The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Undefined]

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

He was as good at anyone at the existing maths. No big deal. The point is he had to invent new terms for the equations and had to adapt prevailing equations to suit the new insights which the new terms embodied. He also got a lot of help from others to fully develop the maths formalisms for the new theoretical modeling. If you don't know this then I suggest you re-read the whole history and not just some convenient/limited source. I am now nearly 65, and read all there was to read/understand about Einstein/Relativity long ago. Moved on since. No more time to waste on your distractions.

OK, you need to demonstrate this.

Did you read my "plumb Bob" suggestion to arfa or anyone not yet knowing how to tell "which way is up" in Earth's gravity well?

And did you get the point that we all NOW agree that the frames (as arfa finally confirmed) are self-determined by the very act of which is 'above' and which is 'below' along a vertical GR radial established by a simple Plumb Bob?

Moreover, did you catch up with the point that irrespective of any 'frame' abstractions, the self-evident reality of the different tick rates in light clocks is proven to BE real and not abstract?

If you have caught up with the above, you have nothing to troll on about anymore, since all the above form a common understanding for which the further discussion re what is the light actually doing across energy-space.

And that further discussion/issue is what James R and Farsight were already engaged in. For an FYI on that, please see post #458 above.


Now please don't keep trolling these same irrelevancies and distractions, as most others have moved on from those already. Thanks. Good luck.

 

[Undefined]

Farsight,

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

Grumpy, Einstein's second postulate expressly puts a rider/limitation on the validity of the SR view when in GR contexts. Why don't you look that up before insulting and accusing people of 'lying'.

And it would help everyone to converse on the calm science rather than the emotional ego if you could tone down your personal attacks/accusations, especially when they are totally unfounded as in this instance. Thanks.

Since the rest of your post goes on based on your own emotional/subjective impressions (apparently you and paddoboy et al still haven't 'got' what I tried to explain about the difference/meaning between 'constant c' and 'invariant c'), so no further comment on the rest of your post there will do any good. Good luck, mate. Chill.

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, arfa.

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.

But that is OBVIOUS already to ALL concerned. The point you miss is that to determine that there IS a difference in the light clock behavior is ALL we need at the moment before going on to all the FURTHER discussions as to INTERPRETATIONS as to what is the light actually doing across-energy-space between the mirrors in two GR localities which are already self-evidently DIFFERENT per se.

There is no need at present to QUANTIFY or CALCULATE anything based on 'frames' etc considerations/theory. Only the presence OF a difference per se was all that was necessary to establish for a common understanding 'same page' departure point for the further discussion points as mentioned in post #458 above.

Now please, please, please, arfa, can you let that bee in your bonnet out for good in this context and just follow the discussion from now on based on the common understanding ALREADY self-evidently demonstrated by the real GR effective differences to the light behavior in the clocks? Thankyou!!!


PS: If you insist on coming back with that and associated irrelevancies already dispensed with, I will not respond except to refer you to what has already been told you about those irrelevancies and why they ARE irrelevant at this stage in the discussion. If you aren't up to speed with what has transpired and what stage the discussion/issue is REALLY AT, just ask James R to fill you in about what his current cogitations on what Farsight cogently pointed out to him is the implications of what the 'mainstreamers' have been claiming as 'the explanation'. At least James R LISTENS and UNDERSTANDS and CONSIDERS CALMY without KNEEJERKING. You could follow his example or you could just keep on keeping on with these irrelevancies passed long ago while you miss the next stage of the discussion. Your choice. Good luck, mate.

Naturally I shall be following that further discussion/issue with interest. Cheers all!

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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.

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

Einstein said many things that he later ratified. And please note carefully, taking stuff out of context is dishonourable to say the least.

Light does not slow down...A photon remains constant at "c"
If you think otherwsie, please show me experimental and/or observational evidence to the contrary.

My physics knowledge is not that scant, nor do I suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Get your stuff peer reviewed, otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

NB: This form is not accepted peer review, it just happens to be the only outlet that alternative theorists are able to build failing egos, with their unsupported, unreviewed, unevidenced unscientific crap.
The actual title of this thread also reflects another undesired quality of these alternative theorists...ARROGANCE!

 

[Undefined]

Einstein said many things that he later ratified. And please note carefully, taking stuff out of context is dishonourable to say the least.

Light does not slow down...A photon remains constant at "c"
If you think otherwsie, please show me experimental and/or observational evidence to the contrary.

My physics knowledge is not that scant, nor do I suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Get your stuff peer reviewed, otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

NB: This form is not accepted peer review, it just happens to be the only outlet that alternative theorists are able to build failing egos, with their unsupported, unreviewed, unevidenced unscientific crap. )
The actual title of this thread also reflects another undesired quality of these alternative theorists...ARROGANCE!

Do you know what "ratified" means? No, don't bother to answer. Just please STOP with your trolling your own opinions about things/events which you don't understand in any useful way that can add anything to the discussion here. For the love of science and humanity, please STOP cluttering the threads/discussions with your own uncomprehending arrogance and repeated irrelevant inanities that are driving us all up the wall except for your fellow 'personal' trollers, mate. Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

Do you know what "ratified" means? No, don't bother to answer. Just please STOP with your trolling your own opinions about things/events which you don't understand in any useful way that can add anything to the discussion here. For the love of science and humanity, please STOP cluttering the threads/discussions with your own uncomprehending arrogance and repeated irrelevant inanities that are driving us all up the wall except for your fellow 'personal' trollers, mate. Thanks.

I'll let others decide who is trolling undefined.
When you accept peer review, when you offer real evidence, when you curtail your delusions as reflected in your many posts, then you may finally realize that you have nothing.

 

[Undefined]

I'll let others decide who is trolling undefined.
When you accept peer review, when you offer real evidence, when you curtail your delusions as reflected in your many posts, then you may finally realize that you have nothing.

When you offer real comprehension in lieu of repeated inanities; when you stop personalizing and self-rationalizing to put others down; when you actually present a real and relevant science based argument you actually understand instead of just quoting and linking indiscriminately and repeating your 'beliefs' and 'opinions' and 'handles' and uninformed trolls....then maybe you will have an opinion worth the bandwidth. You don't know or even understand anything of import/complexity/subtlety in the subject matter, so you aren't in any position to say either way. Enjoy your break. Come back with much better than so far. Cheers.

 

[Undefined]

@Farsight. Anyhow, I have made all the observations/inputs I can at this time, so it's back to you and your discussions with others, mate! Thanks for the great threads/discussions. It's been a pleasure to read/watch it unfold. Will continue to read-only with great interest. Cheers Farsight, everyone, and bye for now!

 

[arfa brane]

The point you miss is that to determine that there IS a difference in the light clock behavior is ALL we need at the moment before going on to all the FURTHER discussions as to INTERPRETATIONS as to what is the light actually doing across-energy-space between the mirrors in two GR localities which are already self-evidently DIFFERENT per se.

There is no need at present to QUANTIFY or CALCULATE anything based on 'frames' etc considerations/theory. Only the presence OF a difference per se was all that was necessary to establish for a common understanding . . .

Yes, again with the argument that abstractions lead to problems. Here though, this difference you're talking about exists because the clocks are in different positions, hence it relates (abstractly) the difference in position to the difference in time measured by each clock.

Once again it seems you can't avoid referring to positions and times = a coordinate system. You keep saying you can, but then can only demonstrate that you have to refer to some "difference" that can be measured (so you must be referring to a space in which two abstract distances can be compared), so you haven't done this thing you say you can do, at least not yet.
Whereas I insist that you cannot make any meaningful "physical" statement about clocks or time rates without referring to coordinates. It just doesn't have legs.

 

[PhysBang]

He was as good at anyone at the existing maths. No big deal. The point is he had to invent new terms for the equations and had to adapt prevailing equations to suit the new insights which the new terms embodied. He also got a lot of help from others to fully develop the maths formalisms for the new theoretical modeling. If you don't know this then I suggest you re-read the whole history and not just some convenient/limited source. I am now nearly 65, and read all there was to read/understand about Einstein/Relativity long ago. Moved on since. No more time to waste on your distractions.

My distractions?

To my statement, "Einstein was amazingly good at mathematics," you wrote, "No he wasn't." Now you are changing your tune. Funny, that.

And did you get the point that we all NOW agree that the frames (as arfa finally confirmed) are self-determined by the very act of which is 'above' and which is 'below' along a vertical GR radial established by a simple Plumb Bob?

No.

Moreover, did you catch up with the point that irrespective of any 'frame' abstractions, the self-evident reality of the different tick rates in light clocks is proven to BE real and not abstract?

What I wrote was that this has no bearing whatsoever on GR, other than to grant support to it.

So far you are doing a pathetic failure of demonstrating the relationship between any hypothetical set of clocks and GR. Where are the measurements? Even hypothetical measurements? Where is the predictions of your variable light speed?

 

[paddoboy]

. You don't know or even understand anything of import/complexity/subtlety in the subject matter, so you aren't in any position to say either way. Enjoy your break. Come back with much better than so far. Cheers.

Not quite anywhere near that bad, but I do recognize my limitations, and certainly have no false airs and delusions of self Importance.
And that's where you and I differ old buddy.

 

[Undefined]

HI arfa,

Yes, again with the argument that abstractions lead to problems. Here though, this difference you're talking about exists because the clocks are in different positions, hence it relates (abstractly) the difference in position to the difference in time measured by each clock.

Once again it seems you can't avoid referring to positions and times = a coordinate system. You keep saying you can, but then can only demonstrate that you have to refer to some "difference" that can be measured (so you must be referring to a space in which two abstract distances can be compared), so you haven't done this thing you say you can do, at least not yet.
Whereas I insist that you cannot make any meaningful "physical" statement about clocks or time rates without referring to coordinates. It just doesn't have legs.

Please refer to my previous answers where I made clear the problem is the incompleteness which abstraction only models doom the ToE to.

Also please refer to same posts where I explained that in THIS specific case the only thing we wanted to establish is that GR prediction of effects on light clocks was REAL. That can be accomplished as described SIMPLY and DIRECTLY. You use a PLumb Bob to determine the above/below if you are so pedantic and so incapable of telling that self-evident fact for yourself in the same room as the clocks.

What you are talking about is UNREAL co-ordinate overlays on REAL self-evident GR situation. No such overlays are needed to spot that GR effects DO affect the clocks as predicted by GR. The quantification and/or abstract explanations from 'frames' etc is MOOT if we have what we wanted: the fact that there IS SOME GR effect as predicted there would be irrespective of the magnitude of that difference. OK?

Can't you get that, arfa?

 

[paddoboy]

Have we finally agreed that the thread title is a misnomer? and the speed of light is constant?

 

[Undefined]

Have we finally agreed that the thread title is a misnomer? and the speed of light is constant?

Premature presumption on your part? Nothing of the kind has been 'agreed'. Especially if the subtle but important difference between 'constant c' and 'invariant c' is still beyond the understanding of some participants......like yourself for example, paddo. Nice try at sounding 'authoritative' and 'confident' of your 'handle' on things, though, mate.

 

[Write4U]

Have we finally agreed that the thread title is a misnomer? and the speed of light is constant?

I'm confused about the argument; the following definitions seem to show the similarities and differences of both terms to me.

Invariant (physics),
meaning that something does not change under a transformation, such as from one reference frame to another

Another example of a physical invariant is the speed of light under a Lorentz transformation[1] and time under a Galilean transformation. Such spacetime transformations represent shifts between the reference frames of different observers, and so by Noether's theorem invariance under a transformation represents a fundamental conservation law. For example, invariance under translation leads to conservation of momentum, and invariance in time leads to conservation of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_(physics)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical constant,

A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.
There are many physical constants in science, some of the most widely recognized being the speed of light in vacuum c, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. Physical constants can take many dimensional forms: the speed of light signifies a maximum speed limit of the Universe and is expressed dimensionally as length divided by time; while the fine-structure constant α, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, is dimensionless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Bolded by me with the question if SOL is the fastest possible way for reality to express itself because it is a physical limitation imposed by the system itself.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm confused about the argument; the following definitions seem to show the similarities and differences of both terms to me.

Invariant (physics),
meaning that something does not change under a transformation, such as from one reference frame to another


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_(physics)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical constant,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Bolded by me with the question if it is the fastest possible way for reality to express itself because it is a physical limitation imposed by the system itself.

I have always taken them to be the same.
I agree with the physical limitation reason, plus also the speed of light is what it is because it is massless.
If it wasn't massless, it wouldn't be "c"....

 

[Russ_Watters]

Premature presumption on your part? Nothing of the kind has been 'agreed'. Especially if the subtle but important difference between 'constant c' and 'invariant c' is still beyond the understanding of some participants......like yourself for example, paddo. Nice try at sounding 'authoritative' and 'confident' of your 'handle' on things, though, mate.

What is the value of the "constant c" and what is the value of the "invariant c"?

 

[OnlyMe]

Also please refer to same posts where I explained that in THIS specific case the only thing we wanted to establish is that GR prediction of effects on light clocks was REAL.

Unless you can provide a credible reference to a real light clock, the above seems to be a case of you having convinced yourself that a hypothetical object is real, just by saying so over and over.

In a few words, and a link, exactly what are you referring to as a light clock above?

 

[Farsight]

See the OP where I refer to David Wineland talking about the NIST optical clock. An optical clock is like the NIST Caesium atomic clock, but it uses optical frequencies instead of microwave frequencies. The NIST Caesium clock is used to define the second as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation. It's like you're sitting in a canoe counting waves passing you by. If those waves are coming at you slower, your second is bigger. But because you count 9,192,631,770 waves before you declare that a second has elapsed, the frequency is then 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition regardless of how fast the waves are moving. Also see gravitational time dilation on wiki and note where it says electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You are lying, Farsight. What is referred to in the link in the OP works just like a cesium atomic clock, but at a higher frequency. What's the difference between that and a "light clock"(another deceptive definition swap by you...)? An atomic clock counts radiation cycles, so it does not involve distance or speed of light measurement/assumption. That's completely different from your .gif animation of a "light clock."

You of course know this, which makes this blatant lie curious: why bother? It isn't like this lie really matters, because:

You've already acknowledged that your position is not distinguishable from the mainstream by either math or experiment: it is empty crackpottery.