They don't understand that modeling involves both analysis and synthesis. Apparently they (the troll or trolls, I lost count) think it's all synthesis.
They attack most what they understand the least.
The Speed of Light is Not Constant
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
The problem with this nice platitude is that if you can't do the mathematics, then you can't do physics. Physics is about measurements, very detailed measurements with very detailed relationships to other measurements. If you can't account for the ones that we already know about, then you are merely telling a fantasy story.
The mathematics of SR time dilation is trivial, it's just Pythagoras' theorem. See wiki. Also see wiki for gravitational time dilation and note the bit that says "where electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence". For the relativistic muons think in terms of a "ring of light" side-on. It's good for say a zillion rotations before it decays. If it's moving fast the ring of light traces a helical path that you can depict like this /\/\/\/\/\ just like the parallel-mirror light clock. So a zillion rotations takes longer.
The ring of light is a bit of a simplification, but see muon decay, note that neutrinos move at the speed of light, and note that we can annihilate an electron with positron to get light.
The ring of light is a bit of a simplification, but see muon decay, note that neutrinos move at the speed of light, and note that we can annihilate an electron with positron to get light.
It's funny how they don't even go as far as saying that the speed of light is not constant due to the presence of gravity even in any pop physics books. Man they must really feel dumb when they tend to go into talking about not knowing exactly why light can't escape from a black hole when the answer is right there and it just slows it down!
So what is the new symbol for "c" that is not a constant? Then what mathematical constraints are put on it to know exactly what speed it is really moving?
Apparently I have been completely out of the loop for a while...
So what is the new symbol for "c" that is not a constant? Then what mathematical constraints are put on it to know exactly what speed it is really moving?
Apparently I have been completely out of the loop for a while...
That derivation and equation has been widely known to be inaccurate for some time. Do you have any links to any real physics?
The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
You are simply wrong. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
You seem to be spectacularly ignorant here or lying. You admitted that you cannot do the mathematics of GR and here you seem to claim that, because of a mathematical trick you found for one class of Lorentz transformations and a single phrase from a popular science web page, you are claiming that you know enough of the mathematics to do any kind of comment on GR.
What reason can you give to claim that neutrinos move at the speed of light, given that the scientific consensus is that they do not? Given that you seem to be defending your claims based on the nature of the neutrino, why should we not summarily dismiss your claims?
Given your admitted ignorance about the physics, why shoudl we not summarily dismiss your claims?
All: this guy isn't honest. You can't have a sincere conversation with him.
You can't have a serious conversation. I thought that you could, when earlier you admitted that you can't do simple GR problems. Yet now you continue to avoid questions.
Let's ask one simple question again: Why do you claim, against the weight of the scientific evidence, that neutrinos move at the speed of light?
Sorry, I thought it would be funny to hear what it might sound like if someone actually believed him and desired more information about it. Then I spied an admin agreeing with him, so idk how else you could deny a claim that is so clearly false. The point is that "c" is a constant, and it is in every case. There would be no way to calculate what other speeds light travels at.
Therefore, I didn't get the information I asked for because it does not exist, and even if it did he wouldn't be able to obtain it for me because for some reason he deems it necessary to prove his point with a derivation that is known to have problems with it that is just used as an example to teach first year undergraduates that they also inform you is not a very accurate equation.
P.S. Thanks for trolling me to increase my chances of not getting a legitimate reply.
There where faulty experiments that showed them moving faster than the speed of light. There was a guy who trolled the alternative theories about this day in and out that apparently didn't get that memo.
Farsight actually provided a citation to a not so bad paper that lays out just how one could do observations that would distinguish between regions (or times) where the speed of light was different. That paper and with similar papers do work that Farsight is clearly not capable of. That it is theoretically possible does not mean that it is actual; serious evidence would be needed to demonstrate that variable speed of light is anything but an interesting (in cases other than Farsight's case) exercise.
Then what citation was that? I didn't see it.
This one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507
It's by this guy and another author: http://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/john-moffat
The paper that they are responding to is not as bad as they make out, thought I always recommend a great deal of salt when reading GFR Ellis.
It's by this guy and another author: http://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/john-moffat
The paper that they are responding to is not as bad as they make out, thought I always recommend a great deal of salt when reading GFR Ellis.
Go and ask around about why light doesn't get out of a black hole. People will tell you about the waterfall analogy, and say space is falling inwards. That's Chicken-Little garbage. A gravitational field alters the motion of light and matter through space. It doesn't suck space in. The sky is not falling in. See this thread. And yes, I've read the rest of this thread, and yes, the admin agrees with me because I'm right.
Who are you referring to?
What does 'it' refer to?
who agreed with who about what?
I have no idea what any of this means.
Not every case, every reference frame. It's important to keep that language intact.
Sure there are. It's called the coordinate speed of light. It's purely a calculated number, based on a hypothetical. It's not physical.
What information? what doesn't exist?
who/what/why?
what point? how does that relate to the information you are talking about?
what derivation? what problems?
to teach them what? physics? typically the 1st yr program is at the level of statics and dynamics of free bodies. There wouldn't necessarily be any reason to bring up relativity or the constancy of light in a first year course.
This seems to be complaining about the definition of gravity in Newton's era vs the new information that was added by Einstein et al. Is that it? What exactly is your complaint? That Newton didn't discover GR when he discovery gravity in the heliocentric reference frame?
What does that have to do with me? How is any answer, other than "c is invariant in all reference frames" a legitimate reply?
If you wish to be understood you should strive to be clear.
The entire paper reads as though variable speed of light is a straw man argument at best. He is just grasping at straws to try to explain inflation being FTL and other woo physics that hasn't been invented yet. Then he mentions the same argument I presented the last time I had this discussion on these forums. It is not possible because it would break Lorentz Invariance symmetry. It doesn't give a convincing argument about how it could be broken or not apply in some cases.
If a real scientist wanted to be serious about getting accurate results he would use the equation for the proper time instead of the example given by the light clock derivation. These equations have major differences, but the light clock example helps explain the principle even though it doesn't give a correct answer. The main difference between these equations is that the time variables are reversed. You can simply reverse the time variables and derive the other equation. It has been long sought after a solution to solve the light clock and get the correct answer. I actually did this a while back ago in these forums, but I guess everyone was too incompetent to realize it's significance.
The actual solution is simple. The beam that travels straight up and down would be what the observer in the ship would see light behave because it has gauge symmetry. Then the observer on ground would be the one to see it travel at an angle. They would use their own times to measure the speed of light for the vector it traveled in, hence you get the correct assignment of variables. Then viola through Pythagorean Theorem you get the Proper Time!
If the light clock itself was the mechanism for space-time dilation then breaking Lorentz symmetry would be impossible! It would be a direct consequence of forcing an observer to measure light to always travel at the same speed!
Layman:
The fundamental issue here is that there has been a serious mistake made. The cranks are conflating coordinate speed, which is a simulation (not real) with the actual speed of light. Then they are arriving at the false conclusion that the speed of light is variable. It's a gaping error.
You can do the same thing by pulling up a calculator app or spreadsheet, enter you weight in kg, and divide by 9.8 to get your mass in kg. That does happen to be your correct mass. Now change 9.8 to 10 and your mass decreases. Change it to 9 and your mass increases. Did your mass actually change? No. You merely simulated a change. That's all coordinate speed is. It's not physical.
Do you see now where the cranks' fallacy lies?
The fundamental issue here is that there has been a serious mistake made. The cranks are conflating coordinate speed, which is a simulation (not real) with the actual speed of light. Then they are arriving at the false conclusion that the speed of light is variable. It's a gaping error.
You can do the same thing by pulling up a calculator app or spreadsheet, enter you weight in kg, and divide by 9.8 to get your mass in kg. That does happen to be your correct mass. Now change 9.8 to 10 and your mass decreases. Change it to 9 and your mass increases. Did your mass actually change? No. You merely simulated a change. That's all coordinate speed is. It's not physical.
Do you see now where the cranks' fallacy lies?
That was a problem I noticed before in other threads like this one where they misquoted one of Einsteins papers, but the paper he cited was talking about an actual variance in the speed of light. Then what would all have to be changed in the laws of physics in order for it to be possible. Then it stated that none of these changes to the laws of physics have been presented yet.
Personally, in the way I understand SR with the light clock example space-time dilation is a direct consequence of the speed of light having to remain a constant. "c" doesn't change and the only other two variables that can allow that is the distance and time that gives the speed. Then I would infer that the purpose of space warping in GR is due to this too. If it has the same mechanisms that cause that as in SR then it would be wrong to say that light slowed down due to it's curvature. The change in curvature could be a direct consequence of light having to be observed as traveling at the same speed as well. But, those are my opinions on the matter...
Time dilation in GR is often explained in the elevator example. They say if Einstein was in an elevator that he could tell that light bends if the elevator accelerated. Then that is about all she wrote. It really wouldn't take any new physics to describe this happening. But, Einstein developed new physics in order to explain how that means space-time itself can be warped and bent. If you carried over the idea that the speed of light was a constant and then kept it a constant in that situation, it would take rewriting the laws of physics still. Then by carrying over that constant it would have the same effect of altering the amount of distance or time measured. It would take warped space-time to describe that light in the elevator to still be traveling at a constant speed!