The Speed of Light is Not Constant

OK, so let's watch as Farsight again tries to blatantly lie to all of you:

All: PhysBang said this on another forum:

"In a sense, this was done in 1905, when Einstein developed special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light is a postulate of the theory, so it is "shown" through the effectiveness and practicality of the theory. The same is true for general relativity, developed in 1915, which holds that the speed of light is constant at any infinitesimal region of a coordinate system".

Note that the speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region. That means it isn't constant in the room you're in.


Note that Farsight is here trying to get you to ignore the words "coordinate system".
No way. I just want them to read what you said. The "coordinate system" isn't relevant, the "infinitesimal region" is. A region is just some place in space. And what you've admitted, is that the speed of light is only constant if you're measuring it in a region of infinitesimal spatial extent. A region the size of a point. So it isn't constant in the room you're in, now is it?

just like he wants you to not actually read the Baez article, but rather take his out-of-context word for it that Baez is endorsing the Farsight-Relativity claim that the speed of light in infinitesimal regions is slower.
How stupid do you think these guys are? I'm the one who's been linking to the Baez article. Here's the excerpt again:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers".
 
This is a pathetic level of discourse for purported physics discussion. Einstein is dead. The end-all of Special Relativity was not Einstein's 1905 paper; that was the beginning with contributions by Minkowski, Poincaré, Weinberg and others contributed to how modern physics understands special relativity. Likewise, the development of General Relativity continued after Einstein's death -- so relying on Farsight's self-serving textual interpretations is sharing a quaint and backwards-looking priestly authority, but it is not physics.
It is physics. What isn't physics is claiming the speed of light is absolutely constant contrary to Einstein and the evidence.

Farsight has made hay on the point that because space-time is curved, the coordinate speed of light is not constant
You've got it utterly wrong. Spacetime isn't space, it's an abstract mathematical model which is utterly static. The speed of light is not constant therefore your plot, your metric, is curved.

So while the local coordinate speed of light may vary from position to position and may even be anisotropic, since the metric is the connection between coordinates and physics, it does not follow that the local physical speed of light is not constant or anisotropic. And all physics is local.
Only for the physical speed of light to be constant, your local region has to be infinitesimal. A region of no extent. No region at all.

rpenner said:
So confusing a non-local coordinate speed of light with a local physical speed of light in curved space-time is a form of anti-scientific equivocation -- the confusion of two definition of a word of phrase.
No! That's what you've done. Now go and read the OP, and understand it.

rpenner said:
This isn't easy stuff -- Einstein himself struggled with these concepts for 2 years. But eventually he adopted the principle of general covariance and built it into general relativity.
Garbage. It's very easy stuff. The speed of light varies with position. Einstein said it, and those NIST optical clocks prove it.
 
it appears speed and velocity are being used as the same entity by the poster here(#741 and 742).

my favorite misconception here is this incorrect personal opinion,
" [Einstein means speed here] ".
no. einstein means exactly what words he chose to use.
simple.
and this quote shows exactly that einstein clearly stating that speed does not change , it's path changes.

there's an obvious attempt here to manipulate what is stated by einstein.

correlate path and position.
simple.
 
it appears speed and velocity are being used as the same entity by the poster here(#741 and 742).

my favorite misconception here is this incorrect personal opinion,
" [Einstein means speed here] ".
no. einstein means exactly what words he chose to use.
simple.
and this quote shows exactly that einstein clearly stating that speed does not change , it's path changes.

there's an obvious attempt here to manipulate what is stated by einstein.

correlate path and position.
simple.

Oh, look… the M A C H I N E understands relativity I'm I M P R E S S E D.

Parse that.
 
Oh, look… the M A C H I N E understands relativity I'm I M P R E S S E D.

Parse that.

pathetically amusing.
(shakes head)

what ever.

this is far advance for you.
just continue to sit in the back ground,
and play with your legos.
 
it appears speed and velocity are being used as the same entity by the poster here(#741 and 742).

my favorite misconception here is this incorrect personal opinion,
" [Einstein means speed here] ".
no. einstein means exactly what words he chose to use.
simple.
and this quote shows exactly that einstein clearly stating that speed does not change , it's path changes.

there's an obvious attempt here to manipulate what is stated by einstein.

correlate path and position.
simple.

:)
The poster in question is known for his misinterpretation, and personal opinions.
Another of our ToE claimants. :)
The speed of light is constant.
 
No way. I just want them to read what you said.
Yes, and then you selectively quoted what I said in order to imply to others something other than what I clearly meant. That is a form of lying; yet more evidence that you are a liar. So in addition to being a baby who refuses to answer adult questions about your theories of physics, you childishly lie about others.

The "coordinate system" isn't relevant,
Since GR is all about coordinate systems, people who study GR should think that it matters.
the "infinitesimal region" is. A region is just some place in space. And what you've admitted, is that the speed of light is only constant if you're measuring it in a region of infinitesimal spatial extent. A region the size of a point. So it isn't constant in the room you're in, now is it?
That depends what one means by "constant". I know what GR says, but so far I have little idea about what Farsight-Relativity says, because you either lack the ability to describe a simple physics scenario or you childishly refuse.
How stupid do you think these guys are? I'm the one who's been linking to the Baez article.
I'm sure some people here are stupid. You are certainly wily enough to lie, but you lack the ability or the will to learn physics.
Here's the excerpt again:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers".
What you are lying to your readers about is that the article points out that changes in light speed are coordinate dependent, coordinates influence by the effect of mass-energy on spacetime. You, on the other hand, assume that the change in light speed is primary (and hence takes place at an infinitesimal scale). So you are relying on a source that violently disagrees with your position and hoping that people do not read your source too closely.

As it stands, you can hope that lies will convince people, or you can do the work and show us how Farsight-Relativity describes even one physical scenario.
 
Yes, and then you selectively quoted what I said
You're kidding yourself PhysBang. You said what you said, there's no getting out of it. Here, let me give you the full post #2 from the other forum:

"That's a loaded question.

In a sense, this was done in 1905, when Einstein developed special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light is a postulate of the theory, so it is "shown" through the effectiveness and practicality of the theory. The same is true for general relativity, developed in 1915, which holds that the speed of light is constant at any infinitesimal region of a coordinate system.

If you want to look to experimental support for the claim, you have to look at the tests of relativity theory.

The most direct demonstration is the Michelson-Morley type tests (first done in 1887), where one cannot find significant difference in the speed of light relative to different relative motions. However, there are different ways to account for this, just so far none that do as well as special relativity. So this experiment to is an indirect means of demonstrating the claim".


The speed of light is only constant in an infinitesimal region "of a coordinate system", so it isn't constant in the room you're in. And just like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light varies with position.

PhysBang said:
...That is a form of lying; yet more evidence that you are a liar.
Au contraire, the evidence is there for all to see. You're a liar. And you've been caught out.
 
That's kid's stuff. It's popscience misinformation, and it's wrong. Einstein wasn't wrong, nor is the hard scientific evidence of optical clocks. And nor, for a change, was PhysBang.

PhysBang: that's what you call hoist by your own petard.
 
SR and Einstein show the validity of the assumption of the speed of light being constant.
This applies in all Inertial frames.

Einstein showed that SR was a logical, consistent framework that aligned with reality for all non relativistic speeds. . SR also confirmed many other effects including the lifetime of particles.

Your continued misinterpretation of Einstein, and the taking out of context of what he said and proposed, would have the great man turning in his grave.
 
No, he'd be turning in his grave at the way general relativity has been traduced. He said what he said about the speed of light varying with position, and he isn't the only one who says it. See what PhysBang said, see the OP, and see the Baez website:

"Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed. As a result, it's often said in relativity that light always has speed c, because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed—— which will then be c. When light is far away, its speed becomes ill-defined. But it's not a great idea to say that in this situation "light everywhere has speed c", because that phrase can give the impression that we can always make measurements of distant speeds, with those measurements yielding a value of c. But no, we generally can't make those measurements. And the stronger gravity is, the more ill-defined a continuum of observers becomes, and so the more ill-defined it becomes to have any good definition of speed. Still, we can say that light in the presence of gravity does have a position-dependent "pseudo speed". In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" speed of light.

Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers".
 
____________________________________
In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" speed of light.
________________________________________________________


If this ceiling and floor of this room were in a vacuum, and I was on the ceiling, and you were on the floor, we would both measure the speed of light in our own frames to be, guess what? "c" :)
Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys!
 
I measure it to be 299,792,458 m/s, and so do you. But your seconds aren't the same as mine. So your 299,792,458 m/s isn't the same as mine.

We both measure it to be c because we use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre. Which we then use to measure the motion of light.

Duh.
 
Farsight said:
I measure it to be 299,792,458 m/s, and so do you. But your seconds aren't the same as mine. So your 299,792,458 m/s isn't the same as mine.
We both measure it to be c because we use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre. Which we then use to measure the motion of light.
Duh.
______________________________________


Wrong. My seconds are one second long, just as your seconds are one second long.
You appear to be chasing your tail.

Duh!
 
This definition only makes sense because the speed of light in vacuum is measured to have the same value by all observers; a fact which is subject to experimental verification
from....
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

In any case, there is good observational evidence to indicate that those parameters have not changed over most of the lifetime of the universe.

It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. This can be broken down into two parts:

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
 
WRITE4Uposted:
I,m not sure if this is pertinent, but it sure is interesting and may allow for some new visions. It seems to confirm that the wavefunction is not always at "c".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nByekIx7XXw
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Yep, I have seen that before, and I also recall some sort of explanatory explanation that was revealed?
I'll see what more I can find, if I can overcome the extreme difficulty I'm experiencing at this time with posting.
My "reply with quote"and my ëdit post"aint operating at all.
 
Farsight said:
I measure it to be 299,792,458 m/s, and so do you. But your seconds aren't the same as mine. So your 299,792,458 m/s isn't the same as mine.

We both measure it to be c because we use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre. Which we then use to measure the motion of light.

Farsight, according to what I was taught and learned of Einstein's theory, I have to agree with your Post #754.

However, some SciForum Members possibly do not completely understand or simply misinterpret Einstein's theory.
The "Internet" or SciForums is not the proper "classroom" for teaching nor learning Einstein's theory.

Since some 'reputable sources' are evidently needed, I supply the following in hopes that it will help to alleviate any possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Einstein's theory by any SciForum Members or Readers of this Thread.

popularmechanics said:
Relativity Still Holds Up: 5 Recent Tests That Prove Einstein Right
Nearly a hundred years after it was first published, Einstein's theory of relativity has held up to rigorous scientific testing. And the tests keep coming. Here are five recent tests of theory. Yes, it still holds up.

Time Dilation

The latest test of Einstein's theory of relativity, published in September 2010 in Science, looks specifically at time dilation, a piece of the theory that predicts that two identical clocks resting at different heights or moving at different speeds will tick at different rates. Time dilation is most commonly thought of in terms of the twin paradox: If one twin goes asteroid-hopping on a rocket moving at extremely high speeds, he'll have aged less than his earthbound sibling when he gets home. Now, however, physicist Chin-Wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have shown that time dilation can be observed even without a far-flung, fast-moving trip.

How It Was Tested
Using super-sensitive optical clocks, they measured changes in the clocks' tick rates at speeds of less than 25 miles per hour and at differences in altitude of about a foot. The optical clocks, each powered by a single aluminum ion, are nearly 40 times as accurate as the international-standard cesium-powered atomic clocks, giving researchers the ability to look at minute differences in tick rates. Sitting still at the same height, the clocks had the same tick rate. To move one clock, the researchers simply started one of the ions oscillating at a speed of their choosing. "It can be as slow as you sitting on a swing, swinging back and forth, or as fast as a bullet train," Chou says. When he set the ion moving at 10 meters per second (a little under 25 miles per hour), Chou found that that clock ticked at a measurably slower rate than the stationary clock. The same thing happened when the clocks were at slightly different heights. When Chou and his team used hydraulic jacks to lift one clock just over a foot, the lower clock's tick rate was ever-so-slightly lower than that of the higher clock. Because optical clocks allowed them to measure carefully enough, the researchers could see that Einstein's predictions played out even in everyday circumstances like the height of a footstool and the speed of a car on a residential street.
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/deep/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right

The Pop Mech's excerpt referenced this September 2010 "Science" publication : Optical Clocks and Relativity by C. W. Chou*, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland :
C. W. Chou* said:
ABSTRACT
Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics.
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630.abstract

I only present this as "assistance" for any Members or Readers that would aspire to further learned knowledge of the full aspects of understanding and interpretation of Einstein's theory.
 
Back
Top