The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[PhysBang]

How can pure maths/abstraction ever arrive at REALITY if it gets ever further away from it with every further abstract/math overlay interpretation? As Einstein himself bemoaned:

Do you have a citation for that, or do you take it on faith?

Einstein was amazingly good at mathematics. He developed the mathematics of GR especially for his own work. It insults Einstein to claim that he was confused by math. It insults us all that you present such ludicrous ideas.

And have you ever heard of that simple 'instrument' called a "Plumb-Bob"? It is used by Builders to check the 'verticality' of some arrangement in the gravity well of Earth. They then know that any brick laid atop another is in a different frame, one above the other. That 'frame' consideration' is not relevant if the brick is seen as one above another along an altitudinal radial already established as vertical using the simple Plumb Bob.

You are not using "frame" correctly in any English sense of the word.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Phys.

Do you have a citation for that, or do you take it on faith?

Einstein was amazingly good at mathematics. He developed the mathematics of GR especially for his own work. It insults Einstein to claim that he was confused by math. It insults us all that you present such ludicrous ideas.


You are not using "frame" correctly in any English sense of the word.

No he wasn't. He had the original/gedanken insights and intuitive comprehension into the abstract relativities involved which would 'reconcile' the then-current 'contradictory understandings/theories. He initially used/adapted/rearranged and invented some new terms/entities to represent the essentials of the new insights for inclusion/formalizing into the adapted existing equations. He THEN had a LOT of help from Mach et al to get to the final versions of the Field Equations.

I thought you said you were familiar with Einstein's quotes/work/biography etc? It's common knowledge by now. Even Grumpy knows about that quotation/joke. You can ask him if you still don't believe me.

What is it with you and arfa? Can't you get it that NO 'frame' AT ALL (whether a builders plan 'frame' or a mathematical physicists co-ordinate 'frame') is necessary to invoke in order to establish that a difference in light behavior has occurred in the specific scenario involved in this GR clock effects on light/clocks discussion so far? Read the full context and stop this irrelevant semantics and hair-splitting to avoid the OBVIOUS.

 

[Undefined]

And you can demonstrate how one can use a variable speed of light to get these differing clocks?

You've got that back-to-front. The difference in light behavior is self evident where the two LIGHT clocks have light bouncing between their mirrors at different 'tick' rates which are reflected directly when the cumulative counts are compared/consulted. The difference has to be either because the clock 'light tick rates' and 'spacetime distances' both varied OR the clock 'light tick rates' and the speed of light itself varied.

Two complementary factors in each 'interpretational possibility' for the observed differences in that specific two-light-clocks GR local reality case.

It is now up to Farsight and you et al to discuss your own case for CHOOSING between those TWO SETS of 'complementary pairs' of variables, ie, light travel 'tick' rate and 'spacetime' length contraction/variation OR light travel 'tick' rate and hence the speed of the light doing the 'ticking off' in the two clocks varying without any 'spacetime' abstract 'length contraction' involved. Yes?

I will read that discussion with interest. Cheers.

 

[paddoboy]

Where does the fantasy world intrusion stop such that you can actually consult the SELF-EVIDENT REALITY once in a while like in THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO?

Please don't come back again with the obvious and the IRRELEVANT, mate. Not needed here. Thanks.

In reality, it appears to be you living in the fantasy world, and one with abstract obsessions about what is real or isn't real.

Space/time exists...It's geometry has been measured in the presence of mass/energy.
All that we see arose from the BB, which in itself was an evolution of space and time and some inbuilt superforce.....matter came later.
To see one as unreal, is to see all as unreal.
Now you need to get over this silly obsession you have with anything you cannot touch, feel, see or smell as not being real.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place aptly described by SR GR and the BB.
Any future QGT or any ToE worthy of it's name, will almost by necessity, need to encompass all three.


*******************************************************************************************************************
Sten Odenwald puts it simply as follows

at.....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
****************************************************************************************************************

 

[Undefined]

In reality, it appears to be you living in the fantasy world, and one with abstract obsessions about what is real or isn't real.

Space/time exists...It's geometry has been measured in the presence of mass/energy.
All that we see arose from the BB, which in itself was an evolution of space and time and some inbuilt superforce.....matter came later.
To see one as unreal, is to see all as unreal.
Now you need to get over this silly obsession you have with anything you cannot touch, feel, see or smell as not being real.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place aptly described by SR GR and the BB.
Any future QGT or any ToE worthy of it's name, will almost by necessity, need to encompass all three.

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...

Where have you been, mate? The reality review and discussions here and elsewhere regarding the DERIVATIVE nature of the 'time' analytical tool, has effectively replaced math abstraction spaceTIME construct with real observable spaceENERGY construct. So it's you still living in a "fantasy world" of useful but incomplete modeling abstractions.

The BB is still a hypothesis, haven't you heard? So all the interpretations and abstractions based on it are still speculative attempts at trying to make the evidence fit. But it is increasingly obvious to even many mainstream physicists who are finding flaws in the latest papers and methodology etc of so-called 'evidence' of BB expansion/gravity waves etc. Don't you keep up with the latest mainstream news? Oh, that's right; you have been spending the last two weeks building a 'man cave' where you can suck beer instead of spending that time reading up on what's going on under your nose as we speak. Figures why you remain clueless while enjoying your man/beer cave in lieu of reading and understanding before you opine from ignorance of both 'sides' of the discussion.

Yeah, your measure for what's real is "weird and wonderful" now? That's the same thing the acid-dropping hippies used to say in the sixties-seventies...and some of them were the very same cadre of physicists who came up with all those multiverses and multiple dimensions and whatever seemed to make sense to them at the time because they were 'weird and wonderful' so they just HAD to be 'real and true' also. Lol.

Now it's "weird and wonderful" comic book understandings which float your boat. Figures. Good luck with that, paddo.

 

[paddoboy]

Now it's "weird and wonderful" comic book understandings which float your boat. Figures. Good luck with that, paddo.

It's not I that needs the good luck...it's crank theorists like yourself, and your claims about having a ToE.
Do you think you are fooling anyone?
And as I have previously stated, the comic book stuff is reflected in your posts, and your fellow cranks.

 

[Farsight]

Yes, I get it. You want to believe that abstractions = problems.

Unfortunately you can't use two clocks to show time dilation unless the clocks are at different potentials, which means you must have a way to determine that they are. There is no way around this because as I've said already, when you compare the clocks later, the difference is due to the difference in potentials, so the clocks reflect this: they are/were in a coordinate system that lets you use clocks to determine different potentials (or you could use their individual altitudes).

You cannot "do" anything meaningful in SR or GR sans coordinates. Einstein begins his 1905 paper with a precise way to define these and the distance light travels between them. I have to say that his paper would be a lot harder to understand without this introduction, and so would physics if it didn't use coordinate systems.

You cannot define a sphere mathematically so it doesn't have a way to define coordinates, it even gives you a choice. Likewise you can measure different potentials in reference to height "above" a surface, or by using clocks to measure time dilation effects, but you can't do either without some kind of coordinate system.

This is all good stuff, arfa brane. I don't think abstractions are problems in themselves. They only become a problem when people think of them as being real, and then ignore what is real. The best example of this is "the passage of time". There is no actual time passing. So that isn't what a clock measures. There is no light flowing in a clock. So when the lower clock goes slower, it's because whatever it is moving in that clock is moving slower. And of course, in relativity, our favourite clock is the light clock.

 

[Farsight]

Let's get fair dinkum....
The theories of SR and GR are overwhelmingly supported and nothing comes close to describing reality then they do.
In realizing that we must also accept that the speed of light is constant...no if's or but's.

But Einstein said that when it came to GR, the speed of light isn't constant. See the Einstein quotes in the OP. And that is one big but.

It's constant because it is massless [as far as we are able to tell] and therefor must always travel at "c"
If it slowed, we would by necessity need to apply mass to it.

Not so, c is constant by definition, it's a tautology. And when a photon is slowed to below c, the photon acquires an effective mass. Google it.

Again, another storm in a tea cup from unsupported, un-reviewed, un-evidenced alternative theorists crap. That is the nicest thing we are able to say regarding the myriad of silly alternative theories this section has to deal with. Which then raises a more obvious point, why are they not in the "Alternative Theory"section?

Because this is good physics, whilst your physics knowledge is scant.

 

[Farsight]

...The difference has to be either because the clock 'light tick rates' and 'spacetime distances' both varied OR the clock 'light tick rates' and the speed of light itself varied.

It is now up to Farsight and you et al to discuss your own case for CHOOSING between those TWO SETS of 'complementary pairs' of variables, ie, light travel 'tick' rate and 'spacetime' length contraction/variation OR light travel 'tick' rate and hence the speed of the light doing the 'ticking off' in the two clocks varying without any 'spacetime' abstract 'length contraction' involved. Yes?

It's no contest, I've covered this already with James R. The distance does not increase because if it did distances at the black hole event horizon would have to be infinite. The light goes slower when its lower.

Note that we define the second using the motion of light. It's the duration of 9192631770 periods of radiation. It's like you're in a canoe, bobbing up and down as wave come past you. You count 9192631770 waves go by, then you declare that a second has elapsed. We then define the metre as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. When the light goes slower the second is bigger, and in defining the metre the slower light and bigger second cancel each other out. The metre is unchanged.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

I don't think abstractions are problems in themselves. They only become a problem when people think of them as being real, and then ignore what is real.

You ignore time's existence, no, you DENY time's existence, even though that is what the abstractions were invented to describe. All events are are ways to describe the passage of time, they do not create it they describe it, and no events can even occur unless there is time for it to occur in. You are the one confusing the abstraction(observation of time dependent events of any kind)with the reality(time itself, as part of the 4D manifold that is spacetime and thus the structure of the Universe). Energy, motion and matter are not structure, they are events within the structure. That parts of that structure contains space that does not have measurable events currently occurring within it does not mean that the time part of spacetime does not continue to exist.

Einstein did not impose spacetime on reality, reality imposed spacetime on Einstein as he developed the theory describing the resulting interconnections of that spacetime's properties(called Relativity). Relativity is a very accurate map of that territory, you need to study it.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

But Einstein said that when it came to GR, the speed of light isn't constant. See the Einstein quotes in the OP. And that is one big but.

He did not say it in his theories, no matter how many out of context or speculative statements you quote-mine. Lie one.

Not so, c is constant by definition, it's a tautology. And when a photon is slowed to below c, the photon acquires an effective mass. Google it.

c is constant BETWEEN and WITHIN all frames, no frame sees light slow down in any other. All frames see all light at c regardless of motion or acceleration. Period. Lie two.

Because this is good physics, whilst your physics knowledge is scant.

"Good Physics" does not describe what the idiocy you post is, good fertilizer, maybe(depends on what the Bull has been eating, I guess). Lie three, a perfect trifecta.

What makes something a lie is repeating it after being shown it was a falsehood. You've been shown(by the people you put on ignore, mostly). You knowingly lie.

Grumpy

 

[PhysBang]

No he wasn't. He had the original/gedanken insights and intuitive comprehension into the abstract relativities involved which would 'reconcile' the then-current 'contradictory understandings/theories. He initially used/adapted/rearranged and invented some new terms/entities to represent the essentials of the new insights for inclusion/formalizing into the adapted existing equations. He THEN had a LOT of help from Mach et al to get to the final versions of the Field Equations.

Please, read any biography of Einstein. He was amazingly good at mathematics. You are simply parroting urban myths.

What is it with you and arfa? Can't you get it that NO 'frame' AT ALL (whether a builders plan 'frame' or a mathematical physicists co-ordinate 'frame') is necessary to invoke in order to establish that a difference in light behavior has occurred in the specific scenario involved in this GR clock effects on light/clocks discussion so far? Read the full context and stop this irrelevant semantics and hair-splitting to avoid the OBVIOUS.

OK, you need to demonstrate this.

 

[PhysBang]

And of course, in relativity, our favourite clock is the light clock.

As I have pointed out before, in GR Einstein rejects this.

 

[PhysBang]

But Einstein said that when it came to GR, the speed of light isn't constant. See the Einstein quotes in the OP. And that is one big but.

As a troll, I urge you to learn the science instead.

 

[paddoboy]

It's no contest, I've covered this already with James R. The distance does not increase because if it did distances at the black hole event horizon would have to be infinite. The light goes slower when its lower.

.

Light does not go slower. The speed of light is absolute and invariant.
If it was not invariant, we would be able to assign some mass to it.

 

[paddoboy]

Farsight

You ignore time's existence, no, you DENY time's existence, even though that is what the abstractions were invented to describe.

I've noticed this "attribute" with many of the anti mainstream/conspiracy brigade.
Once they start denying one aspect of accepted SR/GR/BB, logical inconsistencies are sure to follow within their fabricated model....So this then by their own model's necessity, sees the need for more denial and/or unsubstantiated claims.
It's like a house of cards, without any solid foundation, and will obviously necessarily always remain so, until, [1] Proper scientific methodology is adhered to, and [2] Proper peer review is undertaken.

 

[Undefined]

It's not I that needs the good luck...it's crank theorists like yourself, and your claims about having a ToE.
Do you think you are fooling anyone?
And as I have previously stated, the comic book stuff is reflected in your posts, and your fellow cranks.

More science-empty 'personality noise' from you, paddo? Is that your whole raison d'etre' for forum posting? Trolling your uncomprehending impressions as orthodoxy understandings or any sort of cogent understandings at all? You are in no position to judge anything seriously complex and subtle, let alone the new ideas which will advance the current theory to reality completeness from its present state of pure abstraction.

Since you have been here you have posted nothing but links to others' work/opinions and/or posted your own uniformed opinions and personal prejudices and/or posted mindless 'cheerleading of your fellow trolls' and/or posted 'me too' inane coat-tail-riding sycophantically driven nonsense. All of it 'lame drivel and empty noise' from you deluding yourself that what you do/say so far has any relevance or import for the discussions here or the science discourse generally. You sound desperate to put others down at every contrived situation you make to 'personalize' the threads. Get a real life and purpose which is better than this desperate internet forums trolling substitute for a life you seem to have landed yourself in because you haven't a clue what you are doing let alone 'understanding'. Do better with your life and intellect/character, paddoboy.

 

[Undefined]

It's no contest, I've covered this already with James R. The distance does not increase because if it did distances at the black hole event horizon would have to be infinite. The light goes slower when its lower.

Note that we define the second using the motion of light. It's the duration of 9192631770 periods of radiation. It's like you're in a canoe, bobbing up and down as wave come past you. You count 9192631770 waves go by, then you declare that a second has elapsed. We then define the metre as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. When the light goes slower the second is bigger, and in defining the metre the slower light and bigger second cancel each other out. The metre is unchanged.

Yep, saw that already. Just making it clear to arfa/Russ et al that this is the real crux issue, not the readily self-evident of the light behavior in the clocks which they tried to 'pooh-pooh and deny with obfuscating tactics invoking unreal things/overlays like 'co-ordinate frames' etc when the reality is self-evident as already explained to them and which no amount of obfuscating by abstractions can deny as a starting point for that further issue resolution.

I recall that James wanted some time to think through that point you mentioned. Has he come back to you on that? If so, I must have missed it. Could you point to where he has agreed/disagreed since then? Thanks.

 

[Undefined]

Good morning Grumpy.

Farsight,

You ignore time's existence, no, you DENY time's existence, even though that is what the abstractions were invented to describe. All events are are ways to describe the passage of time, they do not create it they describe it, and no events can even occur unless there is time for it to occur in.

How many times will you keep getting that back-to-front, mate? The abstraction of 'time' was invented/done by US through observing motions/events already in play before we got here. The universal processes are already 'there' happening in front of you. Just because WE abstract relative measures of space-energy dynamical extents/values doesn't mean 'time' is necessary abstraction for the UNIVERSE itself.

You must SEPARATE your personal/philosophical perspective/impressions from the reality physics already happening no matter what WE abstract from those happenings.

All the 'events' require in order to 'happen' is the REAL SPACE AND ENERGY that PROCESSES locally across infinite number of local regions of energy-space in the (confirmed) infinite and flat universal extent.

The universal physics doesn't NEED 'time' to process its space-energy dynamics, only WE do need 'time' for abstract maths analyses of wheat pre-existing universal processes are doing, so WE can make 'sense' out of it and calculate/quantify/predict the processes. See? The universe doesn't need US OR TIME abstraction, only WE need US and OUR TIME abstractions for analysis constructs WE INVENTED for the purpose AFTER the event of universal processes. Straight front-to-back now, mate?

 

[arfa brane]

Yep, saw that already. Just making it clear to arfa/Russ et al that this is the real crux issue, not the readily self-evident of the light behavior in the clocks which they tried to 'pooh-pooh and deny with obfuscating tactics invoking unreal things/overlays like 'co-ordinate frames' etc when the reality is self-evident as already explained to them and which no amount of obfuscating by abstractions can deny as a starting point for that further issue resolution.

The disconnection from reality is that you want clocks in a gravitational field, and won't accept that this implicitly defines a system of coordinates. The clocks will each measure a distance in time and the difference between the measurements tells you about their respective gradients (or radial distances from a common centre). You don't recognise that "placing" one clock above the other also implicitly defines a coordinate system. The unreal thing is that you think there aren't any coordinates when there are.