In November. Cheers.
The Speed of Light is Not Constant
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
In November. Cheers.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Now wait an Undefined minute,
This is a reference to an informative article about a subject no one has THE answers to.
And the response
Well, this layman Forum reader actually resents the sly way you are using ad hominems at a person by making a Public Report to the Moderator about the "personal flaws" of the opponent.
Argue on the merits please. I find it very useful when I try to learn about the fundamental properties of the Universe.
This is a reference to an informative article about a subject no one has THE answers to.
And the response
Well, this layman Forum reader actually resents the sly way you are using ad hominems at a person by making a Public Report to the Moderator about the "personal flaws" of the opponent.
Argue on the merits please. I find it very useful when I try to learn about the fundamental properties of the Universe.
Last edited:
The thread was a discussion on the OP, not a 'general info item' thread for anyone who wants to post irrelevant unargued articles and links which either are not relevant to THE discussion point or are, as paddoboy troll is using such as, just material/links to clutter up the threads/discussions.
If you want the 'general info item' from paddo, let him start a thread for it and other general info he thinks is helpful to those who haven't yet enough grasp of the matters HERE in this OP/discussion points to contribute directly and PERTINENTLY to the discussions OF the OP.
While you are 'resenting' things, how about consulting all those peopele whose threads/discussions paddo has cluttered and buried under his constant barrage of mindless crap links and quotes and 'beliefs' and opinions which do not address the points made, while he is baiting and personalizing the tone. They will tell you what THEY 'resent'. And in no uncertain terms too. Farsight has tried to get the moderator to do something about the paddo noise-making troll', but no-one's at home it seems.
Get the FULLER picture now, mate? Sorry if you were upset by that in any way, though. I trust the paddo troll has desisted and I or anyone else won't have to keep pointing to his trolls. That would be win-win for all here except the trolls, naturally.
Cheers.
Get the FULLER picture now, mate? Sorry if you were upset by that in any way, though. I trust the paddo troll has desisted and I or anyone else won't have to keep pointing to his trolls. That would be win-win for all here except the trolls, naturally.
Cheers.
I'm sure everyone is getting the "fuller" picture undefined, including your dishonesty and efforts to get me banned.
Be that as it may, I have offered quite a few reasons why the thread title is a dishonest misnomer, highlighted to fuel some ego boosting alternative theorist, that cannot make it past first base.
I have also offered many links to refute the same wrong concept of light speed being variable.
You disgree that's fine...But don't dare try and stop me refuting what I see as rubbish, here and elsewhere, because it won't work.
I would guess though with the tone of your posts, if this keeps up we'll both be banned, as we both were before.
I would give that some thought if I were you.
When you pick on others and try to have them banned "it's ok" in your book?
But when you go beyond the worst of the other trolls here, and someone calls you out on it and brings the moderator's attention to it, it's suddenly "not ok" in your book?
Trolls and dishonest characters' double-standards and hypocrisy abounds out your way, no doubt....but it is not a good look at a science discourse forum, mate. Drop it quick.
And it's been made (by yourself no less) patently and painfully and embarrassing obvious that you are incapable of even refuting your own shadow, let alone a real issue under discussion here in the science threads. Who you think you're kidding, your mates in the new man-cave sucking VBs with you while you pretend you are relevant to any science discussion here? Maybe if you get them drunk enough they might just might 'believe' you for the sake of getting more beers from you, but don't mistake that for anything of any significance in the SCIENTIFIC scheme of things and your 'paddo-noisemaking place' in it. OK?
He himself has no idea what his 'position' is. All he has done is post 'me too' cheerleading of others and his lame/irrelevant/un-argued links and quotes which he is patently incapable of comprehending let alone argue from any REAL consistent set of factual objective factual bases and understandings of the matters under discussion to its most subtle and complex levels required for discussion of such matters as these. He is an ignoramus pretending to have 'beliefs' and 'opinions' based on 'faith' in orthodoxy and orthodoxy peddlers without understanding any of what's actually being covered by EITHER 'side'. He just repeats irrelevant/partial beliefs, willy-nilly links/quotes whatever he comes across and doesn't bother to check the full import of before presenting it as some sort of 'proof' that 'he is on the right side'. That's almost all he has done since he lobbed in here. Just look at his whole posting history. Yuck! Better you than me, mate. Good luck.
Paddo has, like the uncomprehending cluttering-baiting-personalizing discussions troll he obviously is, has willfully avoided looking at the evidence presented to him and others which explains where he is obviously wrong according to what Einstein and his GR predictions say, but he still continues to fill the threads with his lame repetitive uncomprehending post 'paddo-noise' crap. There is a limit to how much crap one site can take from this silly paddo troll. The mod may be on to him by now. Hope so. Cheers!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
He himself has no idea what his 'position' is. All he has done is post 'me too' cheerleading of others and his lame/irrelevant/un-argued links and quotes which he is patently incapable of comprehending let alone argue from any REAL consistent set of factual objective factual bases and understandings of the matters under discussion to its most subtle and complex levels required for discussion of such matters as these. He is an ignoramus pretending to have 'beliefs' and 'opinions' based on 'faith' in orthodoxy and orthodoxy peddlers without understanding any of what's actually being covered by EITHER 'side'. He just repeats irrelevant/partial beliefs, willy-nilly links/quotes whatever he comes across and doesn't bother to check the full import of before presenting it as some sort of 'proof' that 'he is on the right right'. That's almost all he has done since he lobbed in here. Just look at his whole posting history. Yuck! Better you than me, mate. Good luck.
I have a clear picture of his position on the OP question (title).
Moreover, I believe we are all in agreement on that issue. So where did it go wrong and why have 28 pages been devoted clarifying a few minor issues about the properties, functions and limitations of light in our spacetime system.
The NIST optical clock runs slower when its lower. So will a quartz wristwatch. So will a mechanical clock. So will the gedanken parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity.
The exception is the grandfather clock, where the clock rate depends on the gradient in gravitational potential rather than on gravitational potential itself.
There are no actual world lines or light cones either. Neither SR nor GR are harmed as a result.
They aren't just my conclusions. Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. In addition there's A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. The important thing about this is that there is no time flowing inside a clock. Just something moving. And when the clock goes slower it's because the thing inside it is going slower. And that thing might be light.
I know. I used it.
You try proving that there is some time literally flowing through a clock. When you can't, you will perhaps accept that when the clock goes slower it's because the thing inside it is going slower.OnlyMe said:
You know that a clock runs slower when its lower. You know that this applies to the parallel-mirror light-clock too. Face up to it.OnlyMe said:
Light cones aren't real, world lines aren't real, spacetime isn't real, but we don't have a problem with relativity. Just in understanding it, it would seem. And accepting that Einstein said the speed of light varies with position.OnlyMe said:
The mechanics are mundane, and it will come.OnlyMe said:
His position is against the assertion of the OP. It's also contrary to what Einstein said, and more importantly it is contrary to the evidence. Hence it fails. He has attempted to defend his position with ad-hominems and dishonesty. Note his first post on the subject:
"The speed of light is always the same...This is a postulate of relativity..... It even remains the same when passing through denser mediums...It just has longer distances to travel after reflection/refraction".
The constant speed of light was indeed a postulate of special relativity. But that was the constant speed of light in vacuo. The speed changes in different media. Paddoboy's position is a position of ignorance, that of a naysayer. He has attempted to spoil the thread with a vast clutter of abuse. See for example his comment on his second post on the thread:
"In more basic language, you are pushing shit uphill".
Undefined: please put paddoboy and others on ignore. Your responses to them are achieving their desired result, which is to trash the thread.
I don't need to refute my shadow, I just need to refute your invalid concepts and the misnomer of the thread title.
In that I and others who you also have called trolls have no doubt succeeded.
Any discussion on a science forum includes for or against...Live with it, and do not dictate what you think should or shouldn't be apart of the discussion.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9448/
On the invariance of the speed of light
Abstract
It has been argued that the existence of a minimum observable interval of space and time (MOIST) is a model-independent result of the combination of quantum field theory and general relativity. In this paper, I promote this result to a fundamental postulate, called the MOIST postulate. It is argued that the postulate leads to the existence of a maximum signal speed and its invariance. This new result may have two interesting implications. On the one hand, it suggests that the MOIST postulate can explain the invariance of the speed of light, and thus it might provide a deeper logical foundation for special relativity. Moreover, it suggests that the speed constant c in modern physics is not the actual speed of light in vacuum, but the ratio of the minimum observable length to the minimum observable time interval. On the other hand, the result also suggests that the existing experiments confirming the invariance of the speed of light already provide observational evidence to support the MOIST postulate.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The most obvious reason why claims the speed of light are wrong are those mentioned by James, in regards to light needing to travel further in a gravity well [curved space/time] giving a perception it has slowed.
Also the speed of light is necessarily always "c" because it has no mass: If the speed of light did vary, we would then need to assign some mass to it.
And of course SR rests and falls on the postulate of the speed of light.
In summing, photons always travel at "c"
Also it is thought in mainstream circles that from a photon's FoR, it does not experience time or distance.
This assumption would obviously not be true, if the speed of light was variant.
All I am saying is what is said in the following......
Yes, My position is against the OP, but but I don't believe it is against current mainstream, nor Einstein.
The constant speed of light certainly was and still is a postulate of SR.
You supposedly have quoted Einstein many times...I also have quoted him.
Worth noting though that the great man Einstein was, he was also humble most of his life, despite his success.
A shame, you havn't got the qualities that Einstein had...humility, honesty, and tolerance.
I also added a link supporting my claim about light in a medium.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=918
or this......"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
n electromagnetic wave (i.e., a light wave) is produced by a vibrating electric charge. As the wave moves through the vacuum of empty space, it travels at a speed of c (3 x 108 m/s). This value is the speed of light in a vacuum. When the wave impinges upon a particle of matter, the energy is absorbed and sets electrons within the atoms into vibrational motion. If the frequency of the electromagnetic wave does not match the resonant frequency of vibration of the electron, then the energy is reemitted in the form of an electromagnetic wave. This new electromagnetic wave has the same frequency as the original wave and it too will travel at a speed of c through the empty space between atoms. The newly emitted light wave continues to move through the interatomic space until it impinges upon a neighboring particle. The energy is absorbed by this new particle and sets the electrons of its atoms into vibration motion. And once more, if there is no match between the frequency of the electromagnetic wave and the resonant frequency of the electron, the energy is reemitted in the form of a new electromagnetic wave. The cycle of absorption and reemission continues as the energy is transported from particle to particle through the bulk of a medium. Every photon (bundle of electromagnetic energy) travels between the interatomic void at a speed of c; yet time delay involved in the process of being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material lowers the net speed of transport from one end of the medium to the other. Subsequently, the net speed of an electromagnetic wave in any medium is somewhat less than its speed in a vacuum - c (3 x 108 m/s).
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l1d.cfm
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Grasping at straws Farsight.....Your friend has said far worse then that...And if I remember correctly, I said that in light of the derision that undefined threw at the peer review system......
I then compared those tactics as similar to the tactics used by conspiracy nutters and pseudoscientists.
Pretty well true though isn't it?
If the cap fits............
That is very true. Also, another thing that these dinkleberries fail to usderstand is the *apparent* loss in speed when light travels through a curved area in space which makes the distance traveled LONGER than a straight-line path would be.
I must say that I stand amazed that they either DO NOT KNOW or FAIL TO UNDERSTAND the two very simple things we've just covered. It just exposes their grand failure to grasp some very basic fundamental physics. Sad, really, that they can be so foolish in the 22nd century.
We've already covered this with James R. Light does not go slower because the distance increases. If this was true distances at the black-hole event horizon would have to be infinite. Also note that only one-tenth of the Shapiro delay is down to the light taking a curved path. When one contrives a Shapiro-like delay wherein a light beam passes between two stars in close proximity, it doesn't curve at all. It's a straight-line path, and space isn't curved.
I understand these simple things. You don't, and it seems, you don't want to.
I would call this a lie, even though Farsight is just too ignorant of general relativity to even start to understand why he is wrong. He can't do the math, which means he has never actually thought through what it means to have a speed in GR. He is sticking to his guns because he read something Einstein tried and rejected before GR and it's written out, not expressed as an equation and a set of relational principles, so he can vaguely understand it.
It's somewhat sad. However, Farsight did try to make money off this with his self-published book.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Question: IMO, space between two stars does very much curve. In fact there would probably be gravity wave interference patterns which the light would have to navigate and might increase the length of travel considerably?
No. Look at an old version of the Wikipedia Shapiro delay article and there's the quote by Einstein saying the speed of light varies with position. The word velocity is given, but that's a mistranslation, it should be speed because he's overturning one of the SR postulates. And note that it's the Shapiro delay. Not the Shapiro curvature. Light is delayed. Not curved. It takes longer to go there and back because it goes slower when its lower. Like when it skims the star.
Now that is some next level dishonesty out of Farsight: he adds an out-of-context quote to a wikipedia page, other, more honest and knowledgeable people edit the addition out, and then Farsight links to the old page as if it is a separate authority.