The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Grumpy]

RC

Read the latest posts across the threads to others also, Grumpy.

Why? You always post the same useless word salad and you are always wrong. I've wasted enough time reading the same idiocy over and over. You know nothing about Relativity and what you claim to know is suitable only for flushing. There is no information in your posts worth the effort to try to strain it from the verbal mishmash you make of the simplest things. I've never seen anyone less able to use the English language to communicate ideas clearly. Nor do you or Farsight come anywhere near a fact(such as constant c), you actually deny them. So, no, I won't be wasting any more effort on trying to get a coherent thought out of your word salad bar.

Grumpy

 

[PhysBang]

As I have mentioned...the Universe expands...An Unknown force mainstream call it DE is what we think is responsible for the acceleration in the expansion rate......then we have the Casimir effect.

I wouldn't be so fast to identify the cosmological constant/dark energy with the Casimir effect. There are a couple of possible derivations for the Casimir effect and there are a number of possible sources for the cosmological constant, they do not all line up. It would be nice if they do, but this is still speculative.

What is beyond speculation is that there is a component of our universe that is driving an increase in expansion. We have pinned down a few of its measurable properties.

The BB of course was an evolution of space and time [which we now call space/time] that came along with a "Superforce" permeating all of space/time. or a single force composing all of the four currently known forces.
As temperatures and pressures dropped, the superforce started to decouple....From there matter came into being as the pressures and temperatures dropped even further.
That's the most likely scenario, although the closer back to t=0 we get, the less certain the scenario is.
All in all, it is a logical backward extrapolation of what we now see.

More of less. (In many scientific papers, t=0 is the current time, but this is not usually so in public talks, I find.)

 

[paddoboy]

RC



Why? You always post the same useless word salad and you are always wrong. I've wasted enough time reading the same idiocy over and over. You know nothing about Relativity and what you claim to know is suitable only for flushing. There is no information in your posts worth the effort to try to strain it from the verbal mishmash you make of the simplest things. I've never seen anyone less able to use the English language to communicate ideas clearly. Nor do you or Farsight come anywhere near a fact(such as constant c), you actually deny them. So, no, I won't be wasting any more effort on trying to get a coherent thought out of your word salad bar.

Grumpy

Agreed.......I should learn from that and ignore the incessant rubbish put forward by this pair. That coupled with the fact that the speed of light is constant beyond any shadow of a doubt, makes this thread now redundant.
I'm going to say to myself 100 times...I must ignore the bizzare behaviour and instability of forum nuts.
Plus I have a busy day today!

 

[paddoboy]

I wouldn't be so fast to identify the cosmological constant/dark energy with the Casimir effect. There are a couple of possible derivations for the Casimir effect and there are a number of possible sources for the cosmological constant, they do not all line up. It would be nice if they do, but this is still speculative.

Yep, totally agree with that summation.

 

[Undefined]

Yes, I do understand a great deal of it and probably more then you as it appears we are both layman.

As I have mentioned...the Universe expands...An Unknown force mainstream call it DE is what we think is responsible for the acceleration in the expansion rate......then we have the Casimir effect.
The BB of course was an evolution of space and time [which we now call space/time] that came along with a "Superforce" permeating all of space/time. or a single force composing all of the four currently known forces.
As temperatures and pressures dropped, the superforce started to decouple....From there matter came into being as the pressures and temperatures dropped even further.
That's the most likely scenario, although the closer back to t=0 we get, the less certain the scenario is.
All in all, it is a logical backward extrapolation of what we now see.

Now getting back to the question in hand.....
the speed of light is constant.
Photons always travel at "c"
Deeper in a GR gravity well, they appear to travel slower, only because they have a longer distance to travel [space/time curvature] and higher in a gravity well, they "appear" to travel faster [less space/time curvature] because they have less distance to traverse.
But photons always travel at "c"

Anything with mass, can never reach the speed of light
Anything without rest mass [photons] can never travel at anything other then "c"


If you have any different thoughts, you know what to do.
Your unscientific words, your pseudoscientific claims, your personal insults, your bizzare behaviour, calling everyone trolls that disagree with you, does nothing for your demeanor.

Dream on, silly 'believer' in your scifi fanboy stuff. LOL

 

[Undefined]

RC
Why? You always post the same useless word salad and you are always wrong. I've wasted enough time reading the same idiocy over and over. You know nothing about Relativity and what you claim to know is suitable only for flushing. There is no information in your posts worth the effort to try to strain it from the verbal mishmash you make of the simplest things. I've never seen anyone less able to use the English language to communicate ideas clearly. Nor do you or Farsight come anywhere near a fact(such as constant c), you actually deny them. So, no, I won't be wasting any more effort on trying to get a coherent thought out of your word salad bar.

Grumpy

You don't understand the difference between the TERM in equations 'constant c' and the real resultant in-frame proportionate output of measurement using time and light propagation rate to give 'invariant' for every frame.

You deny Einstein's own explanations about what we mean when we speak of 'time' (even AlexG just agreed that it is based on at least TWO EVENTS and not in some philosophical sense as you would have it contrary to what Einstein and everyone who understands what's what already knows).

You also ignore Einstein's 2nd Postulate GR 'rider' making SR 'constancy of lightspeed' validity NOT extend to GR context.

You even keep rationalizing away his express statement that the modeling construct we use currently is ABSTRACTION leaving out all considerations of mechanistic entities/processes explanations per se.

But still you come back with posts like that above where you call anything you don't or can't read/understand properly 'word salad'?

OK, mate, whatever does it for you. Good luck with that.

 

[Write4U]

Farsight

It varies only in it's coordinate speed, not it's actual speed through spacetime, just like Einstein said in GR. Again, the dishonest out of context(and corrected in Wiki)crap you think trumps the in context statements that he put in his Theory.

The speed of light in vacuum, c, is a universal physical constant important throughout physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. This is 186,000 miles per second, or about 670 million miles per hour. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light) travel in vacuum. It is also the speed of gravity (i.e. of gravitational waves) predicted by current theories. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc^2.

"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

A. Einstein

Light itself does not vary, the coordinate speed of light DOES vary with position in a gravity field. Here's why...

Curved spacetime is a longer path than coordinate distance, simple as that.

Grumpy

Regardless of change in coordinates the light bouncing between the two mirrors always travels at "c". Any apparent change in that invariance is caused by other factors than "c". Moreover, in a moving frame there is no time difference between the straight vertical path (shortest way) and the diagonal straight or curved path (longer way). The photon always arrives at the same time between both mirrors, regardless of any other movement. Perhaps we can say that the photon (and a few other massless particles) are exempt from GR when speeds theoretically exceed :"c" .

IMO, the term "vacuum' is used only to indicate a condition without "obstacles" which might momentarily "obstruct and delay" the photon, before it resumes "c".

Interesting answer in another forum,

Donut Tim answered 4 years ago

In the core of the Sun the atoms are so closely packed that a high-energy photon (gamma ray) released in fusion reaction is absorbed in only a few millimeters by another atom. The receiving atom re-emits the energy again in a random direction as one photon or several photons at slightly lower energy.

The energy travels as photons from atom to atom, being absorbed and then re-emitted so it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun's surface. Each gamma ray in the Sun's core is converted into several million visible light photons before escaping into space. Estimates of the average "photon travel time" in the Sun range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.

After a final trip through the convective outer layer to the transparent layer of the photosphere, the photons escape as visible light. Once the photons of light are emitted into space, those directed towards Earth only take 8.31 minutes get here.

An absorbed photon becomes part of the absorbing atom and no longer exists as a photon so the photon is gone forever. A re-emitted photon is energy from the atom but is a new photon.

Is it possible that in a BH atoms are packed so tightly that a photon is unable to physically excite any atom it comes in contact with and just vanishes? After all, it has no mass!

Is the heart of a BH cold (static) or hot (energetic)?

 

[paddoboy]

Regardless of change in coordinates the light bouncing between the two mirrors always travels at "c". Any apparent change in that invariance is caused by other factors than "c". Moreover, in a moving frame there is no time difference between the straight vertical path (shortest way) and the diagonal straight or curved path (longer way). The photon always arrives at the same time between both mirrors, regardless of any other movement. Perhaps we can say that the photon (and a few other massless particles) are exempt from GR when speeds theoretically exceed :"c" .

IMO, the term "vacuum' is used only to indicate a condition without "obstacles" which might momentarily "obstruct and delay" the photon, before it resumes "c".

Interesting answer in another forum,


Is it possible that in a BH atoms are packed so tightly that a photon is unable to physically excite any atom it comes in contact with and just vanishes? After all, it has no mass!

Is the heart of a BH cold (static) or hot (energetic)?

In any dormant BH, [ie, a BH not consuming anything] the BH is nearly entirely just critically curved space/time, except for the Singularity.
Any photon then crossing the EH, is probably not encountering anything until it reaches the singularity.

I would Imagine the Singularity to be hot?? Although I wait for better judgement on that issue.

 

[forrest noble]

Farsight,

The speed of light is not constant

".......That’s Einstein talking about the speed of light varying in a gravitational field. But if you ask around about all this, some will brush it off by pointing to the word velocity. They’ll say "It’s a vector quantity my boy. It’s speed and direction. The velocity changes because the direction changes". Guess what? That’s wrong. Go back to the original German, and what Einstein actually said was that a curvature of rays of light can only take place when die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. That translates to the propagation speed of the light with the place varies. The word “velocity” in the English translations was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”. This is crystal clear because Einstein referred to c which is the speed of light, and to "one of the two fundamental assumptions". That’s the special relativity postulate of the constant speed of light........."

I think others have satisfactorily made this point so consider this posting just another confirmation. The constancy of the speed of light is generally misunderstood by many. Of course we are really referring to speed as velocity since light can bend. But this is not the problem. The problem of understanding by many relates to the variation of time and the definition of speed. Speed and Velocity can be defined as the distance traveled per unit of time. For the speed of light, time is generally considered in seconds, or years for a distance (a light year). On Earth, for instance, time slows down (dilates) at the surface and progresses at a slightly faster pace as we leave the gravitational influence of the Earth, and even slightly faster again when leaving the gravitational influence of the sun, and I would expect even slightly faster again when leaving the gravitational influences of the galaxy, the local group, and local super supercluster Virgo. The point is that speed is a ratio of the distance traveled per unit of time. As time slows down just a little close to the Earth, the distance traveled is also slightly less. Higher up where the clocks run a little faster, the distance traveled is also a little greater per unit of time. So the speed of light relative to itself varies, but as a ratio, which it is, remains constant.

Let's give t (time) without gravitational influence a value of 1t, where the unit of time considered would be a constant of far less than 1 second. Under a more extreme condition such as near a black hole, time dilation might be .5t, for example. The distance traveled for t amount of time totally away from gravitational influences might be 1 mile, while the distance that light would travel moving tangent to a back hole at close range (as indicated in the .5t example) would accordingly travel .5 miles. Light would travel a lot faster away from the black hole (twice as fast in this case) but its speed would remain constant, meaning the distance traveled divided by the interval of time as measured at/within that location. Any particular reference frame would maintain a constant ratio.

 

[Farsight]

...As time slows down just a little close to the Earth, the distance traveled is also slightly less. Higher up where the clocks run a little faster, the distance traveled is also a little greater per unit of time. So the speed of light relative to itself varies, but as a ratio, which it is, remains constant...

I'm sorry Forrest, but that's not right. There isn't any "time slowing down". It's just things slowing down. Things like light. Let's say I can tap my magic wand and make light go half the speed it normally does. You define the second as the duration of 9192631770 periods of radiation coming at you. And since the light is going at half the speed the second is twice as big. Then you define the metre as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. The light is going half as fast and the second is twice as big. So the metre doesn't change.

Let's give t (time) without gravitational influence a value of 1t, where the unit of time considered would be a constant of far less than 1 second. Under a more extreme condition such as near a black hole, time dilation might be .5t, for example. The distance traveled for t amount of time totally away from gravitational influences might be 1 mile, while the distance that light would travel moving tangent to a back hole at close range (as indicated in the .5t example) would accordingly travel .5 miles.

Exactly. At location1 the light travelled a mile, at location2 it travelled half a mile. So the light is going slower at location2.

Light would travel a lot faster away from the black hole but its speed would remain constant

If its going a lot faster, its speed isn't constant. I'm sorry forrest, but it's that simple.

...meaning the distance traveled divided by the interval of time as measured at/within any particular reference frame would maintain a constant ratio.

It isn't quite that. When the light goes slower you go slower too. So you don't think it's going slower. Even though it is.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Let's say I can tap my magic wand and make light go half the speed it normally does.

Best physics I've ever seen.

 

[Grumpy]

Write4U

Moreover, in a moving frame there is no time difference between the straight vertical path (shortest way) and the diagonal straight or curved path (longer way). The photon always arrives at the same time between both mirrors, regardless of any other movement. Perhaps we can say that the photon (and a few other massless particles) are exempt from GR when speeds theoretically exceed :"c" .

That is just wrong. The coordinate speed changes, the speed of light through spacetime does not. The time a photon takes to travel between the mirrors goes up the more acceleration bends spacetime, giving you a slower coordinate speed, but that is because the photon must travel a further distance as the curvature increases. All curved paths are longer than a straight path between the same two end points of the paths. The higher the acceleration/gravity, the more the curvature, the more the difference between coordinate speed and c. There is a difference of arrival time of the photon and the expected, derived and fixed coordinate speed. And that difference is time dilation.

At the Event Horizon the coordinate speed is zero, but light still moves through spacetime at c. It is better to say that at the event horizon all possible vectors through spacetime for photons lead only toward or orbit the BH. All vectors that would lead outside are warped to only lead inward.

And the theoretical exceeding of lightspeed is an illusion caused by the personal time dilation of the traveler and is actually only derived, not observed even by the traveler(who always sees his own frame as unchanged), the speed of light is not exceeded anywhere in the Universe itself. The photon experiences no time at all, to it the instant of emission is the instant of absorption. This is part of why a massless photon can carry energy without gaining mass. And, no, the photon does not have a gravitational field. For all intents and purposes the photon is a hole that energy flows through, it has no time, and zero length in the direction of travel. In the photon's Universe the dimension of it's travel and it's time has a zero length between it's emitting particle and it's absorbing particle, wherever in the Universe those are. Yet they still travel through spacetime only at c.

Grumpy

 

[forrest noble]

Farsight,

"The light is going half as fast and the second is twice as big."

The light is going half as fast but the second is half as long (.5t). Time dilates meaning it progresses more slowly.

"Things slowing down" also means clocks tick at a slower rate. The motions within the clock function (dilate) according to the influences of gravity. It depends upon what definition of time you ascribe to since no single definition of time has a consensus following. My preferred definition of time is "an interval of change as measured by a clock." You can have a different definition, but if so I believe we would only be discussing semantics rather than your enlightening topic. As to my example above, the distance light would travel would be different in each case. Away from the black hole the distance traveled per time interval would measure to be 1 mile using the clock away from the black hole. Using the same clock (away from the black hole) the distance light would travel per unit of time when close to the black hole, would be measured as 1/2 mile. But we cannot use the same clock since speed is a ratio relative to the time frame light is traveling in. Using the clock near the black hole the light distance would be 1/2 mile. but the clock at that location would instead measure time passed as 1/2t. Even though light would travel twice as fast away from the black hole the distance that light would travel per unit of time at that location would remain constant. Both the rate of time and distance traveled would equally reduce or increase at the same rate maintaining a constant ratio between them. This also applies to time dilation caused by relative motion to the center of gravity at any particular location.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Farsight,

Forget him. He's an incorrigible troll.

"Things slowing down" means clocks tick at a slower rate.

When moved across the gradient.

The motions within the clock function under the influences of gravity or lack thereof.

There is no change in the local reference frame.

It depends upon what definition of time you ascribe to since no definitions of time have a consensus following.

The consensus is that time is relative.

My preferred definition of time is "an interval of change as measured by a clock."

That's the definition of an interval. The general definition is that time is relative.

You can have a different definition, but if so I believe we would only be discussing semantics rather than your enlightening topic.

But if we don't establish the nature of the phenomenon, that it's relative, we grossly misstate the nature of reality.

As to my example above, the distance light would travel would be different in each case.

There can be no change in length due to gravity except relative to an observation frame, and only because a second frame is created due to the actual traversal of an object of some kind across the gradient.

Away from the black hole the distance traveled per time interval would measure to be 1 mile using the clock away from the black hole. Using the same clock (away from the black hole) the distance light would travel per unit of time when close to the black hole would be measured as 1/2 mile. But we cannot use the same clock since speed is a ratio relative to the time frame light is traveling in.

None of that made sense to me. I have to go back and read what this refers to. If it's something Farsight wrote, I won't waste my time. But that last statement makes no sense. Light can not be "in" its own time frame. It's frame independent. It would be more correct to say light is "in" all reference frames at once.

Using the clock near the black hole the light distance would be 1/2 mile. but the clock at that location would instead measure time passed as 1/2t.

Just from the presentation (ignoring the background) that's incorrect, since t is a variable. In any case just state the Lorentz transformation and you will avoid stepping in landmines.

Even though light would travel twice as fast away from the black hole the distance that light would travel per unit of time would remain constant.

Light travels exactly c in all inertial frames. Ignore Farsight's pigheaded insistence that the coordinate speed of light is physical.

Both the rate of time and distance traveled would equally reduce or increase at the same rate maintaining a constant ratio between them.

You need to acknowledge that all measurements are relative. "Measurement" means the observation frame has split, producing the remote frame you are trying to describe. The split only occurs because an object (in this case a photon) has traversed the gradient, relative to the observer. When the new frame is created, it projects onto the observation plane, but warped by the Lorentz rotation. The relationship between time and space that are mapped onto the observation plane are complementary, in the manner of sin(x) to cos(x) [i.e. sinh(x) to cosh(x)]. Out of all of this all you get is that a remote observer can in some cases detect a curvature in what would otherwise be a straight ray of light. That, plus the fact that the rotation becomes so severe in close proximity to mass (another way of defining a black hole) that the projection vanishes to zero. Nothing else happens. Farsight is just blowing smoke up everybody's ass.

This also applies to time dilation as it relates to relative motion to the center of gravity at any particular location.

I think you don't realize that time and space are relative, that they are subject to warp only in the relative sense, and only when an actual measurement is made, that is, when there is actually a new reference frame created because the photon moved across the gradient. Keep in mind that the main thing photons are doing to us is projecting themselves onto our observation planes. That leaves plenty of opportunity for the discovery of the principles of relativity, but it also rules out the non-projective scenarios discussed here which do nothing. Nothing happens without the conditions in place which create the demand for the projection. In other words, there can be no warp at all with an actual relativistic setting--and that requires an observation frame. There is no such scenario in all these vast pages of garbage arguing over imagined relative scenarios. Relativity can't be imagined. It has to actually happen, or else no warp occurs. That is, without an observation, there is nothing to warp.

 

[paddoboy]

Farsight,

"The light is going half as fast and the second is twice as big."

The light is going half as fast but the second is half as long (.5t). Time dilates meaning it progresses more slowly.

"Things slowing down" also means clocks tick at a slower rate..

Hi forest....
Good luck. But I see it as a lost cause in trying to convince Farsight and undefined about the fact that the speed of light is constant.
You put it rather differently than I have but still basically the same thing.
I tend towards simplicity in these descriptions being a layman...Easier for people including myself to understand

My own description is simply that when light is in a gravitational well, [space/time curvature] due to that curvature it has a longer distance to travel then it would in a FoR where the curvature was less pronounced or non existent.
Essentially the photon/light always moves at "c"or is constant.
It is the non absolute state of space and time, that matter.

 

[brucep]

Forget him. He's an incorrigible troll.


When moved across the gradient.


There is no change in the local reference frame.


The consensus is that time is relative.


That's the definition of an interval. The general definition is that time is relative.


But if we don't establish the nature of the phenomenon, that it's relative, we grossly misstate the nature of reality.


There can be no change in length due to gravity except relative to an observation frame, and only because a second frame is created due to the actual traversal of an object of some kind across the gradient.


None of that made sense to me. I have to go back and read what this refers to. If it's something Farsight wrote, I won't waste my time. But that last statement makes no sense. Light can not be "in" its own time frame. It's frame independent. It would be more correct to say light is "in" all reference frames at once.


Just from the presentation (ignoring the background) that's incorrect, since t is a variable. In any case just state the Lorentz transformation and you will avoid stepping in landmines.


Light travels exactly c in all inertial frames. Ignore Farsight's pigheaded insistence that the coordinate speed of light is physical.


You need to acknowledge that all measurements are relative. "Measurement" means the observation frame has split, producing the remote frame you are trying to describe. The split only occurs because an object (in this case a photon) has traversed the gradient, relative to the observer. When the new frame is created, it projects onto the observation plane, but warped by the Lorentz rotation. The relationship between time and space that are mapped onto the observation plane are complementary, in the manner of sin(x) to cos(x) [i.e. sinh(x) to cosh(x)]. Out of all of this all you get is that a remote observer can in some cases detect a curvature in what would otherwise be a straight ray of light. That, plus the fact that the rotation becomes so severe in close proximity to mass (another way of defining a black hole) that the projection vanishes to zero. Nothing else happens. Farsight is just blowing smoke up everybody's ass.


I think you don't realize that time and space are relative, that they are subject to warp only in the relative sense, and only when an actual measurement is made, that is, when there is actually a new reference frame created because the photon moved across the gradient. Keep in mind that the main thing photons are doing to us is projecting themselves onto our observation planes. That leaves plenty of opportunity for the discovery of the principles of relativity, but it also rules out the non-projective scenarios discussed here which do nothing. Nothing happens without the conditions in place which create the demand for the projection. In other words, there can be no warp at all with an actual relativistic setting--and that requires an observation frame. There is no such scenario in all these vast pages of garbage arguing over imagined relative scenarios. Relativity can't be imagined. It has to actually happen, or else no warp occurs. That is, without an observation, there is nothing to warp.

Nice post Id. I enjoy your presentation and style.

 

[forrest noble]

Aqueous Id,

"...None of that made sense to me. I have to go back and read what this refers to. If it's something Farsight wrote, I won't waste my time. But that last statement makes no sense. Light can not be "in" its own time frame. It's frame independent. It would be more correct to say light is "in" all reference frames at once."

Regarding my postings #589 and #589. Yes, time is relative but that's not a complete definition. The crux/conclusions of my arguments are in my last sentences. The meaning here is that the light-distance (the distance light travels) and the unit of time being measured, must be at the same location as the light itself.

"....Light would travel a lot faster away from the black hole (twice as fast in this case) but its speed would remain constant meaning the distance traveled divided by the interval of time as measured at/within that location. Any particular reference frame would maintain a constant ratio."

and

"...Even though light would travel twice as fast away from the black hole the distance that light would travel per unit of time at that location would remain constant. Both the rate of time and distance traveled would equally reduce or increase at the same rate maintaining a constant ratio between them. This also applies to time dilation caused by relative motion to the center of gravity at any particular location."

 

[forrest noble]

Hi forest....
Good luck. But I see it as a lost cause in trying to convince Farsight and undefined about the fact that the speed of light is constant.
You put it rather differently than I have but still basically the same thing.
I tend towards simplicity in these descriptions being a layman...Easier for people including myself to understand

My own description is simply that when light is in a gravitational well, [space/time curvature] due to that curvature it has a longer distance to travel then it would in a FoR where the curvature was less pronounced or non existent.
Essentially the photon/light always moves at "c"or is constant.
It is the non absolute state of space and time, that matter.

I always strive for simplicity too, trying to avoid wording that some would not understand. I think this is a great goal for posting. Even though the meanings of what is being said may be the same, explanations are usually written according to ones perspective, which I think is often unique for many people

 

[Aqueous Id]

H

My own description is simply that when light is in a gravitational well, [space/time curvature] due to that curvature it has a longer distance to travel then it would in a FoR where the curvature was less pronounced or non existent.

That's the way you most commonly see it explained without elaborating using math, which does no good--since the people here who are proposing their ideas don't have any math skills, as you know, much less the advanced skills needed to speak to the math of GR with fluency. In any case, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the central failure of all of these cranks is that none of them understand what we mean by reference frames, which makes their beliefs about relativity exceedingly moronic. For example, I recall you mentioned something about a beach in your part of the world. I know nothing of this beach; I've never been there. So imagine how you would react if suddenly I started imposing my imagined ideas of what that beach was like which you know to be false since you've been there and you know my statements to be false, and worse, you know I've never been there. This is exactly what I mean by "moronic". It would be exceedingly stupid for me to keep posting such claims to you.

I see that a lot of good science is being presented by the pro-science folks, so the nuts are serving as a stimulus in the manner of devil's advocates.

 

[brucep]

That's the way you most commonly see it explained without elaborating using math, which does no good--since the people here who are proposing their ideas don't have any math skills, as you know, much less the advanced skills needed to speak to the math of GR with fluency. In any case, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the central failure of all of these cranks is that none of them understand what we mean by reference frames, which makes their beliefs about relativity exceedingly moronic. For example, I recall you mentioned something about a beach in your part of the world. I know nothing of this beach; I've never been there. So imagine how you would react if suddenly I started imposing my imagined ideas of what that beach was like which you know to be false since you've been there and you know my statements to be false, and worse, you know I've never been there. This is exactly what I mean by "moronic". It would be exceedingly stupid for me to keep posting such claims to you.

I see that a lot of good science is being presented by the pro-science folks, so the nuts are serving as a stimulus in the manner of devil's advocates.

Hard to believe everybody isn't pro science. The other path is like cutting off your nose because you don't like your face. The only drawback is the science being presented is the same thing over and over when cranks are ruling the roost.