How do you figure. Frequency coming up a gravity well will "beat slower" or turn more red.
So, frequency clocks in less gravity will beat slower. This has nothing to do with the change in light speed.
GPS proves this frequency change.
The Speed of Light is Not Constant
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
How do you figure. Frequency coming up a gravity well will "beat slower" or turn more red.
So, frequency clocks in less gravity will beat slower. This has nothing to do with the change in light speed.
GPS proves this frequency change.
Oh great. chinglu & Farsight square off in Troll v Troll. So much for a nonsense-free weekend.
:roflmao:
Don't even bother. No matter what you post, it only gets worse.
---
Quote Originally Posted by Farsight: They aren't remote coordinates in the room you're in.
:roflmao:
We need to start a Physics Comedy Club. But really: you guys with the advanced degrees, be sure to PM me and tell me what I screwed up before you give me the ice bucket. This could get really embarrassing.
This just in:
Coming to Ken Ham's Fred Flintstone museum thisfall spring. Whatever. I mean whenever. Or wherever. No wait Ham is an Aussie but the FFM is in Kentucky. So OK, coming this fall. Unless of course you're South of the Equator. Oh never mind. Just stay tuned for more episodes of Chinglu & Farsight in Troll v Troll.
Man you really are confused.
:roflmao:
How many times do you have to be told that c is constant in all reference frames before you stop asking to be told again?
Really? So your mobile device finds your position by reading the Doppler shift on satellites? Must be the Fuzzbuster model.
Don't even bother. No matter what you post, it only gets worse.
---
Quote Originally Posted by Farsight: They aren't remote coordinates in the room you're in.
:roflmao:
We need to start a Physics Comedy Club. But really: you guys with the advanced degrees, be sure to PM me and tell me what I screwed up before you give me the ice bucket. This could get really embarrassing.
This just in:
Red shifted frequency clock slows down climbing out of gravity well, disproving coordinate speed of time argument against the constancy of c.
:roflmao:
Coming to Ken Ham's Fred Flintstone museum this
I would not call something a lie unless one has good reason to believe that its teller knows that that statement is false. One need not be a liar to repeatedly state something demonstrably false, no matter how many times the statement's demonstrable falsehood is pointed out.
As to chinglu vs. Farsight, I'd like to see danshawen vs. Farsight. They have two very different theories of space and time, theories very different from the mainstream one.
@lpetrich
sorry to interrupt but... that doesn't make sense...
if
is greater than 1... then it is proven, especially if the one proving said comment false is using empirical evidence or the comment is supported by empirical data proving that said statement/inference/topic is not factual.
So that logic is slightly off..
when someone has been told and shown that something is wrong by using empirical evidence, and that person continues to publish a known fallacy, then at this point, per the definition of LIE (A lie is an intentionally false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth) or LIAR (a person who tells lies )
that person can be said with all veracity to be lying, telling a lie or that he/she is a liar.
it can only be subjective when the person is bringing up the subject for the FIRST time... then the person might not know that something is a lie. Thus the person is not telling a "lie" so much as passing on unsubstantiated information, or passing on information that is not proven, and then said person should be notified that said information is not valid, and given the proof supporting the conclusion.
any time after being proven something is fallacious, the person/subject/item can be labeled a liar/a lie/lying etc.
so one definitely IS a liar to repeatedly state something that is demonstrably false, especially when that falsehood is pointed out and it is reminded to the individual... the only OTHER conclusion would be delusional, or perhaps worse. (as those who do not necessarily have a firm grip on reality have a different reality than ours, and they can honestly say that their reality is NOT like ours)
I'm not, I'm referring to what he said. See the various quotes in the OP. It's guys like lpetrich who are denying what Einstein said as "Yet more book-thumping".
Not so. Einstein got a lot right, but not everything. His cosmology wasn't good.
I know enough math. Really.
With respect przyk, you're clutching at straws. Remember the NIST optical clocks lose synchronisation when one is a mere 30cm above the other. Something a foot away is not a "remote location". You're falling into the same trap as rpenner. You end up being hoist by your own petard wherein you're reduced to saying any non-infinitesimal region is not local. So you can't even measure the local speed of light.przyk said:
See above. It isn't remote, in any sense.lpetrich said:
The curvature is associated with the tidal force, the second derivative of potential. The force of gravity and the "coordinate" speed of light is associated with the first derivative of potential. The "local slope" as it were. So I'm afraid your calculation is misguided.lpetrich said:
Try doing your calculation for a Shapiro-like delay between two stars that are very close to one another. The light beam goes straight. It doesn't curve. What you think of as a timelike segment is merely the light going slower where gravitational potential is lower. This variation in the speed of light results in curvature, not the other way around.lpetrich said:
Nevertheless it's quite obvious that I walk slower than you drive your car. Just as it's obvious from the gif that light goes slower when its lower, like Einstein said.lpetrich said:
Image credit: Brian McPherson
I did. That's why he did a runner. I followed him to his own forum to offer to continue the conversation, and he deleted my posts. Presumably out of pique.
The frequency doesn't change, nor does the photon energy. We talk about red-shift and blue-shift but conservation of E=hf energy applies. If you direct a 511keV photon into a black hole its mass increases by 511keV/c², not by some other amount. What actually happens is that it takes work to lift a person up. If I lift you up I add energy to you. The gravitational time dilation affecting you and your clocks is then reduced, so your clock ticks faster. So you measure the selfsame frequency as a lower frequency.
When a mechanical clock goes slower its because the cogs go slower. When a quartz wristwatch goes slower it's because the crystal is vibrating slower. When a NIST optical clock is going slower it's because light is going slower. The gif above is an idealisation of that using the parallel-mirror light-clocks that we're familiar with in relativity.
The ascending photon doesn't change. Your measurement of its frequency changes. It's like when you move fast towards a photon in gravity-free space. It doesn't change, but your measurement does because you changed.Chinglu said:
Only I'm the guy quoting Einstein, which you dismiss as book-thumping.lpetrich said:
Yes. Remember all those times you brought it up and it failed to impress anyone? Now you know why.
Yes it is.
I am saying precisely that. So is rpenner. So would any physicist. Any finite nonzero distance would count as nonlocal as far as physics and physical interactions are concerned.
You can make a good approximate measurement of the local speed of light if the size of your experiment isn't too large and the gravitational field isn't too strong. I've actually [POST=3165554]mentioned this before[/POST].
This shouldn't surprise you given it's the same with any speed or velocity in physics anyway. The instantaneous velocity of an object is defined by the limit $$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{\bar{x}(t + \Delta t) \,-\, \bar{x}(t)}{\Delta t}$$. Usually that's something we can only measure approximately.
Only to measure the speed of light, light has to move a finite nonzero distance. So your "local" speed of light is nonlocal. Like I said, you're hoist by your own petard.przyk said:
You said the speed of light is an invariant under inertial or locally inertial conditions. But you've also said any finite nonzero distance would count as nonlocal. So your argument falls down. What you're trying to say a 30cm distance isn't local when its vertical, but a 30m distance is local when it's horizontal. It just doesn't work przyk. You're digging yourself into a contradiction to try to avoid what Einstein said: a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. That's it. It's that simple. Face up to it.przyk said:
How does one tell which of Einstein's statements are revealed truth, and which ones aren't?
Enough to follow the math that Einstein had done?
Demonstrably false. The angle the light makes as it goes around is more than 180d. If it goes close enough, it can become 360d or more.
Martin Gardner, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, listed some crackpottery criteria:
- He considers himself a genius.
- He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.
- He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.
- He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established
theories. ... This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs. - He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms
and phrases he himself has coined.
But if you wanted to get good numbers, you'd have to do what I'd described.
Pure book-thumping. Thump, thump, thump, thump, thump.
Demonstrably false. Gravitational redshift has been observed.
Because that's what it is. Farsight, don't you have any better arguments than to act like some scriptural percussionist?
No, what it means is that you are not making a local measurement of the speed of light when you track it over a finite distance. You are making an approximate measurement of the local speed of light.
This shouldn't surprise you. Approximation is a fact of life in physics.
Yes, with the local speed of light defined in the limit $$\Delta x \to 0$$ and $$\Delta t \to 0$$ in locally inertial coordinates.
You say you took A level math right? Weren't some calculus and basic notions of limits part of that education? Have you seriously not noticed the sheer amount of calculus that goes into the formulation of GR? Just about everything in GR is formulated and defined in the limit of zero distance and time.
No, what I am saying is that 30cm is nonlocal, period. 30 microns is nonlocal. You could get a better measurement of the speed of light horizontally than vertically because the gravitational field doesn't have so much of an effect horizontally. But 30cm horizontal is just as nonlocal as 30cm vertical.
I think neither Farsight's or chinglu's personal epistemologies are compatible with other parties proving them wrong, so it is hilarious to see your assertions paraded as a "proof."
The decision to interpret my dismissing your repetitive posts as irrelevant as escaping from some sort of problem must be personally gratifying to you. It's not clear how making your critics flee is a goal of scholarship, but I have never assumed that was a motivating factor in your life. Nevertheless, it's silly to (repetitively) declare that your enemies have fled (from where? this thread? this forum? the Internet? the realm of human discourse?) when the analogy with control of territory is so inexact and the goal of walling out others so inapposite to the practice of science. In contrast with the personal values expressed in your post, we who understand General and Special Relativity have been inviting Farsight and chinglu to join us by first setting aside their misconceptions.
Minor corrections: It looked more like stalking than any sort of "offer" and so I continue to delete your posts.
"Pique" implies I had no rational basis for doing so, this directed response at the time of deletion explains my basis and so "exasperation" might be a more correct word choice. In that post, I offered Farsight a plan to make the best use of his 168 hours of enforced inability to post the same tired old quotes.
What Farsight said about rpenners action at physforum is a lie. Farsight was stalking and trolling folks like me at physforum. He was showing his ass after being banned from this site. As we should all know by now rpenner doesn't do the type of crap Farsight accused him of.
BTW I love it when rpenner invites the cranks to learn some physics. You know he would help in any way possible. Anybody ever take him up on it? Probably not since cranks are more interested in their ignorance than scholarship.
Here is your opportunity to prove it.
Please, show us this calculation and walk us through it. This is yet again the perfect opportunity for you to show us how your theory matches observations.
Or we can again see that you lie about your ability to do physics.
brucep said:
Further attesting to that, bruce, is the fact that rpenner isn't even capable of misunderstanding first principles whereas Farsight entirely depends on fraud and fallacy erected out of confusion over and misunderstanding of those first principles. Once we have established (as if there was ever a doubt, and of course there isn't) that rpenner is vindicated, and Farsight is put on probation with community service obligations (i.e. everyone is waiting for him to make even one honest post illustrating that he is even capable of learning, knowing full well this will never happen) then the onus is entirely on him, and the assumption of his guilt carries forward just like someone with a criminal record (really this is the virtual world equivalent of criminal behavior) whereas rpenner is not only presumed innocent, but has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional prowess far beyond that of a mere "expert witness".
Even this particular attack on rpenner (blame-shifting, another marker from the psychopathy checklist) is a continuation of Farsight's bizarre fascination with standing in the limelight (even though it's only the floodlamp used at book-in). Narcissism of this sort ("I have a theory" / "The science is flawed" / "The minions of science are merely following the mainstream like sheep") also equated with delusions of grandeur, are the quintessential markers for this disorder. No wonder that lpetrich just brought this up a few posts above. And I know you remember the excellent post by JamesR (I lost the link) listing the telltale signs of pseudoscience which also does a great analysis of the syndrome.
All of this, just to keep alive in the threads the incurable disease of one man who simply is incapable of learning. Ironically he serves as the worst possible kind of devil's advocate, which keeps pushing folks into posting all kinds of esoterica and factoids -- of which rpenner, who he alleges is tainted, famously works up like lecture notes from graduate classes in math and science. Not to mention all the brilliant commentary of social and political import that comports with the scholarly mind! What has Farsight ever posted that had even one iota of value? When has he ever posted anything that was corroborated by an educated person? It's possible that it happened, but if it did, it probably had nothing to do with math or science. I mean: what is the most profound thing he ever posted? Hell, I bet any reasonably educated person posting here could start an interesting and informative thread in any of hundreds of topics. Farsight can't even get out of the first unit of the first chapter in physics dealing with inertial reference frames. And when have we ever seen an educated person trump any material fact rpenner posted? Never. But of course blame-shifting is the signature of the psychopath. After giving him a fair run for his money, and reading his game plan, I just put him on ignore, only noticing it almost doesn't matter because I see the quote balloons by the dozens of good posters who are forever correcting him. By contrast I've followed rpenner's postings on other sites, just as a matter pure enjoyment. I mean, that's as good as it gets. So naturally Farsight has to attack him. It's all part of that psychopathy that floats his boat. The really hilarious part is that rpenner's post above just smashes on Farsight beyond repair. And without even a single formula or technical fact. Essentially he just reminds us how deeply Farsight has dug his own hole, all with classic rpennerisms that are so fun to read.
But really, Farsight's ridiculousness has evolved into stuff so shockingly stupid that it's actually getting really hilarious. I like this latest gem, that the criterion for local vs remote reference frames is that you have to be in the same room! Har har har! That was such an unexpected blooper that I did the cappuccino through the nose and all over the screen thing. And a followup to that punch line was his insistence that the two Al-Ion clocks at NIST are in the same room but in different frames! Har har har! This is like the candy that tastes good and lasts a long time. I've been chuckling about it for over a day now. I mean really: he truly finally upstaged us all!
In the same room!! That's as good as it gets!
:roflmao:
The infinitesimal local gravitational field doesn't have any effect on a local measurement of the speed of light. Tangent to every point on the riemann manifold the spacetime is flat. Same as at boundary. Flat. That's why we can use a metric that was derived from the geometry of flat spacetime for doing the local physics. GR predicts the local spacetime curvature can be an infinitesimal over large areas [of the tangent space]. This is why we can measure the local speed of light in a laboratory setting such as CERN and not quibble over whether it's a constant or variable [Mawell already confirmed it's a constant]. If we use your criteria for nonlocal we don't get to do this physics in a practical way. [nonlocal is mathematically correct. But, as you said, Newton and Leibnitz discovered the calculus so we can model the distance over a set of points on the manifold as having physical extent]. For example measuring the local speed of a neutrino at CERN. We don't have to call these measurements an approximation. Even though they screwed up they never intended to call the comparison between the neutrino path and the local path of light a comparison of approximations.
Last edited:
You compare them with the evidence. And the evidence is that an optical clock goes slower when its lower. Then when you open up that clock, you see that there isn't any time flowing through it.
Yes. The maths of special relativity in particular is pretty trivial.
You totally misunderstood. You have two stars close to one another. You shine a light beam through the gap between them. That light beam doesn't veer towards either star, it goes straight as an arrow.
Looks like I'm seeing book-thumping. Talk physics, lpetrich.
It's not false. Conservation of energy applies. There is no magical mysterious mechanism via which a photon loses energy as it ascends, or gains energy as it descends. When you direct a 511keV photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511kev/c². Or are you saying it increases by a greater amount. Or an infinite amount?
I give the argument, supported by the references and the evidence, as per the OP. All you do is dismiss it.
Only we define the metre as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458th of a second. And it isn't approximate. And nor is something 1m away remote, just as something 30cm isn't remote.
You are reduced to saying local means a region of zero extent. No region. It's absurd.
That's not the issue. The issue is a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. Einstein said it, Don Koks says it, Joao Magueijo and John Moffat says it, I say it, and more importantly the evidence says it. And to evade all that, you've put yourself in a reductio ad absurdum situation.
What you're saying is nothing is local. So the local speed of light is meaningless.
You painted yourself into a corner and hoist yourself with your own petard, then ran away, and you refused to discuss the matter further on your own forum, deleting my posts.
You just can't bear to be corrected or shown to be wrong, so you indulge in censorship. Now stop carping, and talk physics. You can attempt to salvage your reputation by reading the OP and commenting upon it. It's quite clear that you haven't done that.