \frac{X_1X_2}{R^2})$$ over the Newtonian prediction of $$\Delta t =\frac{1}{c}(X_1+X_2)$$ is caused by the fact that light follows a geodesic that is not a straight line. If it were a straight line, the Newtonian prediction would hold true. But light follows a curve, so the velocity changes while the speed, contrary to your (and Farsight, and Undefined ) crank claims , DOESN'T.

Let's tear this apart one piece at a time. First, how about *defining* m and R. Then provide reasoning behind your *derivation* of that expression. Too much to ask?

 

[Tach]

Let's tear this apart one piece at a time. First, how about *defining* m and R. Then provide reasoning behind your *derivation* of that expression. Too much to ask?

Too lazy to take a class or crack open a textbook, eh?

$$m=\frac{GM}{c^2}=\frac{r_s}{2}$$
$$R$$ is the "radius of minimal approach". See Rindler pages 237-8 and 248-9.
It is not "my" derivation, it is Shapiro's standard derivation.
Generally, cranks , when proven wrong, start demanding to be educated. Why don't you get educated before you start pushing your crank misconceptions?

BTW: see the term in $$\frac{1}{c} $$? $$c$$ represents the invariant, there is no "light speed slowing down". Hopefully you've learned something today.

 

[Q-reeus]

Too lazy to take a class or crack open a textbook, eh?

$$m=\frac{GM}{c^2}$$
$$R$$ is the "radius of minimal approach". See Rindler pages 237-8 and 248-9.
It is not "my" derivation, it is Shapiro's standard derivation.
Generally, cranks , when proven wrong, start demanding to be educated. Why don't you get educated before you start pushing your crank misconceptions?

BTW: see the term in $$\frac{1}{c} $$? $$c$$ represents the invariant, there is no "light speed slowing down". Hopefully you've learned something today.

What can I say Tach - so accommodating yet so surly at the same time. Vintage Tach. So as far as who has the whacky interpretation of Shapiro delay, guess you couldn't stomach those earlier articles I gave which plainly wrote in terms of slowing coordinate value of c. As per Schwarzschild metric implies. Well perhaps you can get the following author's details, and just go on the atTack with him/her personally for being oh so wrong:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/
You see, it opens with that ugly and inconvenient-for-you statement that Shapiro delay = slowing of light. And that your precious idea of velocity change without speed change (which can only mean pure deflection) is bunkum. Not my interpretation either. Deal with it.

 

[Tach]

What can I say Tach - so accommodating yet so surly at the same time. Vintage Tach. So as far as who has the whacky interpretation of Shapiro delay, guess you couldn't stomach those earlier articles I gave which plainly wrote in terms of slowing coordinate value of c. As per Schwarzschild metric implies. Well perhaps you can get the following author's details, and just go on the atTack with him/her personally for being oh so wrong:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

I said textbooks (MTW, Rindler, Taylor and Wheeler), not self-published books by fringers like Epstein: "He (Epstein) credits his teaching style to experience presenting technical testimony to trial juries and congressional hearings". Seriously? This is what happens when cranks like you try do do physics by trawling the internet.
Give it a rest, would you.

 

[Q-reeus]

I said textbooks (MTW, Rindler, Taylor and Wheeler), not self-published books by fringers like Epstein: "He (Epstein) credits his teaching style to experience presenting technical testimony to trial juries and congressional hearings". Seriously? This is what happens when cranks like you try do do physics by trawling the internet.
Give it a rest, would you.

And the Wiki link was some kind of devastating critique or something? I think not. The fact that he's good enough to appear as technical expert in trials and congressional hearings should be telling you something. Anyway, either convincingly refute what he wrote (ha ha, that's a joke), or don't expect anyone to take your crank opinion over someone of his caliber. Not that arguing from authority wins the day, A dose of common sense is recommended. Now good day/night, I must fly.

 

[Tach]

And the Wiki link was some kind of devastating critique or something?

It points out that you are citing a fringer. I am citing Rindler.

I think not. The fact that he's good enough to appear as technical expert in trials and congressional hearings should be telling you something. Anyway, either convincingly refute what he wrote (ha ha, that's a joke), or don't expect anyone to take your crank opinion over someone of his caliber. Not that arguing from authority wins the day, A dose of common sense is recommended. Now good day/night, I must fly.

I gave you the derivation from Rindler, it says that your interpretation is full-crank. <shrug>. Do you want the one from MTW? neither of them uses "variable light speed". Here is an excellent one from C.M.Will's book. Pay a lot of attention to the opening paragraph, he cautions against the "variable light speed" crackpottery.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well, it isn't my fault that the crank stuff that you, Farsight and Q-reeus have been posting about "variable speed of light" landed the thread in "Pseudoscience". Take a hint.

That phrase alone spells doom in any thread that purports to engage science. Their tactics seem to be this: open the thread in Physics & Math, hoping to draw a better cut of reader than the hellhole they live in, just so they can pretend to try to tell you that everything you learned and/or are still learning, is predicated on some fundamental error such as this - the "obvious" conclusion that c "must not be" invariant.

Granted, not everyone has had the advantage to apply themselves as you, Grumpy, brucep and many of the fine folks here have. By the same token, we can assume they simply failed in initiative somewhere along the way. But that's no excuse for pretending to trump knowledge with asinine conjecture. I tend to think of such folks as the ones who have an axe to grind - perhaps they flunked an entrance exam, or failed a freshman exam and had to drop out.

Incidently, I'm sure this has been raised before, but that stupid gif we keep seeing, the one with two tennis balls of light bouncing from two mirrors? I notice that one was set up to bounce twice as fast. The fool that created it omitted the aspect ratio of the depiction (say in pixels) to get a 50% dilation. It's exactly the same game they are playing in their dialog with you. The mirror thingy preserves length (does not project it) while projecting time - arriving at the conclusion that c is variant, without bothering to address the stupidity of claiming that space is invariant.

Just as a rough idea, the "face" of the object has to be projected onto the observation plane (the plane of the gif). Something more like this should have been posted (though I didn't calculate pixels, and my transform was a little off from left to right.)

Taken in context, it looks all the more ridiculous that the pulse of light reaches the upper mirror on the right while the one deeper in the well is only halfway there.

Just thought I'd mention that here since I've resorted to putting about a dozen meatheads on ignore.

 

[Tach]

Incidently, I'm sure this has been raised before, but that stupid gif we keep seeing, the one with two tennis balls of light bouncing from two mirrors? I notice that one was set up to bounce twice as fast. The fool that created it omitted the aspect ratio of the depiction (say in pixels) to get a 50% dilation. It's exactly the same game they are playing in their dialog with you. The mirror thingy preserves length (does not project it) while projecting time - arriving at the conclusion that c is variant, without bothering to address the stupidity of claiming that space is invariant.

Just as a rough idea, the "face" of the object has to be projected onto the observation plane (the plane of the gif). Something more like this should have been posted (though I didn't calculate pixels, and my transform was a little off from left to right.)

Taken in context, it looks all the more ridiculous that the pulse of light reaches the upper mirror on the right while the one deeper in the well is only halfway there.

Just thought I'd mention that here since I've resorted to putting about a dozen meatheads on ignore.

It was Farsight who first put up these silly gifs. When he did that, I provided a mathematical rebuttal of his claim that the explanation of the clock slowing down has anything to do with "variable speed of light". Unfortunately other cranks , like Q-reeus and Undefined picked up Farsight's claim and ran with it.

 

[Undefined]

That phrase alone spells doom in any thread that purports to engage science. Their tactics seem to be this: open the thread in Physics & Math, hoping to draw a better cut of reader than the hellhole they live in, just so they can pretend to try to tell you that everything you learned and/or are still learning, is predicated on some fundamental error such as this - the "obvious" conclusion that c "must not be" invariant.

Granted, not everyone has had the advantage to apply themselves as you, Grumpy, brucep and many of the fine folks here have. By the same token, we can assume they simply failed in initiative somewhere along the way. But that's no excuse for pretending to trump knowledge with asinine conjecture. I tend to think of such folks as the ones who have an axe to grind - perhaps they flunked an entrance exam, or failed a freshman exam and had to drop out.

Incidently, I'm sure this has been raised before, but that stupid gif we keep seeing, the one with two tennis balls of light bouncing from two mirrors? I notice that one was set up to bounce twice as fast. The fool that created it omitted the aspect ratio of the depiction (say in pixels) to get a 50% dilation. It's exactly the same game they are playing in their dialog with you. The mirror thingy preserves length (does not project it) while projecting time - arriving at the conclusion that c is variant, without bothering to address the stupidity of claiming that space is invariant.

Just as a rough idea, the "face" of the object has to be projected onto the observation plane (the plane of the gif). Something more like this should have been posted (though I didn't calculate pixels, and my transform was a little off from left to right.)

Taken in context, it looks all the more ridiculous that the pulse of light reaches the upper mirror on the right while the one deeper in the well is only halfway there.

Just thought I'd mention that here since I've resorted to putting about a dozen meatheads on ignore.

I have bolded and underlined those bits in your above post which are directly pertinent to my response to your 'take' on this. I have ignored all the personal baggage and politics etc stuff which you seem overly fond of including in almost every post you make lately (not needed here, hence ignored).

Do you not really understand that what you just did there is what religious prophets/healers do in their 'religious story/setup' in order to get the setup and result to say whatever they set up it up to say because of their pre-massaging' the circumstances using their preconcluded 'religious parameters and assumptions' which a-priori frames their version of the 'argument/evidence' so that it predetermines what possible factors/interpretations will or will not be allowed to be considered from the get-go?

If you will take a moment to read my last response to Grumpy, your 'adjusted parameter set' has built into it a "presumptive choice based on theory" which has been formulated to 'a-priori prefer' to pre-interpret the observed phenomenon/behavior in light clocks as being due to "variable t plus constant lightspeed" rather than the alternative of just allowing the more logical "occam's razor" interpretation of it being due to "variable t plus variable lightspeed".

That latter occams razor interpretation involves no a-priori presumptions about 'length contraction', and just follows the empirical observables as they are, rather than as abstract theory 'pre-adjusting' them to give what you want rather than what it actually is".

That is setting up the rules to suit what you want to 'see', rather than what actually is to be seen without such circuitous self-selecting setup and presumptive reasoning which therefore makes your above depicted "theoretically" ad-hoc massaged "setup and result" nothing more than a totally self-fulfilling prophesy setup/result designed to give what your setup predetermines ah-hocly.



Take a moment, Aqueous Id et al, and see where your peconceptions (born of long conditioned 'training' in the current theoretical presumptions) lead you unquestioningly to dismiss what you should not dismiss, just because you have a 'preference' for one interpretational possibility over than the other which I have been explaining is valid if you drop the 'length contraction' bodge to the observational construct and results therefrom (which are currently nothing more than self-fulfilling preconceptual setups designed to give the 'answer' it was 'massaged' to give from the get-go).


PS: Anyhow, I will now respond to Grumpy's politely stated (to Q-reeus) scenario re 'above black hole horizon' emission of light, and his current understanding that its speed is a constant value because only the wavelength is changed and not the speed. I suggest you take good note of my response to Grumpy about that aspect, as it gives a hint as to the scope and breadth of my upcoming publication of the actual complete and consistent mechanistic physics/reasons for all that is happening in the light clocks and in the light on train scenarios (as well as explaining here and now, what is actually happening to light leaving the event horizon regarding only the speed-of-light aspect)! I wanted to save this to publish the answer to that aspect as part of my whole complete and consistent ToE publication, but I feel Grumpy and other genuine engagers here deserve my respect and my response on this particular aspect now, so that certain misconceptions which have been caused by certain conventional GR/SR theoretical 'predeterminations of what is or is not involved' can be dispelled sooner rather than leaving him and others to argue endlessly about something which I have already solved consistent with all observed phenomena without any preconceptions).

 

[Undefined]

Well, it isn't my fault that the crank stuff that you, Farsight and Q-reeus have been posting about "variable speed of light" landed the thread in "Pseudoscience". Take a hint.

Hello again, Tach.

As usual, eminently ignorable generalizations and opinionating without bothering to discern the subtle differences (eg, I have not based any of my points on any 'Shapiro Delay' aspects which you and others are arguing over but is irrelevant to my take on the lightspeed aspect overall).

So the arguments and 'takes' and issues presented by separate individuals in this matter are not identical as to perspective or as similarly based as you seem to erroneously conclude because you can't read subtle signs and facts in the individual arguments which might have made your opining less eminently ignorable because of your taste for tarring everyone with the same brush because it's easier on your remaining brain cells than trying to actually listen and learn and understand properly what's being said by whom that may differ in some important ways which you seem oblivious to note.

Bye again, Tach.

 

[Undefined]

Q-reeus



Such slowing has never been measured, period, and the light we see from even the deepest gravity well(just short of an Event Horizon)is not the least bit slower than any other photons(reddened, yes, slowed, not one bit), from any other source, in any relativistic frame of reference. Your statement is simply false, no matter how often repeated by you or anyone else(cough)Farsight(cough), it means that anything else you say BASED on that error is also false. C does not change, the length scale and time rate change so that the speed of light is always the same, in all frames and from all frames. It is a basic property of spacetime that massless photons travel at lightspeed in a vacuum, it is not a property that is affected by ANYTHING(gravity, energy density of the spacetime being crossed, how much spacetime expands between source and observer or the rate of speed through local spacetime of the source or the observer. That is an observed fact.

Shapiro is simply barking up the wrong tree(his measurements were well within the noise, as have all attempts to measure any such effect have been). His work has not passed peer review and no headline has appeared in the New York Times announcing the failure of Einstein's Relativity(SR or GR). Remember the "Faster than light" neutrinos? Front page. Same thing applies to "Slow light".

Grumpy

Hi Grumpy. I bolded that bit in your opening sentence to Q-reeus.

Since it is the mainstream 'understanding' which you have stated there regarding the light observed 'here' from near an event horizon 'there'; and since it is very important to take into account all the other mainstream 'factors' which may affect the current 'understandings' as you have stated them, I will open a new thread in Physics & Maths section so that we can all discuss the mainstream factors which I will point out are being left out, and which will modify the 'understanding' which you have presented in your attempted rebuttal of the possibility of varying lightspeed both in general and in particular your above-bh horizon light emission and remote reception scenario.

So, before I make any further post in this thread, I would like you and I to discuss this as a separate item so that any mutual understandings can be brought back into this thread to continue the discussion here with the new insights (if any) which the further examination/discussion between us of your above scenario in the other thread may bring.

See you in the mainstream Physics & Maths section, Grumpy! In your own time and at your own convenience, of course. Thanks.

 

[Tach]

Hello again, Tach.

As usual, eminently ignorable generalizations and opinionating without bothering to discern the subtle differences (eg, I have not based any of my points on any 'Shapiro Delay' aspects which you and others are arguing over but is irrelevant to my take on the lightspeed aspect overall).

Nah, just taking apart your many crank statements, that's all. You know, the ones you and Farsight continue to make landing you in "Pseudoscience".

 

[Undefined]

Nah, just taking apart your many crank statements, that's all. You know, the ones you and Farsight continue to make landing you in "Pseudoscience".

Even though the scenarios being discussed are common discussion areas for many perspectives being discussed, you should note that it doesn't automatically make my own claims/perspectives exactly the same in all respects as all those made by others, despite the common scenarios under which they are discussed. There is a difference too subtle for you to grasp, apparently, which is why you generalize 'crank' rather than allow each person to discuss the issue according to their own respective perspective. Only once the discussions are all done and dusted will the differences and subtleties be evident and the outcomes mutually understood. Until then, all you do is lump different people and issues together and make generalized insults irrespective. Try to show discernment between cranks and between issues. Only then will science be served properly instead of kneejerkingly from misunderstandings and failure to discriminate subtle new ideas which may further refine the current understandings by improving them (unless you think current science understandings are perfect and complete so you can ignore any and all discussion by others who don't agree with your state of perfection impression of the status quo?). Bye Tach.

 

[Grumpy]

Undefined

Such slowing has never been measured, period, and the light we see from even the deepest gravity well(just short of an Event Horizon)is not the least bit slower than any other photons(reddened, yes, slowed, not one bit), from any other source, in any relativistic frame of reference.

Hi Grumpy. I bolded that bit in your opening sentence to Q-reeus.

You should have bolded the first and last parts, they were the important bits...

"Such slowing has never been measured, period,...from any other source, in any relativistic frame of reference."

One question...what speed does the light coming from the biggest Quasars travel clear across the Universe at, hmmm? If photons of light from near the event horizon climbing out of the steep gravity well of a Supermassive Black Hole are not slowed down, what force in the Universe can have that effect?(hint, none) Oh, and the Quasar is moving away from us at nearly 3/4 the speed of light due to expansion. Does that have any effect on the speed we measure that light travelling when it reaches us?(hint, not one bit, it's still travelling at light speed)

Since it is the mainstream 'understanding' which you have stated there regarding the light observed 'here' from near an event horizon 'there'; and since it is very important to take into account all the other mainstream 'factors' which may affect the current 'understandings' as you have stated them, I will open a new thread in Physics & Maths section so that we can all discuss the mainstream factors which I will point out are being left out, and which will modify the 'understanding' which you have presented in your attempted rebuttal of the possibility of varying lightspeed both in general and in particular your above-bh horizon light emission and remote reception scenario.

Actually, if you post in the Physics and Math section as you have posted here it's likely you will soon go down a chute that leads back to where we are now, don't you think? I'll lay it out to you right here and now...

When a confirmable measurement of slow light(in vacuum)is shown, there's likely to be a ticker tape parade for whoever did it, just as when a confirmable observation of any faster than light anything. So far, nada, and I'm not holding my breath for either. And if light cannot be slowed by a billion sun mass Supermassive Black Hole there is no force or condition in this Universe that can slow light. Slow light in a vacuum has never been measured, a delay in transit time is not a slowing in speed, bent paths are always longer than straight ones and mass bends spacetime and thus all straight paths in spacetime are also bent(unlike Newton).

That's really all there is to it, simple observations mean your interpretation is just untenable.

Grumpy

 

[Tach]

Even though the scenarios being discussed are common discussion areas for many perspectives being discussed, you should note that it doesn't automatically make my own claims/perspectives exactly the same in all respects as all those made by others, despite the common scenarios under which they are discussed. There is a difference too subtle for you to grasp, apparently, which is why you generalize 'crank' rather than allow each person to discuss the issue according to their own respective perspective. Only once the discussions are all done and dusted will the differences and subtleties be evident and the outcomes mutually understood. Until then, all you do is lump different people and issues together and make generalized insults irrespective. Try to show discernment between cranks and between issues. Only then will science be served properly instead of kneejerkingly from misunderstandings and failure to discriminate subtle new ideas which may further refine the current understandings by improving them (unless you think current science understandings are perfect and complete so you can ignore any and all discussion by others who don't agree with your state of perfection impression of the status quo?). Bye Tach.

You make crank statements <shrug>. Grumpy just called you on it. I called you on it. brucep called you on it. billvon called you on it.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined



You should have bolded the first and last parts, they were the important bits...

"Such slowing has never been measured, period,...from any other source, in any relativistic frame of reference."

One question...what speed does the light coming from the biggest Quasars travel clear across the Universe at, hmmm? If photons of light from near the event horizon climbing out of the steep gravity well of a Supermassive Black Hole are not slowed down, what force in the Universe can have that effect?(hint, none) Oh, and the Quasar is moving away from us at nearly 3/4 the speed of light due to expansion. Does that have any effect on the speed we measure that light travelling when it reaches us?(hint, not one bit, it's still travelling at light speed)



Actually, if you post in the Physics and Math section as you have posted here it's likely you will soon go down a chute that leads back to where we are now, don't you think? I'll lay it out to you right here and now...

When a confirmable measurement of slow light(in vacuum)is shown, there's likely to be a ticker tape parade for whoever did it, just as when a confirmable observation of any faster than light anything. So far, nada, and I'm not holding my breath for either. And if light cannot be slowed by a billion sun mass Supermassive Black Hole there is no force or condition in this Universe that can slow light. Slow light in a vacuum has never been measured, a delay in transit time is not a slowing in speed, bent paths are always longer than straight ones and mass bends spacetime and thus all straight paths in spacetime are also bent(unlike Newton).

That's really all there is to it, simple observations mean your interpretation is just untenable.

Grumpy

No problem, Grumpy. You have re-iterated the original mainstream view.

I am not making any claims in the other thread (only incidentally while explaining to others why those claims re constant/invariant difference etc should be discussed back here in this Pseudoscience thread where they arose, and not in the new P&M thread).

The question I am asking you to further consider specifically in the other thread in P&M section is what other mainstream known factors could affect the observations 'here' of the photon that left 'there', ignoring my other comments about the difference between constant/invariant which I have mentioned here in this thread but which for the moment have no bearing on the further factors I want you to consider in that other thread.

Don't worry about that P&M thread coming into this section, since only mainstream factors for your further consideration have been put by me there.

If you will take a moment, and not be distracted by Tach or anyone else, you can read the factors I point to in my second post there which I would appreciate your considering before replying to it in that thread and not here. Thanks!

 

[Tach]

Don't worry about that P&M thread coming into this section, since only mainstream factors for your further consideration have been put by me there.

If you will take a moment, and not be distracted by Tach or anyone else, you can read the factors I point to in my second post there which I would appreciate your considering before replying to it in that thread and not here. Thanks!

He answered, he called your crank ideas , both in this thread and in the other one. Time to give it a rest.

 

[Undefined]

He answered, he called your crank ideas , both in this thread and in the other one. Time to give it a rest.

You're imagining things again. My and Grumpy's specific discussion on the specific subtleties and further factors has not yet concluded in context in the other thread, hence your self-justifying lies to yourself here are as eminently ignorable as are your witless trolls elsewhere.

 

[Tach]

You're imagining things again. My and Grumpy's specific discussion on the specific subtleties and further factors has not yet concluded in context in the other thread, hence your self-justifying lies to yourself here are as eminently ignorable as are your witless trolls elsewhere.

But it has concluded in this thread . By calling out your crackpottery. See here, right above your post. You are severely delusional, people point out the fringe stuff in your crank posts, yet you pretend that no one has called you on it.