The Speed of Light is Not Constant
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Ok, Grumpy, if that is what you get when you don't bother reading and understanding properly and fairly what has been answered to you already (Sir Roger Penrose's 'time' explanation; Sean Carrol's 'flat energy-space to infinity extent; and the direct evidence of the two clocks scenario irrespective of interpretaions from abstract frames etc) then we'll leave it at that, mate.
Good luck with your further discussions on this and other things elsewhere, mate! Bye for now.
Can't face the facts. Illuminated bent spacetime. Those arcs follow the density curves, which are nearly circular around the centers of mass, the illuminated ones just happen to be in the right place to focus light from galaxies much further away on Earth, but they are bent around the masses. In this giant Abell galaxy cluster there are multiple centers of gravity in a tight cluster so the arcs go many directions. The way Relativity describes the real Universe is very precisely the way the real Universe is seen to behave, in all of it's precepts and all of that "artificial overlay" it is correct. It is valid. And you guys don't know the first thing about it.
Grumpy
Can't face the facts. Illuminated bent spacetime. Those arcs follow the density curves, which are nearly circular around the centers of mass, the illuminated ones just happen to be in the right place to focus light from galaxies much further away on Earth, but they are bent around the masses. In this giant Abell galaxy cluster there are multiple centers of gravity in a tight cluster so the arcs go many directions. The way Relativity describes the real Universe is very precisely the way the real Universe is seen to behave, in all of it's precepts and all of that "artificial overlay" it is correct. It is valid. And you guys don't know the first thing about it.
Grumpy
What we 'see' is the motion of light/mass across energy-space context conditioned by the processes that mass-energy features involve which affect that surrounding space to produce the trajectories of photons/masses observed. That's it. The abstract theory does not actually address the underlying entities involved in the make-up of the 'spacetime' construct nor does it provide/explain the the coupling mechanism between energy-space and photons/masses that produced the observed dynamical motions/phenomena.
Can't you see that Relativity and 'spacetime' construct is a mathematical MODELING tool designed ONLY to 'describe dynamically' and 'predict quantifiably' those observed motions/changes in the real energy-space universal local substrate processing? How many times does it take to point out the bleeding obvious difference between what you think Relativity is/does and what it cannot do, by original Einstein design and purpose as a mere mathematical construct (like Epicycles was only a maths modeling abstract construct, remember?).
Again, you need reminding until the abstract-versus-reality assumptions/interpretations differences 'penny' drops:
Good luck in your further discussions with Farsight and Maxila et al, Grumpy.
Like you are overly fond of saying to others: "Got nothing?"
When you come back with the answer to that "reminder" posted to you above, then you can talk 'confirmed science'. Until then you are talking/insisting 'interpretations' from 'yet not known science' assumptions and abstractions. Period.
Good luck with that attitude of dismissing without actually arguing from any real non-abstract basis, Grumpy. See you round, mate.
Sure, it is just that physics is just so much more useful if you can actually do calculations with it rather than just psuedophilosophize about it.
You are aware that the math exactly agrees with the observation, right? IE, that you can (and we have) calculate ahead of time what the time dilation will be?
So lets do this: you say the speed of light is different for one clock than the other. Fine: Calculate the difference. What is the value of the speed of light for the lower clock and what is the value for the upper clock?
Ok:
"Location". Right. The two clocks are in different locations, so that's the coordinate speed of light you are talking about. See, this is the nuttiest thing about your postings: we actually agree on the fact that the speed of light will be calculated to be different for the two clocks, but you are so locked-in to your crackpot nonsense you refuse to agree even when you really do!
No, it is a measured result of many, many experiments.
$40 now, by the way.
Only the religious claim direct evidence. Only those who don't know what a frame is in physics claim that one can talk of clocks but not frames.
Regardless of the physical theory, one can always ask the bullshit question of, "But, why?"
GR clearly does explain what is going on with the relevant entities and the relationships between these entities. WHen one looks carefully at gravitational lensing, where possible, one sees not simply the bending of light but different time dilation (not simply time delay as one might expect from slower light) associated with that lensing.
If one is going to claim that there is something else going on in secret behind GR, then one still has to include all the relevant phenomena associated with GR, including time dilation and all the distortions of geometry already established by making observations and finding that the observations cannot be better accounted for than with the very interesting and novel features of GR.
See for example http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/gc.html . The moot point is that it takes a while for a photon to get out of the star, whilst neutrinos get out pretty fast. They travel at pretty much the same speed, and the neutrinos get here first. For SN1987A the neutrinos got here circa 3 hours before the photons.
Do you mean this post? You have a clock accelerating through space. There's no curved spacetime there at all.Grumpy said:
Farsight
That non-sense sentence is the best you can do? You might as well have stuck your fingers in your ears and started saying "LA LA, LA LA" for all the value of rebuttal your response contains.
What I did is showed you a clock just like the ones we've been talking about, the emitter is the blue galaxy, the detector is Earth. The galaxy cluster provides the acceleration and space bends around that mass/acceleration just like Albert said it would. Just like I explained, repeatedly, in these threads. You're busted, dude. I'm amazed you can show your face here after such a total fail. I don't think you know enough about the subject to understand just what an embarrassment this is for you. And your response illustrates that better than anything I could say further.
Grumpy
That non-sense sentence is the best you can do? You might as well have stuck your fingers in your ears and started saying "LA LA, LA LA" for all the value of rebuttal your response contains.
What I did is showed you a clock just like the ones we've been talking about, the emitter is the blue galaxy, the detector is Earth. The galaxy cluster provides the acceleration and space bends around that mass/acceleration just like Albert said it would. Just like I explained, repeatedly, in these threads. You're busted, dude. I'm amazed you can show your face here after such a total fail. I don't think you know enough about the subject to understand just what an embarrassment this is for you. And your response illustrates that better than anything I could say further.
Grumpy
I think that covers the underlying flaw in both RC's & Farsight's logic throughout these threads. More specifically they fail to understand that as reference frames diverge, remote observations become rotated per Lorentz, and then as the frames converge again, the rotation rolls back to none. I can see no reason why they would bother with anything they've ever posted if they merely came to learn to this first principle.
What blue galaxy? What post are you referring to?
Wrong. Einstein never said that. Wheeler said matter tells space how to curve, but that's wrong. See Baez's website and note this:
"Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a `force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial."
LOL, I'm not busted. You are.
I understand all this. I also understand that a reference frame isn't something you can point out in the clear night sky. In the SR context, it's little more than a "state of motion".
Only the truly infinitely obtuse cannot understand what is told them in this SPECIFIC scenario where the clocks are one just above the other in GR context which makes 'SR frames' moot because there is NO 'reciprocal aspects' involved like in SR reciprocal motion/dilation 'frame' views.
Get real; get honest; get less obtuse. Get anything, just stop strawmanning and misconstruing what the specific scenario says because the two clocks SPEAK for themselves when their respective cumulative counts are compared after the event irrespective of any 'frames' overlays from abstract theory which is made secondary considerations by the actual DIRECT counts comparison. Period.
If you have nothing but repetitive 'frames' irrelevances to troll on about, then you have no point at all that is relevant to the specific GR scenario.
Why are you ignoring what has already been told you in reply before on these items?
Even Sir Roger Penrose and Sean Carrol et al have seriously begun to question and re-think the very BASIS of the theory/interpretations re 'time' and 'before BB' and 'infinite flat energy-space' etc etc.
Why can't YOU?
Also, why do you STILL not 'get' that in this specific (two-clocks-one-above-the-other-in-the-same-room) GR context, there is NO NEED for to calculate any speed at all. Just the evidence that there IS a difference in the speed in the LIGHT CLOCK traversal between mirrors comparing the respective locations is ENOUGH to start the further discussion about what that 'means' in both current theory interpretation and possible alternative REAL basis re-interpretations.
Go to it and discuss that now with Farsight, now that the DIFFERENCE (whatever its magnitude) is proved to exist in GR situations irrespective of abstract theoretical 'frames' overlays after the event. Only try now to take your cues from Sir Roger, Sean Carroll et al mainstream scientists, and RE-THINK don't just KNEEJERK from old hat assumptions/interpretations. OK?
As I pointed out to you about that "energy-space" thing:
See? The mainstream physicists are finally catching up to this 'crank' even in the usage of my "energy-space" which I coined over a decade ago. Take a cue from them and don't be left behind by both this 'crank' and the mainstreamers working hard to get up to speed with reality theory/interpretations. Good luck, guys.
You do know that a "frame" is just a "system of coordinates", right? And you know that GR allows for arbitrary systems of coordinates?
Oh, right, you don't.
They do this with science, not with ignoring the existing science.
Odd that Einstein considered and rejected this proposal before he even fully developed GR, given that this difference in the behavior of clocks is a prediction of GR. Can you show that it is a prediction, a specific prediction that can be compared to measurement, of a VSL theory?
Ah, you can't.
You assume that we haven't re-thought this. We have, we just find Farsight's position, and your own position, crazy.
What the hell? I already told YOU et al that. That was the point. Co-ordinate frames are UNREAL things (just ask your 'expert mates', they'll clue you in on that).
That is why the local GR reality in that specific two-clock above one another scenario TRUMPED the abstraction overlays from 'frames' theories/analysis/views.
How many times does it have to be told you to 'get' that important reality, NON-abstract aspect INHERENT to that two clock GR gravity well scenario?
Please stop your repeating the bleeding obvious which was ALREADY explained to YOU why it was IRRELEVANT in this case. Or are you on a 'broken record' setting and can't go against your 'prior inadequate programming'?
Could you link the article you took that from?
It was a mainstream poster at another forum (Phys.Org), without naming any names. I made that clear in my post where I first mentioned it. I don't want to put the guy in the position of being hounded by any would-be internet trolls and crazies looking to give him a hard time. If you find the relevant post/poster there for yourself, that's another matter.