Perhaps you've confused yourself somewhere along the line? The lower clock goes slower than the upper clock. it doesn't "tick" at the same rate. The two clocks don't stay synchronised. See with this interview with David Wineland of NIST: “if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at”.
Photon?
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
I did not say that! I have on many occassions said that, GR is a geometric description of what we experience and observe as gravitation... Not the cause of gravitation!
I am also skeptical that length contraction, which I believe is real, applies to distances.., which is what you applied is my position, in the above quote. You are interpreting my intent based on either what you believe or what you think Farsight believes.
From where is sit, we cannot answer some of the questions raised, until we have clear and accurate descriptions of the fundamental origins of what we call mass and inertia. All we can do, is try to understand what of the universe and reality, that we cannot observe directly, through an application of what we can...
Yes, you are the person who takes this to mean that the speed of light is in no way constant, but every application of GR, including all of Einstein's, refute this claim.
Another attempt to argue through google search. It is infantile, but about all we can expect from you.
Why don't you show us how changing the speed of light produces gravitational lensing in an actual example (pick any observed case of gravitational lensing)? There is yet another direct scientific question for you to dodge. And then lie later about how you never dodge questions.
I did understand that. I hadn't seen your recent explanation, and thanks. I stand corrected to the extent that you are still attributing the slower tick rate to the curative caused by the proximity of mass, which equates to a higher energy density environment for the lower clock.
This is popscience nonsense. Distances don't increase as you get closer to the massive body, they decrease. Besides, spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force. If "spacetime was more curved" at some location, the tidal force at that location would be stronger. It's really simple once it clicks. Like Einstein said, the speed of light varies with potential. You plot the gradient in the speed of light using light clocks placed throughout an equatorial slice of space. Then you get the rubber-sheet picture. The slope of the rubber sheet denotes the local force of gravity, the curvature of the rubber sheet denotes the tidal force.
Yes, the light is travelling slower. The path isn't quite straight though, it's slightly curved, but not so much that you can see it. Note that if you could, you wouldn't be able to distinguish any difference in curvature for the upper path and the lower path.
The "energy density" of space is higher. Because a concentration of energy in the middle alters the surrounding space.
Some spacetime curvature relates to tidal force. As the links you have chosen say, all gravity can be described through spacetime curvature.
So walk us through an example with some numbers. If it's so simple, why can't you do this?
As he said before abandoning that idea in 1911, as you know, since you quote it all the time.
So let's see you do a gravity problem with this idea. If it is correct, why can't you do this?
"From where is sit, we cannot answer some of the questions raised, until we have clear and accurate descriptions of the fundamental origins of what we call mass and inertia."
We have clear and accurate descriptions of the fundamental origins of what we call mass and inertia. Einstein provided them. Only some people have a nasty habit of dismissing everything Einstein said.
We have clear and accurate descriptions of the fundamental origins of what we call mass and inertia. Einstein provided them. Only some people have a nasty habit of dismissing everything Einstein said.
Yes, I understand and agree, except I am still not clear on how you explain the cause of energy density increasing nearer a massive object.
He didn't abandon the idea in 1911. That's a popscience myth. The quote I gave is from 1920. Here it is again:
No. Einstein has done all that already, and it's his idea, not mine. Plus I've already explained how gravity works. That's enough. Mathematics would only distract from that, and bore other readers to death. Which is why you're asking for it.
more diverting with manipulation ?
also, please show how the mathematics would be distracting, since it's the mathematics that show it. i thought this was a seriously sad comment to make. since you can not do physics without mathematics. because physics is just mathematics in a non numerical form.and i'm sure other readers would like to see the mathematics, i know i do.
and i'm asking for it , not because it's boring and distracting, but because it shows what an deceiving individual you are.
Last edited:
Just think of space and energy as the same thing. It isn't nothing. It's like this gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. It has properties. You can stress it. You can subject it to pressure. You can curve it. A field is a state of space. Waves run through it. It is a medium. Imagine you could inject space into the centre of a region of space. The space around the injection point ends up denser, and this density diminishes with distance. So a wave running through that region of space veers and curves like a sonar wave, see this article. Like I said, it's really simple when you get it. So simple you wonder why nobody told you about it. Even though Einstein talked about it. See the Baez website for that:
"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."
Thanks, and when you say it is a medium, and I agree, what causes the waves that stress it to curve near a massive object? Now don't flame me, I'm not trolling, I just wonder if you have an explanation or if it is as yet unknown.
Last edited:
Why continue to lie. That passage is not about the potential.
The mathematics would show you, exactly, to be either correct or incorrect. This is why you stopped trying to learn it.
You seem to be nothing but a fraud, to us and to yourself.
At least you are upfront about dodging questions this time.
They curve down because "the speed of light varies with position". Because space is denser down there than it is up here. Like I said, it's like sonar:
I agree, but the "how" is what I'm after.
I agree, but to what characteristic of the medium of space can we credit the increase in density. Light is EM, and if EM goes slower through the denser medium, what is the EM encountering that changes density?
he will not answer that, because it will show exactly what an deceiving, manipulating individual he is.
Pure rubbish!
[1] Light follows geodesics in curved space time
[2] The speed of light is always "c"
[3] Space, or more correctly spacetime, is all the same density as far as we know. The only thing that differs, is the amount of warping/curving/twisting in the presence of mass.
To compare the constant nature of the speed of light and the fact that it follows geodesics in curved spacetime with sonar, is horribly wrong and amiss.
For Christ's sake, go learn some SR/GR
Not pure, but not satisfactory either
.
True, but theory specific, according to GR.
True, in the local frame.
True, but again, theory specific.
It was an analogy, and not a very good one if it was supposed to answer the "how" question.
Actually, he knows some SR/GR, and is trying to deal with some of the "as yet" unexplained issues. He just does so with attitude, lol.