The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Grumpy]

RC

But that's exactly what Farsight has been telling YOU et al.

No, Farsight knows virtually nothing about Relativity, and what he thinks he knows is wrong. Lightspeed does not vary. Period. If you agree with what he said then you know nothing about Relativity and what you think you know is wrong.

Relativity IS old, but the newer (since the mathematicians invaded the theory, as Einstein puts it himself) NON-ORIGINAL old Relativity has become incomprehensible with all the maths abstractions which took it far from the real straightforward things/insights he started with

It was a joke. All Albert ever did was math, with a notebook and pencil. The Relativity we have today is largely unchanged since Einstein wrote it, and every bit of it is still valid. Even with all the revisions he himself made, what I have tried to teach you is the real thing.

That is the whole thrust of what Farsight has been presenting as THE original Einstein theory, not the now 'old and tired maths abstract overlays on it by the mathematicians who 'invaded it' as Einstein bemoaned in jesting statement that had deadly serious feelings behind it.

No, Farsight has not presented anything related to Relativity, He denies the second postulate, for Pete's sake. Don't you know what that means? Evidently not, it means that Farsight has delivered nothing but grade A male bovine excrement. The constant speed of light is the second postulate of the SR paper, Farsight denies that lightspeed is constant, and you support that idiocy? I guess we see where the problem lies, you guys are busted, bigtime. You know nothing about Relativity, you have become cranks.

Grumpy

 

[Layman]

Where do you get that idea from?

From the fact that galaxies can expand away from each other FTL, and the response to this dilemma was that the speed of light limit was local instead of denying addition of velocities speed of light limit. The galaxies on the edge of the visible universe are traveling close to the speed of light. If you used addition of velocities from that frame of reference it would put galaxies on the other side of the visible universe right on top of us. Then they are not, and they are actually on the other side of the universe. Then they would be farther from the edge of the visible universe from each other, not in a radius where they could see each other where they would be close to us and our speed relative to them.

Do you have a cite to give us some idea what you're referring to here?

I used my brain. If you where to say that the flow of space had an effect on something, then it would have to be a thing. Ideas that are not things cannot directly influence objects that are things, unless you know some kind of telekinesis, lol.

Explain what you mean. How do you get from that premise to the conclusion?

Every time I see someone talking about the aether is real, they are suddenly trolled and thumbs down be everyone in the thread.

Try and diagram a case for length dilation of space. It can't be done. You need reference frames.

Its called length contraction, and Einstein did it and got a length contraction formula. All it takes is a simple substitution from the proper time in order to convert time into lenght. It just doesn't work with the standard light light clock equation, because the time dilation equation and the length contraction equation are the inverse of each other. Although, the proper time and proper length are not inversely related in the same way. This is a prime example why that equation is known to be false and not work. This is a simple fact that is nothing new.

If there was no mass you would be in the primordial conditions after the Big Bang. How does that apply to the inflation that occurred since matter condensed?

I assume that all mass of in the universe was originally created from the transfer from energy to mass. That initially the moments close to the big bang itself mostly only composed of energy and not mass. Matter wouldn't have condensed until a period long after the period I was talking about. I was thinking of the moments right after the Planck time which had rapid series of burst of inflation multiple times.

There is no contraction without GR and there's no GR without two different reference frames. In any case, it can't operate on space itself. It has to operate on observed length and/or time, and only in the presence of two or more frames.

I would assume that there was more than one object that came out of the big bang. The two reference frames I was referring to was the frame of particles that traveled the speed of light that had no mass, and particles that did not travel the speed of light and had mass. Observer is a lose term, and I consider any object to be a potential observer.

There can be no objects without mass, unless you meant to say massless particles. In relativity the space that's observed to be warped it is not actually warped. Distortions do not exist at all until data from one frame is compared to data from another. That's basically what relativity means.

Massless particles travel the speed of light and don't have mass that we know of. From what I have read about relativity, space is actually warped. Then it would have to be warped in order for my reason for inflation to be valid. So then you would have to assume that space-time is actually warped from other reference frames. If it didn't actually warp from other frames the universe would just be an illusion, but I don't really buy into that garb.

What equation? If you mean the Lorentz transformation then it doesn't apply to space itself. Space and time can't be observed. Only lengths and clock ticks can . For that you need real objects, and to induce relativity you need actual frames of reference. None of that applies to space by itself.

Yes, the Lorentz transform. The variables stand for time and distance itself, not clock one and clock two. Say you had a Malinowski space of d/t=c and d'/t'=c and you wanted to find a relation between these two equations from two different frames. Then when these two equations become related to each other, d' and t' have to come out to different values so that "c" or the speed of light stays the same since it is constant. Then how quickly d' and t' changes so that "c" remains constant is not limited by the speed of light in relativity theory. d' and t' can change so that the speed of light is constant at any rate even FTL.

That representation of the Lorentz transformation is incorrect.

Maybe what I said above will help you understand what I was saying.

What does that mean? How do objects measure anything, much less light?

They don't have to measure it, the speed of light is not relative to the act of observation. It just always travels the speed of light faster than other objects with mass. It travels the speed of light even when your not looking or measuring. So space-time will dilate for a rock even though it can't measure it's speed, so that it will always travel the speed of light faster than a rock.

So there is a void that spacetime fills? What do you call that?

It is called hyperspace. I did a book report on it once.

It's not a matter of belief, but of evidence. What evidence are you disputing?

The lack thereof. I was presenting evidence that space-time dilation is real, and it is in Malinowski space. Malinowski was one of Einsteins teachers that invented it from his idea of relativity. That is the source where a lot of the woo physics comes from.

Ok but what does the evidence tell you about your beliefs?

That I am right.

Equations only state what the evidence shows. What equations are you disputing? There are lots of ways that setting a result to zero could lead to an answer. There are many classes of problems that do that very thing.

I was talking about how the Lorentz transform breaks down when you try to apply it to something traveling at the speed of light. I can't provide any mathematical evidence of my idea because Einsteins theory breaks down at the moment of the big bang. So I am unable to generate any maths to prove it.

The rotation hits a boundary condition because it produces a zero in the denominator, a condition we call a mathematical singularity. It's not at all an enigma. It's just a boundary condition.

So I guess you would be able to understand everything that is going on at that point?

But that's not what happened. It began with searching for the mechanism of transporting light waves in a vacuum. Nothing was being fabricated. Just measured. The wall that Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein encountered--the one that in part gave birth to Modern Physics--was the question of what happens to electromagnetics when reference frames diverge. You would need to retrace the history of that work to realize that what you said is backwards.

Sounds like you totally misunderstood what I said, and you need to go back and retrace that now. I have no idea where this is coming from. It is widely known that relativity breaks down at the moment of the big bang.

How so? How different is the standard model today than it was from Hubble's time?

The standard model is quantum physics that has nothing to do with Hubble. The Hubble Constant was the same in all the differentiating big bang theories that I was thinking of, and they where all made after that was a known fact.

What are you referring to?

That a lot of information I have seen lately on the net referring to the big bang theory mentions Planck Scale now, and as far as I know I was the first person to mention that the Planck Scale had anything to do with it.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Me either.

Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz transformation. That seems to cover the ground you're concerned about.

You look to have misunderstood what I wrote again, no wonder why you have so many problems with my post. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

One of the advantages of describing evidence mathematically is that is helps you visualize things like this. In this case you would discover it's a simple rotation--a projection.

Okay, I am tired of trying to respond to all your questions you had now. You will have to try and learn how to just deal with it. I don't have any idea who you where supposed to be even talking to after this...

 

[arfa brane]

Your question is not novel. It was a futile objection tactic tried early on. Along with the unreal 'coordinate frame' based futile and irrelevant objection.

The answer was and still is OBVIOUS. You are in the room and the clocks are right in front of you. So unless you need someone to come along and tell you that the clocks are one above the other and so in different GR 'frames' therefore, then you should know the reality under your nose irrespective of what some guy coming into the room wants to 'sell' you that will tell you they are in different GR 'frames', because you can't tell that for yourself just by PLACING THEM YOURSELF ONE ABOVE THE OTHER with centimeters between then in altitude. Would you wait for that 'guy' to come 'sell' you some 'abstract frames detector?...or would you tell him "thanks but no thanks, I can take it from here". Hey?

Ok.
What you don't understand here is that being in a room, knowing which way is up, being able to turn left or right, walk backwards, or in short, knowing how to 'define' directions means you have a system of coordinates; that's you, the room, and the clocks in it. And of course you have an innate sense of 'distance', you can tell you aren't at the same place as either of the clocks, the clocks are in different places or 'positions'.
Looks a hell of a lot like a way to define both distance and direction--gravity helps here, because you know which way is down, you can 'feel' it. Looks way like a coordinate system; hell, you could probably whip out a ruler and start laying off unit distances all over the place . . .

 

[arfa brane]

The answer was and still is OBVIOUS. You are in the room and the clocks are right in front of you. So unless you need someone to come along and tell you that the clocks are one above the other and so in different GR 'frames' therefore, then you should know the reality under your nose irrespective of what some guy coming into the room wants to 'sell' you that will 'tell you they are in different GR 'frames'; because (apparently) you can't tell that for yourself just by PLACING THEM YOURSELF ONE ABOVE THE OTHER with only centimeters between them in altitude.

The room is a coordinate system. You can use a ruler to measure distances, you know at least two directions--down, because of gravity, and up, the opposite direction. If you can see clocks in front of you, that's two more directions you know about, and if you can turn left or right, there's two more. So you have three spatial dimensions, a way to measure distance, and two clocks. Looks a hell of a lot like a coordinate system (except you didn't know that)

 

[Undefined]

RC



No, Farsight knows virtually nothing about Relativity, and what he thinks he knows is wrong. Lightspeed does not vary. Period. If you agree with what he said then you know nothing about Relativity and what you think you know is wrong.



It was a joke. All Albert ever did was math, with a notebook and pencil. The Relativity we have today is largely unchanged since Einstein wrote it, and every bit of it is still valid. Even with all the revisions he himself made, what I have tried to teach you is the real thing.



No, Farsight has not presented anything related to Relativity, He denies the second postulate, for Pete's sake. Don't you know what that means? Evidently not, it means that Farsight has delivered nothing but grade A male bovine excrement. The constant speed of light is the second postulate of the SR paper, Farsight denies that lightspeed is constant, and you support that idiocy? I guess we see where the problem lies, you guys are busted, bigtime. You know nothing about Relativity, you have become cranks.

Grumpy

I merely observe what he presents from Einstein and GR empirical reality for his arguments. They speak for themselves. Your problem seems to be you have tried abstractions and unreal irrelevant things, but now that Russ and przyk have withdrawn those things you have nothing left but your insistence and comic book version impressions based on said withdrawn abstractions. How does that work, mate? Just because you don't like it you just keep plugging away with the irrelevant abstraction-based objections now withdrawn by those relativity experts who you admit know more about it than you? It's perplexing where you're going, Grumpy? There have been things agreed upon, which still leave Farsight's scenario fair and square on Einstein's original insights/theory side of the discussion. So where does that leave you and any others still repeating irrelevant impressions and comic book versions of so-called 'explanations which are either irrelevant of just plain not in line with the GR local effects on clocks and light as Farsight is pointing to empirically. So what's the beef? It doesn't matter what he or I or you 'believe'; it's what the scenario has to tell us and how we may interpret it in accordance with the original GR predictions from Einstein's original theory/insights. All else is distracting personal and preferred version stuff which is neither here nor there and only brings in unnecessary 'combative' attitudes from egotistical troll 'personal score to settle' types who won't let go of irrelevancies and just constrain themselves to what Einstein said. Period.

Mellow, Grumpy et al. Just do the discourse with Farsight on what is presented in reality GR terms not in now MOOT SR and abstract 'frames' overlays which only have served to confuse the issue for you and everyone else for far too long.

And Einstein did FAR MORE than just 'math', mate; he started the whole relativity thing with ORIGINAL INSIGHTS INTO SOME OF THE REALITY, especially later developing the GR reality abstract model which you use/repeat from but do not understand the limitations/implications of when the further reality is explored more closely.

Chill and just discuss with Farsight from the agreed points already mentioned. Then you'll all start from that same page and move to the next calmly and objectively. Good luck.

PS: You still on about 'constant c'? I already explained the subtleties of where that and the other confusing term 'invariant c' comes from and the crucial importance to one's understanding of all this by telling the difference between them logically and effectively (as I have already done more than once now for you et al), but you seem to gloss over it and come back with the same misunderstandings and misimpressions of what it all means in reality terms. Oh well, I can't do more than having explained it to you. The rest is up to you, Grumpy.

 

[Undefined]

The room is a coordinate system. You can use a ruler to measure distances, you know at least two directions--down, because of gravity, and up, the opposite direction. If you can see clocks in front of you, that's two more directions you know about, and if you can turn left or right, there's two more. So you have three spatial dimensions, a way to measure distance, and two clocks. Looks a hell of a lot like a coordinate system (except you didn't know that)

You seem to have the impression this is SR scenario. It is a GR scenario with its own real effects at respective altitude position. Period. As Russ and przyk have already agreed, all that co-ordinate frames overlays etc are MOOT once we concentrate on what the clocks themselves have to say about about what has happened to them locally in their respective GR (as predicted by Relativity in GR) position/counts compared later. NO more than that involved here.

This is NOT a 'wider theoretical discussion about frames' or anything like, this is having reality in front of you and empirically observing/comparing respective effects of specific GR factors ONLY. Please don't come back with more generalized theoretical complications which are already agreed by others are irrelevant in this specific LOCAL GR context. OK?

 

[PhysBang]

I merely observe what he presents from Einstein and GR empirical reality for his arguments. They speak for themselves.

No, you do not really observe them. If you did, you would notice that he repeats the same cherry-picked quotations over and over and refuses to engage in any actual scientific comparison of theory to observations.

And Einstein did FAR MORE than just 'math', mate; he started the whole relativity thing with ORIGINAL INSIGHTS INTO SOME OF THE REALITY, especially later developing the GR reality abstract model which you use/repeat from but do not understand the limitations/implications of when the further reality is explored more closely.

What were those original insights? How did Einstein rigorously present those insights? With the mathematics. To focus on the language that Einstein himself called "slovenly" and ignore the work that Einstein did is an insult to Einstein and to anyone who wishes to take him seriously.

 

[Russ_Watters]

...you have tried abstractions and unreal irrelevant things, but now that Russ and przyk have withdrawn those things....

This is such incoherent nonsense that I don't know whether to call it gibberish or a lie. Fortunately, I have no doubt that no one here takes what you say at face value, so there is no need to actually try to respond to it....which is probably the whole point: you're trolling for a fight. Good luck with that.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

I merely observe what he presents from Einstein and GR empirical reality for his arguments. They speak for themselves.

Constant speed of light was one of only two postulates in SR. How can you reasonably write that sentence knowing that? Farsight is stuck in a quote mine and is dead wrong about varying lightspeed. Yet you think he accurately represents what SR or GR says? He does not have a clue, and if you don't see that, neither do you.

And Einstein did FAR MORE than just 'math', mate; he started the whole relativity thing with ORIGINAL INSIGHTS INTO SOME OF THE REALITY, especially later developing the GR reality abstract model which you use/repeat from but do not understand the limitations/implications of when the further reality is explored more closely.

But he did every bit of that with math. I don't know of an instance in his whole life where he did anything other than think about the math, in his head and in his copious notes. Einstein was one of those rare people who could think in math and everything he is known for was the result of that. He was a mathematician as much as he was a physicist, he did it all before electronic calculators of any sort even existed, with pencil and paper. And you don't even recognize the implications of denying constant lightspeed to the whole edifice. If constant lightspeed is denied you cannot understand Relativity at all, it is the second of only two postulates the whole thing(SR and GR)is built from. Do you even know what a postulate is? Just like you can't score a touchdown in football by running down the field outside of the sidelines, you cannot be talking about Relativity with varying lightspeed, it's oxymoronic, with emphasis on the last three syllables.

You seem to have the impression this is SR scenario. It is a GR scenario with its own real effects at respective altitude position. Period.

You seem to think there is a difference. There is not. SR is Relativity in a special case, that is one without acceleration or gravity involved. GR is relativity with acceleration involved. Both are just Relativity, it takes both to make a whole theory.Einstein knew this, that is why he did not call his first paper "The Theory of Relativity", he named it "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" because that is the only characteristics he examined in that first paper. He then built GR on SR to expand those principles to accelerated frames. Both are valid descriptions of the way the Universe behaves, the first being only about one aspect(speed), the second expanding to include the whole(with gravity).

As Russ and przyk have already agreed, all that co-ordinate frames overlays etc are MOOT once we concentrate on what the clocks themselves have to say about about what has happened to them locally in their respective GR (as predicted by Relativity in GR) position/counts compared later. NO more than that involved here.

That is a lie, they agreed that our "overlay" is a construct, they certainly did not agree it was therefore moot or invalid in it's description of reality. It is not moot, it is crucial to understanding that reality. And despite your repeated claims that is not all there is to it. There is the thing described(reality)and their is our description(construct). The whole goal of science is to remove the flaws in our constructs so that they become congruent to what we see in reality. All science works the same way. This is not unique to Relativity.

It doesn't matter what he or I or you 'believe'; it's what the scenario has to tell us and how we may interpret it in accordance with the original GR predictions from Einstein's original theory/insights.

The second postulate in SR is that the speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers(IE in all frames), GR is built on the principles of SR, so GR also postulates a constant speed of light. Farsight postulates a varying speed of light, he's not talking about Relativity at all, he probably understands nothing beyond his favorite quote-mined nuggets of disinformation(which ARE NOT in the theory). The cognitive dissonance must be deafening, or you don't hear it because you don't understand the very first thing(literally)about Relativity or what a postulate is. If it is true in SR, it is also true in GR.

All else is distracting personal and preferred version stuff which is neither here nor there and only brings in unnecessary 'combative' attitudes from egotistical troll 'personal score to settle' types who won't let go of irrelevancies and just constrain themselves to what Einstein said. Period.

I'm telling you what Einstein said and it's implications just like I informed many a mind full of mush in High School Physics, straight from the source(I usually spent a week going through both papers line by line, I could still follow the math back then, though it gave me a headache). As we covered it that week we would write down the principles as we cleared them up for everyone. The first one was the Relativity of the properties, that all frames have different values depending on their relative speed(SR)or acceleration(GR). The second was that the speed of light is measured as being exactly c in all frames. Farsight drops out of speaking about Relativity at that point, he says lightspeed varies, Einstein emphatically says he is wrong, his whole Relativity paradigm is based on lightspeed being constant in all frames. It's time you admit to that fact.

Mellow, Grumpy et al. Just do the discourse with Farsight on what is presented in reality GR terms not in now MOOT SR and abstract 'frames' overlays which only have served to confuse the issue for you and everyone else for far too long

SR is not moot, it is just limited to those conditions not under acceleration/gravity. It's still as valid as it ever was. It established the principles of relativity, c, reciprocity, time dilation, length contraction, energy/mass gain, Lightspeed limit, Lorenz rotation through spacetime and spacetime itself. None of which have been falsified, discarded or replaced. You really ought to read it sometime, with just a little effort on your part you might be better informed on what it actually said. You can even avoid the math(trust me, it's been checked, it's accurate, as are the verbal descriptions of the implications). Einstein was known for writing paragraphs that can take an hour to understand completely, but keep churning, you'll get there.

The problem with madness is that the sufferer is always the last to know. Farsight has presented zero accurate arguments on Relativity, he doesn't get the very first proposition(relativity)and veers off at the second(constant lightspeed through spacetime). He bases everything he thinks he knows on this false premise(varying lightspeed)and his only evidence is a few favorite quote-mines from a man known for saying things that can be quote-mined by the dishonest to mean the opposite of what his theory actually says(like Darwin). Nothing Farsight says about the implications is true, not one thing. He has no understanding of time, it's dilation under acceleration or anything else, the epitome of wrong from the start. You aren't doing any better.

Frames are only a designation of the observer and his conditions, frame of reference is a technical term meaning "point of view". Since different frames see different things that is an important bit of information in SR and in GR. Far from bringing confusion, it makes clarity and precision possible. We are not going to discard such a useful tool.

And the behavior of the Universe is complex, it is also non-intuitive. There's nothing of "common sense" in Relativity. The way things act in the low energy environment that "common sense" is based on is not the conditions where Relativity becomes an unmistakable feature of the Universe, though if you can measure very closely, the effects are there. Newton was common sense, and for our low energy conditions that was close enough to be useful(though, again, the effects of Relativity are even more apparent, though still small). It is when one is under extreme, high energy conditions that Relativity warps common sense derived understandings completely out of whack. Time, length and mass all change in whatever degree necessary to keep the measured lightspeed exactly the same(that's the principle of relativity and the principle of invariant lightspeed). And that's just an observed fact(gotta love those big hadron colliders).

Chill and just discuss with Farsight from the agreed points already mentioned.

Sorry, I don't mollycoddle idiocy. Farsight doesn't even accept the precepts(relativity principle and constant speed of light), why waste time talking to someone about Relativity when they don't understand the simplest thing(literally the simplest declarative sentences in the whole paper, on the very first page of text, in the third paragraph)about it? He stops talking about Relativity on the very first page of the first paper Einstein published. So, it seems, do you. And his dishonest quote-mining is just vile.

PS: You still on about 'constant c'? I already explained the subtleties of where that and the other confusing term 'invariant c' comes from and the crucial importance to one's understanding of all this by telling the difference between them logically and effectively (as I have already done more than once now for you et al), but you seem to gloss over it and come back with the same misunderstandings and misimpressions of what it all means in reality terms. Oh well, I can't do more than having explained it to you.

The following reflections are based on the Principle of Relativity and on the Principle of Constancy of the velocity of light, both of which we define in the following way :—
1. The laws(relativity) according to which the nature of physical systems alter(dilation, length contraction, energy/mass gain) are independent of the manner in which these changes are referred to two co-ordinate systems(two frames of reference) which have a uniform translatory motion relative to each other.(IE all motion is relative, each observer has his own view and that view does not necessarily agree with another's view)(IE it's all relative)
2. Every ray of light moves in the "stationary co-ordinate system"(the coordinate system a stationary observer sees. IE his frame of reference) with the same velocity c, the velocity being independent of the condition whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or in motion.

From the 1920 edition of Relativity. By A. Einstein

Well ,it is one of only two precepts in SR, and it still pertains in GR. So, yes, I insist on the facts. And I will continue to insist on the facts, get used to it.It is a fact that all observers always measure lightspeed as c. From all sources regardless of their speed or position in an accelerated frame. EVERY RAY OF LIGHT means every ray of light, I don't know how to put it any simpler for those having a problem following a train of thought. Any photon in your vicinity from any source in the Universe will fly by at lightspeed, even if your immediate vicinity is within a spacecraft travelling at 99% of lightspeed, or if you are standing on a moon observing a photon inside that moving spacecraft, or in the spacecraft looking at the moon. The "nature of physical systems"(length, time, mass)of that spacecraft will "alter" according to the "law" of relativity to keep every single photon in the Universe moving at c, exactly.

What is your problem? You can't explain what you obviously do not understand. What I've been able to decode from your obtuse posting style is mostly just wrong, you don't know what you are talking about and don't listen to those who do. And who knows what you actually think, your posts are almost incomprehensible at times. And the more woo your are pumping the more obtuse and disjointed your sentences become. You make things up as you go(ENERGY-SPACE)that have no meaning in Relativity. And you ignore facts, don't know what a precept is or it's significance to a theory. Math and frames are not the problem here, you and Farsight are the problem, you've descended into the Kingdom of the Cranks. We all came here to correct Farside's idiocy, you defend it. I'm not sure which one is the Fool, and which the King, and I'm not sure there is a difference. I guess it's all relative to your frame of reference.



Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, Grumpy. Woke up with a cold so can't go to Sydney as planned. So I can answer your post today. But first I think an FYI disclaimer is in order to prevent further possible misunderstandings:

DISCLAIMER: I am observing the discussion between Farsight and you et al from my own ToE perspective, so that I can tease out which points each 'side' is putting and supporting/arguing from Farsight's perspective and from you et al perspective regarding what RELATIVITY says or doesn't say etc. The view from my ToE gives me an overarching perspective such that I can spot where BOTH SIDES are missing some things, which makes both sides' arguments INCOMPLETE. That's where I apply (for my own purposes) the 'bridging insights' where I am at liberty to mention them briefly to help the discussion keep to the reality-essentials and eschew unnecessary complicating overlays from one PARTIAL theory or other equally partial theory coming from both 'sides' in the discussion so far. I do not necessarily agree with Farsight's ULTIMATE interpretation regarding what the 'frozen light/clock 'does' or 'does not do' in local 'oscillatory' two-way direction INSIDE clock and/or in OUTSIDE linear/spiral 'infalling' direction to/through EH. My ToE has its own explanations which bridges that argument/interpretation gap between Farsight and you et al. Unfortunately, as you may know by now, I am nearing publication of complete ToE, so I am CONSTRAINED (for obvious reasons at this late stage) in what I can and cannot let slip while observing in this (and related) discussion. Please bear all this in mind when reading my responses. Thank you.

Constant speed of light was one of only two postulates in SR. How can you reasonably write that sentence knowing that? Farsight is stuck in a quote mine and is dead wrong about varying lightspeed. Yet you think he accurately represents what SR or GR says? He does not have a clue, and if you don't see that, neither do you.

The 1st postulate was that laws of physics are the same in all cases(frames). The 2nd postulate is that the speed of light is (messured to be) 'invariant c' in all frames whether the source emitter is moving or 'at rest'....EXCEPT that this 2nd postulate does NOT APPLY to non-inertial cases(frames).

So, essentially/consequently:

The 1st postulate is moot on speed of light per se; it only states a general invariance in physical laws, whatever they turn out to be understood/modeled in empirical/abstract terms.

The 2nd postulate speaks only of 'invariance', not 'constancy'. That is crucial difference which I already explained is necessary to avoid further cross-purpose exchanges because of what seems to be YOUR continuing 'impression' that the two terms/concepts are 'equal' in reality. They are not; as Einstein himself tried to tell you when he said that the speed of light CANNOT be 'constant' across all cases/frames IF they involve NON-INERTIAL factors (eg, linear/gravitational acceleration).

I explained that the 'invariant c' 'measured' in inertial frames is what it is ALWAYS, as a complementary RESULTANT ''invariant proportionate' VALUE output by the effects of the frame-dependent CLOCK 'timing rate value and the NON-INERTIAL case where light is measured having regard to NON-linear effects (acceleration) on the light propagation-across-energy-space RATES AS WELL as the CLOCK processing-in-energy-space RATES which must therefor impact on the 'values form light rate and clock rate VALUES input to the calculated MEASUREMENT equation that outputs a SAME VALUE PROPORTIONATE 'c' irrespective what the speed of light has been doing while the clock has been affected correspondingly. Hence the output/term 'invariant c' is NOT IPSO FACTO any sort of implied claim that light has 'constant c' (because as Einstein tells, there IS NO SUCH POSTULATE, only 'invariant c' output measurement using affected clocks and affected light in NON-INERTIAL cases(frames).

Do you 'get' that subtle but crucially important distinction fact about where/why your CONFLATING 'impression' about 'constant c' comes from? It can't be any clearer stated than that by Einstein and my further explanation of the distinctions necessary so as NOT to conflate the two terms/concepts which will lead to confusion in further discussion if not clarified/understood properly NOW before continuing with Farsight and your discussions.

But he did every bit of that with math. I don't know of an instance in his whole life where he did anything other than think about the math, in his head and in his copious notes. Einstein was one of those rare people who could think in math and everything he is known for was the result of that. He was a mathematician as much as he was a physicist, he did it all before electronic calculators of any sort even existed, with pencil and paper. And you don't even recognize the implications of denying constant lightspeed to the whole edifice. If constant lightspeed is denied you cannot understand Relativity at all, it is the second of only two postulates the whole thing(SR and GR)is built from. Do you even know what a postulate is? Just like you can't score a touchdown in football by running down the field outside of the sidelines, you cannot be talking about Relativity with varying lightspeed, it's oxymoronic, with emphasis on the last three syllables.

He started questioning EVERYTHING from scratch that was 'conventionally understood'. In that process he said he IMAGINED scenarios/gedanken so as to arrive at possible ways of making the contemporary 'seemingly contradictory views' WORK (at least in some abstract sense if not perfectly real terms he couldn't identify 'gravity' mechanism but he used the 'space-time' abstraction to have 'spacetime' SOMEHOW "CURVE" etc).

He followed already existing maths constructs/equations and adapted and invented new terms/concepts. And IIRC, he got a LOT of assistance on the further maths from Mach et al.

You seem to think there is a difference. There is not. SR is Relativity in a special case, that is one without acceleration or gravity involved. GR is relativity with acceleration involved. Both are just Relativity, it takes both to make a whole theory.Einstein knew this, that is why he did not call his first paper "The Theory of Relativity", he named it "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" because that is the only characteristics he examined in that first paper. He then built GR on SR to expand those principles to accelerated frames. Both are valid descriptions of the way the Universe behaves, the first being only about one aspect(speed), the second expanding to include the whole(with gravity).

Please see above for the clarification on that aspect/difference which you have been missing all this time. Thanks.

That is a lie, they agreed that our "overlay" is a construct, they certainly did not agree it was therefore moot or invalid in it's description of reality. It is not moot, it is crucial to understanding that reality. And despite your repeated claims that is not all there is to it. There is the thing described(reality)and their is our description(construct). The whole goal of science is to remove the flaws in our constructs so that they become congruent to what we see in reality. All science works the same way. This is not unique to Relativity.

No no. Read back in the actual context of these associated threads/discussions. The aspect in question was SPECIFIC. The real local clock effects on both the lightclocks one not far above the other IN THE SAME ROOM. Period.

Przyk and Russ earlier tried to pooh-pooh the reality empirical and GR predicted effects on the respective tick rates/seconds durations for each clock RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, with some unnecessary 'abstract coordinate frames' overlay 'angle' which were in reality secondary to the reality right there in front of you in that scenario.

The abstractions were UNNECESSARY, ven though in SR situations they may prove 'useful', they only unnecessarily complicate the simple empirical case before your own eyes...NO 'frames abstraction 'views' needed in this instance, that's all. And Russ and przyk tacitly agreed, because they were not able or willing to pursue that 'angle' of 'criticism' which is made moot in this instance. That's all, really. No more, no less than that. No 'lies' were involved at all at any stage. OK?

The second postulate in SR is that the speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers(IE in all frames), GR is built on the principles of SR, so GR also postulates a constant speed of light. Farsight postulates a varying speed of light, he's not talking about Relativity at all, he probably understands nothing beyond his favorite quote-mined nuggets of disinformation(which ARE NOT in the theory). The cognitive dissonance must be deafening, or you don't hear it because you don't understand the very first thing(literally)about Relativity or what a postulate is. If it is true in SR, it is also true in GR.

Exactly. It is 'measured' using varying clock rates, and the light speed can VARY in NON-INERTIAL cases(frames) as Einstein tells us in that 2nd postulate! So the 'output complementary proportionate 'value' will BE 'invariant c'. Naturally, since both the clocks and the light are AFFECTED in NON-inertial cases(frames), again, as Einstein HIMSELF said quite explicitly in his 'exception' rider on the 2nd postulate! Please see above for further details.

I'm telling you what Einstein said and it's implications just like I informed many a mind full of mush in High School Physics, straight from the source(I usually spent a week going through both papers line by line, I could still follow the math back then, though it gave me a headache). As we covered it that week we would write down the principles as we cleared them up for everyone. The first one was the Relativity of the properties, that all frames have different values depending on their relative speed(SR)or acceleration(GR). The second was that the speed of light is measured as being exactly c in all frames. Farsight drops out of speaking about Relativity at that point, he says lightspeed varies, Einstein emphatically says he is wrong, his whole Relativity paradigm is based on lightspeed being constant in all frames. It's time you admit to that fact.

Look to your own '"mush", mate. Your "headaches" were the result of all the unnecessary abstractions overlays by mathematicians who Einstein bemoaned had "invaded his Relativity theory and made it INCOMPREHENSIBLE" even to HIM. Again, please see above.

SR is not moot, it is just limited to those conditions not under acceleration/gravity. It's still as valid as it ever was. It established the principles of relativity, c, reciprocity, time dilation, length contraction, energy/mass gain, Lightspeed limit, Lorenz rotation through spacetime and spacetime itself. None of which have been falsified, discarded or replaced. You really ought to read it sometime, with just a little effort on your part you might be better informed on what it actually said. You can even avoid the math(trust me, it's been checked, it's accurate, as are the verbal descriptions of the implications). Einstein was known for writing paragraphs that can take an hour to understand completely, but keep churning, you'll get there.

Exactly, SR is ONLY valid in INERTIAL frames. As we agree, and as Einstein says. No problem. The 'reciprocal only dilation' interpretation though, even IN the INERTIAL ONLY case(frames) MUST be MODIFIED and EXPANDED as necessary to include NON-INERTIAL effects (linear/gravitational acceleration) in order to make any real sense of which twin is affected which way LOCALLY REAL CONTEXT respectively. That is why now that I and others (over many decades now) have finally got through to the 'professional relativist explainers' that you can only make sense of SR twin scenario IF YOU INCLUDE NON-inertial info/effects (acceleration) to explain WHICH clock/twin is 'dilated' by the ACCELERATION PROFILE EFFECTS and not just the purely abstract 'relative motion' view which would present the reality 'paradox unless the mainstream NOW includes the non-inertial accelerations in the 'model' for that OTHERWISE STERILE and confusing MATHS ABSTRACTION scenario which gave you all the "headaches" when you were trying to 'make sense' of such sterile abstraction/maths way back when.

The problem with madness is that the sufferer is always the last to know. Farsight has presented zero accurate arguments on Relativity, he doesn't get the very first proposition(relativity)and veers off at the second(constant lightspeed through spacetime). He bases everything he thinks he knows on this false premise(varying lightspeed)and his only evidence is a few favorite quote-mines from a man known for saying things that can be quote-mined by the dishonest to mean the opposite of what his theory actually says(like Darwin). Nothing Farsight says about the implications is true, not one thing. He has no understanding of time, it's dilation under acceleration or anything else, the epitome of wrong from the start. You aren't doing any better.

There's alot of it about in mathematician history, Grumpy. I wonder if 'mathematical-physicists have similar 'occupational hazard' when doing their latest ad hoc 'fix on the fly' inn the attempt to maintain the 'sterile' UNREAL abstraction/math fantasy which only makes sense once they listen to me and others and include ALL the relevant reality aspects and simplify the partial/incomplete interpretations and maths mess. Only if they go the whole reality-hog will they ever come up with the GRAVITY 'mass-to-energy-space coupling' mechanism (as I have and will publish soon). I don't care about 'reputations' or 'sources' or anyone's 'subjectice impressions/insistence' etc.

As the (objective) detective in Dragnet said: "Just the (reality) facts, M'am". So please, no more of that personality/lying/insanity etc unnecessary stuff (whether about Farsight or anyone else). Yes? Thanks.

Frames are only a designation of the observer and his conditions, frame of reference is a technical term meaning "point of view". Since different frames see different things that is an important bit of information in SR and in GR. Far from bringing confusion, it makes clarity and precision possible. We are not going to discard such a useful tool.

No no. In this SPECIFIC situation ONLY the clocks respective counters are independent information/perspective. All other abstract overlays 'hide' that and confuse the issue. Hence the never-ending 'theoretical overlay' interpretational 'tit =-for-tat' that goes on and on UNLESS the simple straightforward empirically SELF-DETERMINING 'story' by the clocks THEMSELVES is treated as the ONLY REFERNCE SOURCE for the conclusion. Which is in this case right in front of your eyes and no abstract overlays needed in this case. The usual conflations and confusions creep in when the abstract 'frames construct is invoked, with the usual misunderstandings between the 'constant c' and the 'invariant c' following close behind (even though you KNOW what Einstein EXCEPTED when the said that NON-INERTIAL cases must reflect THAT LOCAL REALITY effects on clocks/light. OK?

And the behavior of the Universe is complex, it is also non-intuitive. There's nothing of "common sense" in Relativity. The way things act in the low energy environment that "common sense" is based on is not the conditions where Relativity becomes an unmistakable feature of the Universe, though if you can measure very closely, the effects are there. Newton was common sense, and for our low energy conditions that was close enough to be useful(though, again, the effects of Relativity are even more apparent, though still small). It is when one is under extreme, high energy conditions that Relativity warps common sense derived understandings completely out of whack. Time, length and mass all change in whatever degree necessary to keep the measured lightspeed exactly the same(that's the principle of relativity and the principle of invariant lightspeed). And that's just an observed fact(gotta love those big hadron colliders).

Reality empirical local effects/process observables trump any 'intuitive OR abstract maths overlays on the self-evident facts as in this case of the two clocks close above each other and their respective REAL EFFECTS on their respective COUNTS and comparison conclusions that the effect/difference in tick/light rates is local and real IRRESPECTIVE of what some FURTHER 'after the event' irrelevant/confused abstract theoretical construct has to 'say' about it after the reality is KNOWN DIRECTLY, before being 'theoretically 'interpreted' into incomprehensibility by the mathematicians Einstein bemoaned "invaded his theory" and made it "incomprehensible even to HIM"!

Sorry, I don't mollycoddle idiocy. Farsight doesn't even accept the precepts(relativity principle and constant speed of light), why waste time talking to someone about Relativity when they don't understand the simplest thing(literally the simplest declarative sentences in the whole paper, on the very first page of text, in the third paragraph)about it? He stops talking about Relativity on the very first page of the first paper Einstein published. So, it seems, do you. And his dishonest quote-mining is just vile.

Good for you. Neither do I. As you've probably observed by now in my latest responses? No offense meant, though, even if you may have meant so to Farsight and others. Less of the personal insults would help mutual listening/understanding. Yes?

The following reflections are based on the Principle of Relativity and on the Principle of Constancy of the velocity of light, both of which we define in the following way :—
1. The laws(relativity) according to which the nature of physical systems alter(dilation, length contraction, energy/mass gain) are independent of the manner in which these changes are referred to two co-ordinate systems(two frames of reference) which have a uniform translatory motion relative to each other.(IE all motion is relative, each observer has his own view and that view does not necessarily agree with another's view)(IE it's all relative)
2. Every ray of light moves in the "stationary co-ordinate system"(the coordinate system a stationary observer sees. IE his frame of reference) with the same velocity c, the velocity being independent of the condition whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or in motion.

From the 1920 edition of Relativity. By A. Einstein

Well ,it is one of only two precepts in SR, and it still pertains in GR. So, yes, I insist on the facts. And I will continue to insist on the facts, get used to it.It is a fact that all observers always measure lightspeed as c. From all sources regardless of their speed or position in an accelerated frame. EVERY RAY OF LIGHT means every ray of light, I don't know how to put it any simpler for those having a problem following a train of thought. Any photon in your vicinity from any source in the Universe will fly by at lightspeed, even if your immediate vicinity is within a spacecraft travelling at 99% of lightspeed, or if you are standing on a moon observing a photon inside that moving spacecraft, or in the spacecraft looking at the moon. The "nature of physical systems"(length, time, mass)of that spacecraft will "alter" according to the "law" of relativity to keep every single photon in the Universe moving at c, exactly.

I already explained to Trippy the REALITY aspects which override the theoretical interpretations which would have 'spacetime length contraction' as the abstract 'explanation' of the phenomena, rather than just following the reality of clock/light rate variable 'values' for the calculation outputting the already explained 'invariant c' (NOT to be still confused/conflated with the NOTION of 'constant c', as per the crucial difference already explained). Did you bread and understand about the "Atmospheric Muon and the LHC accelerated particles energy/accelerations profiles affecting internal particle clocking rates that explains the observations much more real empirically than abstract SR 'spacetime construct' rationalizations directly due to INCOMPLETE theory?

Again, your 'impressions' and 'views' from IMPARTIAL theory is abstract and cannot ever identify let alone explain the REAL underlying energy-space (not still spacetime abstraction) PHYSICAL MECHANISM for gravity production/effects.

What is your problem? You can't explain what you obviously do not understand. What I've been able to decode from your obtuse posting style is mostly just wrong, you don't know what you are talking about and don't listen to those who do. And who knows what you actually think, your posts are almost incomprehensible at times. And the more woo your are pumping the more obtuse and disjointed your sentences become. You make things up as you go(ENERGY-SPACE)that have no meaning in Relativity. And you ignore facts, don't know what a precept is or it's significance to a theory. Math and frames are not the problem here, you and Farsight are the problem, you've descended into the Kingdom of the Cranks. We all came here to correct Farside's idiocy, you defend it. I'm not sure which one is the Fool, and which the King, and I'm not sure there is a difference. I guess it's all relative to your frame of reference.

I HAVE explained all I am at liberty to explain, because of my own ToE approaching publication whole. It's just you seem too engrossed in your impressions and abstractions from PATENTLY INCOMPLETE theories and interpretations to listen/understand properly right now. Give it time. This too shall pass, as they say....especially once the complete ToE is out. Good luck in your discourse with Farsight et al until then, Grumpy, everyone! Cheers.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

EXCEPT that this 2nd postulate does NOT APPLY to non-inertial cases(frames).

Yes, it does. Frames under acceleration are the bottom two in my illustration. Speed of light is measured the same, c. Actual lightspeed along continuously growing distance seen from outside stationary observers. Those comoving or in a gravity field see a bent path of the photon from one mirror to the other that grows more bent the higher the acceleration. This is bent spacetime under acceleration. That is actual bent spacetime in your clock.

The 2nd postulate speaks only of 'invariance', not 'constancy'. That is crucial difference which I already explained is necessary to avoid further cross-purpose exchanges because of what seems to be YOUR continuing 'impression' that the two terms/concepts are 'equal' in reality.

Invariant=does not vary.

Constant=continuous, unchanging.

Yep, they both mean that lightspeed is always c.

I explained that the 'invariant c' 'measured' in inertial frames is what it is ALWAYS, as a complementary RESULTANT ''invariant proportionate' VALUE output by the effects of the frame-dependent CLOCK 'timing rate value and the NON-INERTIAL case where light is measured having regard to NON-linear effects (acceleration) on the light propagation-across-energy-space RATES AS WELL as the CLOCK processing-in-energy-space RATES which must therefor impact on the 'values form light rate and clock rate VALUES input to the calculated MEASUREMENT equation that outputs a SAME VALUE PROPORTIONATE 'c' irrespective what the speed of light has been doing while the clock has been affected correspondingly. Hence the output/term 'invariant c' is NOT IPSO FACTO any sort of implied claim that light has 'constant c' (because as Einstein tells, there IS NO SUCH POSTULATE, only 'invariant c' output measurement using affected clocks and affected light in NON-INERTIAL cases(frames).

Nope, I could not squeeze any coherent thought out of that word salad. Short declarative sentences, each holding one clear thought. Then you string them together in the steps of your argument.

He started questioning EVERYTHING from scratch that was 'conventionally understood'. In that process he said he IMAGINED scenarios/gedanken so as to arrive at possible ways of making the contemporary 'seemingly contradictory views' WORK (at least in some abstract sense if not perfectly real terms he couldn't identify 'gravity' mechanism but he used the 'space-time' abstraction to have 'spacetime' SOMEHOW "CURVE" etc).

He followed already existing maths constructs/equations and adapted and invented new terms/concepts. And IIRC, he got a LOT of assistance on the further maths from Mach et al.

Are you talking about Einstein? He was taught the previous 200 years or so of thought about light and moving objects, he did not start from scratch, he was the one who put all the pieces(developed by many scientists)into a whole theory, starting with the limited case and then the general case. Darwin had a whole lot of help as well. Both are not revered for coming up with their ideas by themselves, but for synthesizing the framework where all these things formed a cohesive whole.

No no. Read back in the actual context of these associated threads/discussions. The aspect in question was SPECIFIC. The real local clock effects on both the lightclocks one not far above the other IN THE SAME ROOM. Period.

So you still don't understand what a frame is. If one clock is one centimeter above the other, they are in separate frames, one has a higher gravity dilation than the other, so it has slower time. Your feet and your head are in different frames, your feet are an ever so tiny bit younger that your head simply because they spend much more time on the floor, which is deeper in a gravity well than your head is. We probably wouldn't be able to measure such a small difference, but once again, just because we can't measure it does not mean it isn't there. One of the favorite science fair tricks in college was to spin an atomic clock around a children's whirligig and comparing it's time to a stationary clock, it works, you can measurably dilate time in a children's playground. On the clocks we had it took about an hour of hard work(we used the football team)to get a measurable difference. We actually had four clocks, two cesium based ones and two antique chronographs. Beer helped. Good times.

Einstein bemoaned had "invaded his Relativity theory and made it INCOMPREHENSIBLE" even to HIM

That's a math joke. Einstein was a funny man. It's not something to base a theory on.

Przyk and Russ earlier tried to pooh-pooh the reality empirical and GR predicted effects on the respective tick rates/seconds durations for each clock RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, with some unnecessary 'abstract coordinate frames' overlay 'angle' which were in reality secondary to the reality right there in front of you in that scenario.

The abstractions were UNNECESSARY, ven though in SR situations they may prove 'useful', they only unnecessarily complicate the simple empirical case before your own eyes...NO 'frames abstraction 'views' needed in this instance, that's all. And Russ and przyk tacitly agreed, because they were not able or willing to pursue that 'angle' of 'criticism' which is made moot in this instance. That's all, really. No more, no less than that. No 'lies' were involved at all at any stage. OK?

It isn't the observer who is defining the frame in this case, nor is it the room, it is the clocks and their individual, different tick rates. That a single observer can see both clocks is irrelevant. One has a higher gravity dilation, therefore they are not in the same frame.

Exactly, SR is ONLY valid in INERTIAL frames. As we agree, and as Einstein says. No problem. The 'reciprocal only dilation' interpretation though, even IN the INERTIAL ONLY case(frames) MUST be MODIFIED and EXPANDED as necessary to include NON-INERTIAL effects (linear/gravitational acceleration) in order to make any real sense of which twin is affected which way LOCALLY REAL CONTEXT respectively.

Relativity(the principle)and the invariant lightspeed are still valid in GR, as are all the things SR developed, including spacetime, time dilation, length decrease and mass gain. So no, SR is simply a special case in Relativity, it is incomplete Relativity, it takes ALL of both to make the complete theory. You cannot separate them, they are both valid. And reciprocity is only valid if you are only looking at the two spaceships, information from the rest of the Universe will tell you whether you are moving in relation to it. But both spaceships see the other as the slow one, timewise.

Less of the personal insults would help mutual listening/understanding. Yes?

I don't insult people, I insult the stupidity of some of the dreck they push. When someone is simply denying a fact I name it a lie. One is entitled to one's own opinion, but not to one's own facts.

It is a fact that every frame sees all light from any source in the Universe traveling at c and at no other speed. 200+ years of scientific inquiry established that fact before Einstein was out of diapers, that is what he learned at University. Relativity is based on that fact, the principle of relativity is the description of how the Universe warps everything to the extent necessary that c remains invariant. That is the whole of what Relativity was built upon.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Hi Grumpy. Please first read post #242 to you in the "Gravity Works Like This" thread, where I've put the nail in the coffin (courtesy of what Sir Roger Penrose had to say about it) of your 'time rate still present' insistence based on your purely philosophical/abstract overlays, when no processing energy-space 'massed' features/events are involved at all. Eyes very blurry, so please forgive any obvious typos.

Yes, it does. Frames under acceleration are the bottom two in my illustration. Speed of light is measured the same, c. Actual lightspeed along continuously growing distance seen from outside stationary observers. Those comoving or in a gravity field see a bent path of the photon from one mirror to the other that grows more bent the higher the acceleration. This is bent spacetime under acceleration. That is actual bent spacetime in your clock.

In the real GR case before you of the two clocks in the room you are standing in, there are no '[measured' sped of light. The whole point is to merely demonstrate that there IS a DIFFERENCE in both clock and light propagation process as reflected directly in the two cumulative counts. No 'speed' QUANTIFICATION involved, hence no requirement to invoke theoretical abstract 'frames', 'space-time' or other sophist overlays and 'interpretations' of 'bent path' or 'spacetime length increase' or some such. I challenged Tach about that a few times, but even he couldn't justify COHERENTLY and in REALITY terms exactly what/how that was 'effected' for the photonic travel horizontally across between closely spaced mirrors to show up as such a large difference between two clocks rates so close above one another!

Invariant=does not vary.

Constant=continuous, unchanging.

Yep, they both mean that lightspeed is always c.

Try to get this subtlety:

The 'invariant c' is a measurement resultant of a two-component expression involving time rate count variable and light speed travel rate variable (as per empirical GR-predicted REAL effects on light and clocks process/propagation, as Einstein told you in 'exception' rider to his 2nd postulate). There is no 'belief' required one way or the other, Grumpy. Einstein said it and the reality in the same room under your nose confirms it. Period. All else is theoretical overlay abstraction/interpretation resorting to maths-entities/concepts such as 'space-time frames' and 'distance variation/bending' etc, despite the obvious GR reality that clock rates and light travel rates vary in GR contexts as per Einstein's 'rider' to 2nd postulate!

Whereas the 'constant c' is an mathematical element in an equation which maintains its value for equations of state/motion of different frames. The value is the 'invariant c' which is derived in the measurement phase that outputs the 'unvarying proportionate value c' I explained before.

The two are entirely different usage, the 'invariant c' is the output of the PROCEDURAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT construct (involving clocks and light travel/mass motion); while the 'constant c' is the 'measured c' value which appears unchanged from one equation-of-state/motion expression to the next irrespective of what frame is being described in any particular equation-of-state/motion.

It is subtle and important distinction/understanding. Without that, these discussions will forever be doomed to cross-purpose misunderstandings from the get-go. If one doesn't 'get it' by now, one is likely to miss it and be stuck in 'impressions' based on 'conflations'.

Nope, I could not squeeze any coherent thought out of that word salad. Short declarative sentences, each holding one clear thought. Then you string them together in the steps of your argument.

Your "headaches" you say you suffered in the old days while learning Relativity pale into insignificance compared to the confusions you now seem to proudly hold onto despite the information being right there in front of you that explains why you probably had those "headaches": because like Einstein, you were bamboozled by all the mathematician-overlay abstractions and nonsense ignoring what the 2nd postulate said and the "GR-local reality trumps-SR-maths-abstraction" 'rider' put on it by Einstein. But you won't take heed, and just barrel on as you were despite the new reality-referential insights of today which take heed of Einstein's own insights back then before the mathematicians gave you and HIM all the "headaches" and incomprehensible abstractions/confusions ignoring the local 'GR-reality rider' to the 2nd postulate. Denial of obvious reality, and cognitive dissonance, seems a very human tendency not restricted only to religious folk, hey.

Are you talking about Einstein? He was taught the previous 200 years or so of thought about light and moving objects, he did not start from scratch, he was the one who put all the pieces(developed by many scientists)into a whole theory, starting with the limited case and then the general case. Darwin had a whole lot of help as well. Both are not revered for coming up with their ideas by themselves, but for synthesizing the framework where all these things formed a cohesive whole.

Yes. That;s what I said. He then tried to make sense of the contradictory nature/implications of what the known science observed/told about these matters. He couldn't get anywhere just following the same maths paths and conceptual paths as his contemporaries. While he was working as Parent Clerk he began novel approaches of IMAGINING and GEDANKENING various scenarios that would eventually give him the "aha!" moment of insight that led to the rest. The later maths followed his insightful understandings/insights, not the other way round. The maths then was adapted as any TOOL would be for the purpose of formulating, formalizing and communicating the original intuitive highly imaginative approach/insights/implications in reality.

So anyone trying to sell the "maths is all-important and must come first because you can't INVENT a ToE intuitively/imaginatively" are just self-aggrandizing mathematicians like the one's Einstein bemoaned 'invaded' his theory and made it "incomprehensible to even its INVENTOR!

So you still don't understand what a frame is. If one clock is one centimeter above the other, they are in separate frames, one has a higher gravity dilation than the other, so it has slower time. Your feet and your head are in different frames, your feet are an ever so tiny bit younger that your head simply because they spend much more time on the floor, which is deeper in a gravity well than your head is. We probably wouldn't be able to measure such a small difference, but once again, just because we can't measure it does not mean it isn't there. One of the favorite science fair tricks in college was to spin an atomic clock around a children's whirligig and comparing it's time to a stationary clock, it works, you can measurably dilate time in a children's playground. On the clocks we had it took about an hour of hard work(we used the football team)to get a measurable difference. We actually had four clocks, two cesium based ones and two antique chronographs. Beer helped. Good times.

Where did you get that weong impression? From the same place as all your other wrong impressions? Of course I understand what an UNREAL (as mathematicians admit) co-ordinate frame as used in the mathematical abstract 'spacetime' construct is. Don't be so eager to 'paint' me as not knowing that, ok? Such strawmanning tactics are beneath you, mate.

The point is it doesn't matter hat you call their different real local GR locations and their associated GR effects experienced therein.

That was the whole point of the simplified scenario where the clocks counters themselves tell the difference between their rates/counts DIRECTLY without any further 'abstract theoretical analysis' dependent on invoking/overlaying UNREAL and in this case IRRELEVANT further analytical modeling/interpretations etc.

Get it? The whole POINT of that scenario is to ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY considerations from the actual real directly observable and conclusive results when the clock counts are compared with each other to see IF there IS a difference in the counts at all. Just as in the twin experiment the mainstream relativists depend on the REAL accelerations profile to inform and directly understand the difference in age between the twins when COMPARED directly without any further 'relative frames' analysis required since the real accelerations profiles explained everything in real terms. Who needs math/theory abstraction overlays when the NON-INERTIAL real construct/effect is directly consultable/discernible via straightforward non-convoluted comparison of real observable results? Only masochists who want to have "headaches" would opt for the abstract complications when the reality is right there to be consulted and understood directly, hey?

That's a math joke. Einstein was a funny man. It's not something to base a theory on.

As that well known and pertinent truism goes: "Many a true word was said in jest!"

He was both joking and serious when he observed that. His mistake was to let the mathematicians take the theory out of his control and thereafter he had to go along with all the math-turbation abstract overlays which took his original real insights further away into incomprehensible fantasy-maths-land...whence the start of HIS "headaches" and yours since then, Grumpy!

Who "based a theory on" it? I didn't. I started from scratch like Einstein did and let the original insights flow and provide the reality=referential staring premises from whence the ToE 'developed itself' consistent and complete with the reality.

It isn't the observer who is defining the frame in this case, nor is it the room, it is the clocks and their individual, different tick rates. That a single observer can see both clocks is irrelevant. One has a higher gravity dilation, therefore they are not in the same frame.

That's what I already said! And the fact that the observer can leave the clocks alone for a year and no-one is 'observing' is what I also made quite clear is the whole self-determining/explaining aspect of this particular exercise. Did you miss that? Is that why you keep coming back with nebulous references to 'frames' and suchlike abstractions still? Why do that when, as I said already, the experiment runs itself! And just as with the twins case, when the respective real local cumulative counts/age information is consulted and compared DIRECTLY when the observer returns and ends the experiment, the whole situation is clear and unambiguous in real GR/NON-INERTIAL terms. No further mincing about with sissy abstract theoretical math-turbation of the results. The results speak for themselves, and no mincing those results in some unnecessary abstract analytical math-turbation exercise will change anything or provide any more understanding than already there in the inherent clock/light behavior/counts over the year left ALONE and unobserved so no 'frames' information was needed to be invoked. The GR effects told of the different GR effects. No other intrusive overlays needed. Period.

Relativity(the principle)and the invariant lightspeed are still valid in GR, as are all the things SR developed, including spacetime, time dilation, length decrease and mass gain. So no, SR is simply a special case in Relativity, it is incomplete Relativity, it takes ALL of both to make the complete theory. You cannot separate them, they are both valid. And reciprocity is only valid if you are only looking at the two spaceships, information from the rest of the Universe will tell you whether you are moving in relation to it. But both spaceships see the other as the slow one, timewise.

None of that is relevant in the overarching real local GR-exercise in question here, Grumpy. So let's skip all that repetitive irrelevance and refer you to the explanations above which makes all this abstract argument/overlay moot as 'objections' basis in this specific scenario.

I don't insult people, I insult the stupidity of some of the dreck they push. When someone is simply denying a fact I name it a lie. One is entitled to one's own opinion, but not to one's own facts.

But when it's your own failure to actually listen and understand properly what the 'other' is explaining for your benefit and consideration without kneejerking to incomplete and misleading (even to yourself) 'comic textbook versions' in reply, then where does that leave your emotional, ill-informed, prejudiced assumption that it is THEIR presented arguments/science which is at fault and not yours? When one seems to 'insist' against all new information presented. When one seems to prefer the math-turbation and comic book version of reality to the real reality directly consultable via experiment such as the one involved here, then one should perhaps be well advised to pause a moment or two and ask oneself why one is still ignoring the bleedin obvious and defaulting to the 'script' which is being changed as we speak? I leave that for you to ponder, mate.

It is a fact that every frame sees all light from any source in the Universe traveling at c and at no other speed. 200+ years of scientific inquiry established that fact before Einstein was out of diapers, that is what he learned at University. Relativity is based on that fact, the principle of relativity is the description of how the Universe warps everything to the extent necessary that c remains invariant. That is the whole of what Relativity was built upon.

Like I already explained: the 'invariant c' is the measured 'c' value derived via the real construct of clock and light across energy-space setup in each frame/location. No sweat. But the 'constant c' is the term in the equations of state/motion for each frame and the measured 'invariant c' is substituted for that term in the equations...and that value/term is always the same 'proportionately derived 'frame dependent value' resulting from the calculation measurement using the variables of clock timing and light propagation (as per Einstein GR effects) to give the value used in the equation of state/motion for whatever frame under study.


It's subtle, but once you 'twig' to what I've explaining to you about the real meaning of the maths things you so glibly refer to (so far without really empirically meaningfully physically understanding the real import/implications etc), it will be much clearer and your "headaches" will cease! Isn't that worth taking some trouble and time for your proper reading and understanding of what others have been telling you in this?

Good luck, Grumpy. Maybe tomorrow if I can see the screen! Cheers.

 

[Russ_Watters]

In the real GR case before you of the two clocks in the room you are standing in, there are no '[measured' sped of light. The whole point is to merely demonstrate that there IS a DIFFERENCE in both clock and light propagation process as reflected directly in the two cumulative counts. No 'speed' QUANTIFICATION involved, hence no requirement to invoke theoretical abstract 'frames'...

You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that the time measurement indicates a changing speed of light and then claim that the speed of light isn't involved. You are contradicting yourself.

The fact of the matter is that time dilation is something that happens between reference frames and the invariant (constant) speed of light is part of the equation for calculating it:

$$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}$$

The letter "C" in the equation stands for the local/constant/invariant speed of light.
"r" is the distance from the center of mass. Since one clock is above the other, you have two different "r"s.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, what you say will never become true.

Einstein said it and the reality in the same room under your nose confirms it. Period. All else is theoretical overlay abstraction/interpretation resorting to maths-entities/concepts such as 'space-time frames' and 'distance variation/bending' etc, despite the obvious GR reality that clock rates and light travel rates vary in GR contexts as per Einstein's 'rider' to 2nd postulate!

Coordinate speed, yes.

Whereas the 'constant c' is an mathematical element in an equation which maintains its value for equations of state/motion of different frames. The value is the 'invariant c' which is derived in the measurement phase that outputs the 'unvarying proportionate value c' I explained before.

The two are entirely different usage, the 'invariant c' is the output of the PROCEDURAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT construct (involving clocks and light travel/mass motion); while the 'constant c' is the 'measured c' value which appears unchanged from one equation-of-state/motion expression to the next irrespective of what frame is being described in any particular equation-of-state/motion.

I don't see a difference between those two description. Where the rubber meets the road, they both reference "c" and so both have the same value, right?

 

[Undefined]

You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that the time measurement indicates a changing speed of light and then claim that the speed of light isn't involved. You are contradicting yourself.

The fact of the matter is that time dilation is something that happens between reference frames and the invariant (constant) speed of light is part of the equation for calculating it:

$$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}$$

The letter "C" in the equation stands for the local/constant/invariant speed of light.
"r" is the distance from the center of mass. Since one clock is above the other, you have two different "r"s.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, what you say will never become true.

What is it about the phrase: "the clocks registered counts tell that a rate different exists between the two clock positions in the GR well", that you didn't understand.

The whole point was not to 'measure' the lightspedd, only to show in real unambiguous GR terms that the results indicate that there WAS some DIFFERENCE in lightspeed in the respective location/process of the two clocks. Period.

All your arguments trying to strawman what is already quite clearly stated will not help anyone, no matter what irrelevancies you wish to bring in based on your straw man misconstruing of what I said about what (and ONLY what) the exercise was all about demonstrating.

Read and understand properly and you won't need to waste so much time building/arguing with your own misunderstandings/strawmen. G'night.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What is it about the phrase: "the clocks registered counts tell that a rate different exists between the two clock positions in the GR well", that you didn't understand.

The whole point was not to 'measure' the lightspedd, only to show in real unambiguous GR terms that the results indicate that there WAS some DIFFERENCE in lightspeed in the respective location/process of the two clocks. Period.

Uh, no, that's not your whole point. Your whole point is to use the time difference to conclude there is a variable speed of light. The fact that the clocks read differently - and everyone agrees - is just your jumping-off point. The [flawed] logic you apply is what gets you to your main point and that's what you are now trying to avoid. I think it is because you recognize your logic is flawed, but are unwilling or incapable of admitting it.

All your arguments trying to strawman what is already quite clearly stated will not help anyone, no matter what irrelevancies you wish to bring in based on your straw man misconstruing of what I said about what (and ONLY what) the exercise was all about demonstrating.

It's your argument. If it is a strawman, it is your strawman.

 

[Undefined]

Uh, no, that's not your whole point. Your whole point is to use the time difference to conclude there is a variable speed of light. The fact that the clocks read differently - and everyone agrees - is just your jumping-off point. The [flawed] logic you apply is what gets you to your main point and that's what you are now trying to avoid. I think it is because you recognize your logic is flawed, but are unwilling or incapable of admitting it.

It's your argument. If it is a strawman, it is your strawman.

My whole point was to observe that the clocks varied in time rates. That direct observation implied that the light between the mirrors moved across energy-space differently compared to each others location in GR context. Period.

Whatever 'interpretation' is to be put upon the REASON why that differing light motion/rate is what the discussion between Farsight and you et al is all about.

Your contention is 'spacetime path contraction' or some such abstract 'spacetime' construct-based 'interpretation of the REAL DIRECT OBSERVABLE FACT that the clocks DO indicate the light IS moving differently compared to the other clock.

Farsight says that it is light speed that slowed.

So your discussion is at the stage of you and he trying to support your respective 'interpretation' of the observed light behavior variation.

I look forward to observing your further discussion on that.

Meanwhile, Russ, it would help everyone if you actually understood what is going on, rather than strawmanning your own misconstructions and obtuse misreading of what is being told you by others. Thanks.

 

[PhysBang]

Your contention is 'spacetime path contraction' or some such abstract 'spacetime' construct-based 'interpretation of the REAL DIRECT OBSERVABLE FACT that the clocks DO indicate the light IS moving differently compared to the other clock.

An indication is not something that is an "OBSERVABLE FACT". Only in the context of a theory that we can compare to our observations can we begin to make claims about whether or not we can draw this inference.

Farsight never makes claims that can be compared to observations.

Therefore he cannot be properly making a claim about what inferences we can draw from the world as we observe it.

 

[Russ_Watters]

My whole point was to observe that the clocks varied in time rates. That direct observation implied that the light between the mirrors moved across energy-space differently compared to each others location in GR context.[emphasis added]

There you are! Welcome back! Don't hide from your crackpottery, own it - be proud of who you are! Because even if you can hide it from yourself, you can't hide it from us.

So: "location". Apparently you now agree that the two clocks are in different coordinate locations and the calculated speed of light difference is a coordinate difference that doesn't impact each clock's local/invariant/measured speed of light, right?

Anticipating you will now try to evade your own argument again, let's drop back a step: You agree that the equation I posted in #373 (first posted by Farsight) describes this situation, right? In other words, you know you can use that equation to calculate the results of the experiment before you run it, right?

Farsight says that it is light speed that slowed.

Actually, if you beat it out of him, he'll admit that it is coordinate speed. He evades his own arguments too.

Btw, I'll start keeping your tab in the bottom of my posts. It is now $30 (per active poster).

 

[Farsight]

What you don't understand here is that being in a room, knowing which way is up, being able to turn left or right, walk backwards, or in short, knowing how to 'define' directions means you have a system of coordinates; that's you, the room, and the clocks in it. And of course you have an innate sense of 'distance', you can tell you aren't at the same place as either of the clocks, the clocks are in different places or 'positions'. Looks a hell of a lot like a way to define both distance and direction--gravity helps here, because you know which way is down, you can 'feel' it. Looks way like a coordinate system; hell, you could probably whip out a ruler and start laying off unit distances all over the place . . .

Read the OP and then the gravity thread. See the 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". If those clocks ran at the same rate, there wouldn't be any gravity. And they are optical clocks.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

Read the OP and then the gravity thread. See the 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". If those clocks ran at the same rate, there wouldn't be any gravity. And they are optical clocks.

The OP of that thread was right that the clocks measure different time rate, and absolutely wrong about why that happens. That's our point.

I notice that not one of you cranks addressed this. That's because it makes plain that you CAN get a longer transit time(Slower coordinate speed)while still having constant c(unvarying lightspeed)EVEN UNDER ACCELERATED FRAMES and that's why you get fewer clicks with speed or acceleration. It also gives the reason we say spacetime bends in a gravity field(lower left illustration), the photon is not affected by gravity itself, it always follows the zero energy line through spacetime, but notice that in the illustration the straight line coordinate path and the zero energy bent spacetime line are different length(the bent line is longer). It is that difference that causes a lightclock in a gravity field to tick slower. The further into the gravity field, the more spacetime is bent, the longer the path through spacetime, the bigger the difference between coordinate time and the time the photon takes on that bent path, the more slowly the clock ticks. ALL AT EXACTLY C>

Grumpy