The Speed of Light is Not Constant

This includes most of the volume of our solar system, where variation from Newton's predictions are so insignificant that NASA still relies largely on Newton's field equation and historical data. IOW it is easier to get to Mars and other distant locations using Newton's understanding of gravity with in flight corrections as needed than to even attempt to plot a course to the same locations using Einstein's field equations. There are just too many variables involved for the later to be practical.
If you are talking about a full-scale GR solution, you are correct. But one can expand the GR equations of motion as a series with small parameter 1/c[sup]2[/sup] starting with the Newtonian equations. The first order of that parameter is called post-Newtonian, and the next order, post-post-Newtonian, etc. One can estimate how large GR effects will be by calculating (v/c)[sup]2[/sup] and GM/rc[sup]2[/sup]. For the Earth's orbit, they are 10[sup]-8[/sup], and for Mercury's orbit, 6.7 times greater. One is able to see post-Newtonian effects in the Solar System but not post-post-Newtonian ones.

One thus handles GR in the Solar System by including post-Newtonian terms in the objects' equations of motion.

JPL has this ephemeris software, software for calculating planets' HORIZONS User Manual Its Statement of Ephemeris Limitations states
Solar relativistic effects are included in all planet, lunar and small body dynamics, excluding satellites. Relativity is included in observables via 2nd order terms in stellar aberration and the deflection of light due to gravity fields of the Sun (and Earth, for topocentric observers).

Deflections due to other gravity fields can potentially have an effect at the 10^-4 arcsec level but are not currently included here. Satellites of other planets, such as Jupiter could experience deflections at the 10^-3 arcsec level as well. Light time iterations are Newtonian. This affects light-time convergence at the millisecond level, position at ~10^-6 arcsec level.
So JPL uses GR, likely post-Newtonian terms only.
 
I will now do the math that I had challenged Farsight to do in post #855. He responded in post #860 and I responded to him in post #866.

Here goes.

*** Show that the distance invariant
S = x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] + z[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t[sup]2[/sup]
is rotation-invariant, Lorentz-invariant, and reflection-invariant in space coordinates x,y,z and time coordinate t. All you need to do for rotation and Lorentz boosts is to do them in two dimensions each: two space dimensions, and one space dimension and time.

Rotation: x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a), y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
S = x'[sup]2[/sup] + y'[sup]2[/sup] = (x*cos(a) - y*sin(a))[sup]2[/sup] + (x*sin(a) + y*cos(a))[sup]2[/sup] = x[sup]2[/sup]*(cos(a)[sup]2[/sup] + sin(a)[sup]2[/sup]) + x*y*(- 2*cos(a)*sin(a) + 2*cos(a)*sin(a)) + y[sup]2[/sup]*(sin(a)[sup]2[/sup] + cos(a)[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup]

Boost: x' = γ*(x - v*t), t' = γ*(t + v*x/c[sup]2[/sup]), γ = (1 + v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]
S = x'[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t'[sup]2[/sup] = γ[sup]2[/sup]*(x + v*t) - c[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(t + v*x/c[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup]) + x*y*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(2v - 2v) + y[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(v[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t[sup]2[/sup]

*** Show why Lorentz boosts are sometimes called hyperbolic rotations. You will have to do some analytic continuation here and there, multiplying some variables by i = sqrt(-1).

Rotation:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos a & -\sin a \\ \sin a & \cos a \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} $$

Boost:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ t' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma v \\ \gamma v/c^2 & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ t \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Set v = c*β
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ t' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma c\beta \\ \gamma \beta/c & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ t \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \beta^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Move the c's around:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ct' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma\beta \\ \gamma \beta & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ct \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \beta^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Set β = tanh(u) -- a hyperbolic function, a relative of the trigonometric functions. u is the "rapidity".
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ct' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh u & \sinh u \\ \sinh u & \cosh u \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ct \end{pmatrix} $$

Set a = i*u and y = i*c*t in the rotation expression:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ict' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh u & -i\sinh u \\ i\sinh u & \cosh u \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ict \end{pmatrix} $$

The last two equations are equivalent.
 
I checked Charles Misner's, Kip Thorne's and John Archibald Wheeler's 1973 book Gravitation, Steven Weinberg's 1971 book Gravitation and Cosmology, and Wikipedia's article on general relativity, and they all state that space-time is curved.
And Baez says it too, Along with space alone being curved. And this in a section telling the difference between just space and space-time.
Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a `force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. If you toss a ball, it follows a parabolic path. This is far from being a geodesic in space: space is curved by the Earth's gravitational field, but it is certainly not so curved as all that!
My bold.
From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html
-------------------------
"Matter tells space how to curve” We all know that means,the mass,energy, momentum and pressure in an area determines whether you use Euclidean geometry or not in that selected area. And geometry is about points, lines, curves and surfaces. Even Einstein says the spatial geometrical properties of space are determined by matter... Einstein, ‘Relativity’ page 115 here…For matter read, mass,energy, momentum and pressure. Found Here
According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter.
So, why does mass,energy, momentum and co alter space and time, did Einstein say???
 
Last edited:
*** Show that the relativistic momentum p and the relativistic energy E satisfy the differential relation dE = v.dp, derived from the work expression dE/dt = F.v.

The relativistic momentum p = m*v*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup] = m*u*c. This makes velocity v = u*c*(1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

The integral of v dp = integral of m*c*v du = integral of m*c[sup]2[/sup] u du * (1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

This is an easy integral to do, and it gives E = m*c[sup]2[/sup]*u0 + E0 where E0 is a constant of integration and u0 = (1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]1/2[/sup] = (1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

This agrees with relativistic energy E = m*c[sup]2[/sup]*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup] to within that integration constant.

*** Lorentz-boost the trajectory of a stationary particle: t = τ, x = y = z = 0. Divide the resulting t,x,y,z by τ. Multiply by the particle's mass. Compare the resulting expressions to the relativistic momentum and energy of that particle. What do you find?

Boost it in the x direction:
x = γ*v*τ
y = 0
z = 0
t = γ*τ
where γ = (1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

Divide by τ, the time experienced by the object itself, its "proper time".
dx/dτ = γ*v = u*c
dy/dτ = 0
dz/dτ = 0
dt/dτ = γ = u0
One thus gets a 4-velocity vector with time component u0 and space components {u,0,0}.

Multiply by m, the rest mass.
m*dx/dτ = m*u*c = p
m*dy/dτ = 0
m*dz/dτ = 0
m*dt/dτ = m*u0 = E/c[sup]2[/sup]
One thus gets a 4-momentum vector with time component (total mass) and space components {momentum,0,0} Note that the integration constant E0 must be zero for this equation to work.

One predicts from (4-momentum) = m * (4-velocity) that E(rest) = m*c[sup]2[/sup]. This prediction has been successfully tested in matter-antimatter annihilation and similar elementary-particle reactions.
 
*** Show that the relativistic momentum p and the relativistic energy E satisfy the differential relation dE = v.dp, derived from the work expression dE/dt = F.v.

The relativistic momentum p = m*v*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup] = m*u*c. This makes velocity v = u*c*(1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

The integral of v dp = integral of m*c*v du = integral of m*c[sup]2[/sup] u du * (1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

This is an easy integral to do, and it gives E = m*c[sup]2[/sup]*u0 + E0 where E0 is a constant of integration and u0 = (1 + u[sup]2[/sup])[sup]1/2[/sup] = (1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

This agrees with relativistic energy E = m*c[sup]2[/sup]*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup] to within that integration constant.

*** Lorentz-boost the trajectory of a stationary particle: t = τ, x = y = z = 0. Divide the resulting t,x,y,z by τ. Multiply by the particle's mass. Compare the resulting expressions to the relativistic momentum and energy of that particle. What do you find?

Boost it in the x direction:
x = γ*v*τ
y = 0
z = 0
t = γ*τ
where γ = (1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]

Divide by τ, the time experienced by the object itself, its "proper time".
dx/dτ = γ*v = u*c
dy/dτ = 0
dz/dτ = 0
dt/dτ = γ = u0
One thus gets a 4-velocity vector with time component u0 and space components {u,0,0}.

Multiply by m, the rest mass.
m*dx/dτ = m*u*c = p
m*dy/dτ = 0
m*dz/dτ = 0
m*dt/dτ = m*u0 = E/c[sup]2[/sup]
One thus gets a 4-momentum vector with time component (total mass) and space components {momentum,0,0} Note that the integration constant E0 must be zero for this equation to work.

One predicts from (4-momentum) = m * (4-velocity) that E(rest) = m*c[sup]2[/sup]. This prediction has been successfully tested in matter-antimatter annihilation and similar elementary-particle reactions.

That's very informative. Thanks.
 
If you are talking about a full-scale GR solution, you are correct. But one can expand the GR equations of motion as a series with small parameter 1/c[sup]2[/sup] starting with the Newtonian equations. The first order of that parameter is called post-Newtonian, and the next order, post-post-Newtonian, etc. One can estimate how large GR effects will be by calculating (v/c)[sup]2[/sup] and GM/rc[sup]2[/sup]. For the Earth's orbit, they are 10[sup]-8[/sup], and for Mercury's orbit, 6.7 times greater. One is able to see post-Newtonian effects in the Solar System but not post-post-Newtonian ones.

One thus handles GR in the Solar System by including post-Newtonian terms in the objects' equations of motion.

JPL has this ephemeris software, software for calculating planets' HORIZONS User Manual Its Statement of Ephemeris Limitations states

So JPL uses GR, likely post-Newtonian terms only.

Another good one for me. Thanks. All I've done is a weak field approximation for Schwarzschild coordinates. I know the post Newtonian method would be something a physicist might use. Something that I was interested in was the attempt to measure the speed of gravity in the Jovian spacetime. Awesome experiment but I never fully understood the contention about what the experiment actually measured? Why it might be something other than the speed of gravity? A post-post-Newtonian speed of light? If you had anything to say about this it would be interesting for me to hear. Otherwise thanks for the interesting post on physics.
 
Now for why rotations and boosts have the form that they do. Let's generalize the dot or inner product:
(x,y) = x.g.y
where x and y are two vectors and g is a symmetric real matrix with an appropriate size.

Let us say that this inner product is invariant after doing transformations on vectors x -> R.x That means that
(R.x,R.y) = (x,y)
or
R[sup]T[/sup].g.R = g

In general, there isn't any simple solution for R, but there are some fairly simple solutions in the 2D, 3D, and 4D cases. I'll do the 2D case, since it's the simplest, and since it illustrates some of the principles involved. I'll take R = {{r11,r12},{r21,r22}}.

First, the Euclidean case, g = diag(1,1).
We find r11[sup]2[/sup] + r21[sup]2[/sup] = 1, r22[sup]2[/sup] + r12[sup]2[/sup] = 1, r11*r12 + r22*r21 = 0

I'll want to divide the third equation by r11 and r22, so let us see what happens if they are 0. First, r11 = 0. It gives r21 = += 1 and r22 = 0. Likewise, r22 = 0 gives r11 = 0. The nonzero ones, r12 and r21, are +-1 independently. Now for both nonzero. The third equation gives us
r21/r11 = - r12/r22
Squaring it and adding 1 gives
1/r11[sup]2[/sup] = 1/r22[sup]2[/sup]
Thus, r22 = +- r11 and r21 = -+ r12 (either first or second sign in both).
Or r11 = cos(a), r12 = - sin(a), r21 = s*sin(a), r22 = s*cos(a), where s = += 1

Now the Minkowskian case, g = diag(1,-1)
It gives us r11[sup]2[/sup] - r21[sup]2[/sup] = 1, r22[sup]2[/sup] - r12[sup]2[/sup] = 1, r11*r12 - r22*r21 = 0
Here, r11 and r22 are never zero.

So I divide the third equation by r11 and r22:
r21/r11 = r12/r22
Squaring it and subtracting it from 1 gives
1/r11[sup]2[/sup] = 1/r22[sup]2[/sup]
Thus, r22 = +- r11 and r21 = +- r12 (either first or second sign in both).
Or r11 = s1*cosh(u), r12 = s2*sinh(u), r21 = s1*sinh(u), r22 = s2*cosh(u) where s1 and s2 = +- 1 separately
 
Let $$x$$ be an arbitrary n-dimensional tuple of real coordinates, a real vector.
Let $$\eta$$ be a n×n diagonal matrix where all elements on the diagonal are either +1 or -1.
Let $$A$$ be a totally anti-symmetric matrix such that $$A^{\tiny \textrm{T}} = - A$$. (It follows that A has $$\frac{1}{2} n(n-1)$$ degrees of freedom.)
Let $$q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$ be defined as $$\left( x_2 - x_1 \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)$$.
Let
$$\Large x' = X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x $$​
be a $$\frac{1}{2} n(n+1)$$-parameter transform of the vector space of x.
Then we see that $$q(x'_1, x'_2, x'_3, x'_4) = q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$ holds for any four vectors.
This shows that the property of q is preserved by the transform.

Proof:
First see that $$I = \eta^2$$, $$\eta = \eta^{\tiny \textrm{T}}$$.
Then remember that
$$\sum_{j=0}^n \frac{\left(-1\right)^{j}}{j! \, (n-j)!} = \left{ \begin{array}{lll} 1 & \quad \quad \quad & \textrm{if} \; n = 0 \\ 0 & & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right. $$​
Then see that: $$\eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k = \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k \eta^2 = \left( A \eta \right)^k \eta$$ and therefore $$ \left( A \eta \right)^j \, \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k = \left( A \eta \right)^{j+k} \eta$$ for all natural numbers j and k.
Then directly calculate:
$$q(x'_1, x'_2, x'_3, x'_4) = \left( x'_2 - x'_1 \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x'_4 - x'_3 \right)
= \left( (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_2) - (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_1) \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_4) - (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_3) \right)
= \left( e^{ \eta A } \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( e^{ \eta A } \left( x_4 - x_3 \right) \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( e^{ \eta A } \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ \left( \eta A \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ A^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \eta^{\tiny \textrm{T}} } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ -1 \, A \eta } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j}{j!} \right) \, \eta \, \left( \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ \left( \eta A \right)^k}{k!} \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j}{j!} \eta \frac{ \left( \eta A \right)^k}{k!} \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j \, \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k}{j! \, k! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( \left( A \eta \right)^n \eta\right) \sum_{j=0}^{n} \frac{ (-1)^j }{j! \, (n-j) ! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \frac{ (-1)^0 }{0! \, 0 ! } \left( \left( A \eta \right)^0 \eta\right) \quad + \quad \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( \left( A \eta \right)^n \eta\right) \sum_{j=0}^{n} \frac{ (-1)^j }{j! \, (n-j) ! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \eta \quad + \quad \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 0 \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right) = q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$​
Q.E.D.

Thus continuous rigid body motions (Translations and Rotations) are isometries of Euclidean geometry with the $$\eta = I$$, while the 10-parameter Poincaré transformations (Translations and spatial Rotations and hyperbolic space-time rotations (Lorentz boots)) are isometries of special relativity with $$\eta = { \tiny \begin{pmatrix} \mp 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix} }$$.
 
I will now do the math that I had challenged Farsight to do in post #855. He responded in post #860 and I responded to him in post #866.

Here goes.

*** Show that the distance invariant
S = x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] + z[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t[sup]2[/sup]
is rotation-invariant, Lorentz-invariant, and reflection-invariant in space coordinates x,y,z and time coordinate t. All you need to do for rotation and Lorentz boosts is to do them in two dimensions each: two space dimensions, and one space dimension and time.

Rotation: x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a), y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
S = x'[sup]2[/sup] + y'[sup]2[/sup] = (x*cos(a) - y*sin(a))[sup]2[/sup] + (x*sin(a) + y*cos(a))[sup]2[/sup] = x[sup]2[/sup]*(cos(a)[sup]2[/sup] + sin(a)[sup]2[/sup]) + x*y*(- 2*cos(a)*sin(a) + 2*cos(a)*sin(a)) + y[sup]2[/sup]*(sin(a)[sup]2[/sup] + cos(a)[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup]

Boost: x' = γ*(x - v*t), t' = γ*(t + v*x/c[sup]2[/sup]), γ = (1 + v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]-1/2[/sup]
S = x'[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t'[sup]2[/sup] = γ[sup]2[/sup]*(x + v*t) - c[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(t + v*x/c[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup]) + x*y*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(2v - 2v) + y[sup]2[/sup]*γ[sup]2[/sup]*(v[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]) = x[sup]2[/sup] - c[sup]2[/sup]*t[sup]2[/sup]

*** Show why Lorentz boosts are sometimes called hyperbolic rotations. You will have to do some analytic continuation here and there, multiplying some variables by i = sqrt(-1).

Rotation:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos a & -\sin a \\ \sin a & \cos a \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} $$

Boost:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ t' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma v \\ \gamma v/c^2 & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ t \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Set v = c*β
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ t' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma c\beta \\ \gamma \beta/c & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ t \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \beta^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Move the c's around:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ct' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \gamma\beta \\ \gamma \beta & \gamma \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ct \end{pmatrix} ,\ \gamma = \left(1 - \beta^2 \right)^{-1/2} $$

Set β = tanh(u) -- a hyperbolic function, a relative of the trigonometric functions. u is the "rapidity".
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ct' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh u & \sinh u \\ \sinh u & \cosh u \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ct \end{pmatrix} $$

Set a = i*u and y = i*c*t in the rotation expression:
$$ \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ ict' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh u & -i\sinh u \\ i\sinh u & \cosh u \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} x \\ ict \end{pmatrix} $$

The last two equations are equivalent.

Can you prove that the transformation (when concerning light) matches the light postulate in the target frame after the transformation of the given frame transformed 4-vector?

Thanks
 
Let $$x$$ be an arbitrary n-dimensional tuple of real coordinates, a real vector.
Let $$\eta$$ be a n×n diagonal matrix where all elements on the diagonal are either +1 or -1.
Let $$A$$ be a totally anti-symmetric matrix such that $$A^{\tiny \textrm{T}} = - A$$. (It follows that A has $$\frac{1}{2} n(n-1)$$ degrees of freedom.)
Let $$q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$ be defined as $$\left( x_2 - x_1 \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)$$.
Let
$$\Large x' = X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x $$​
be a $$\frac{1}{2} n(n+1)$$-parameter transform of the vector space of x.
Then we see that $$q(x'_1, x'_2, x'_3, x'_4) = q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$ holds for any four vectors.
This shows that the property of q is preserved by the transform.

Proof:
First see that $$I = \eta^2$$, $$\eta = \eta^{\tiny \textrm{T}}$$.
Then remember that
$$\sum_{j=0}^n \frac{\left(-1\right)^{j}}{j! \, (n-j)!} = \left{ \begin{array}{lll} 1 & \quad \quad \quad & \textrm{if} \; n = 0 \\ 0 & & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right. $$​
Then see that: $$\eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k = \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k \eta^2 = \left( A \eta \right)^k \eta$$ and therefore $$ \left( A \eta \right)^j \, \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k = \left( A \eta \right)^{j+k} \eta$$ for all natural numbers j and k.
Then directly calculate:
$$q(x'_1, x'_2, x'_3, x'_4) = \left( x'_2 - x'_1 \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x'_4 - x'_3 \right)
= \left( (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_2) - (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_1) \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_4) - (X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x_3) \right)
= \left( e^{ \eta A } \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) \right)^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( e^{ \eta A } \left( x_4 - x_3 \right) \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( e^{ \eta A } \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ \left( \eta A \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ A^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \eta^{\tiny \textrm{T}} } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, e^{ -1 \, A \eta } \, \eta \, e^{ \eta A } \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j}{j!} \right) \, \eta \, \left( \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ \left( \eta A \right)^k}{k!} \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j}{j!} \eta \frac{ \left( \eta A \right)^k}{k!} \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{ (-1)^j \left( A \eta \right)^j \, \eta \, \left( \eta A \right)^k}{j! \, k! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( \left( A \eta \right)^n \eta\right) \sum_{j=0}^{n} \frac{ (-1)^j }{j! \, (n-j) ! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \frac{ (-1)^0 }{0! \, 0 ! } \left( \left( A \eta \right)^0 \eta\right) \quad + \quad \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( \left( A \eta \right)^n \eta\right) \sum_{j=0}^{n} \frac{ (-1)^j }{j! \, (n-j) ! } \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \left( \eta \quad + \quad \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 0 \right) \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right)
= \left( x_2 - x_1 \right) ^{\tiny \textrm{T}} \, \eta \, \left( x_4 - x_3 \right) = q(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$$​
Q.E.D.

Thus continuous rigid body motions (Translations and Rotations) are isometries of Euclidean geometry with the $$\eta = I$$, while the 10-parameter Poincaré transformations (Translations and spatial Rotations and hyperbolic space-time rotations (Lorentz boots)) are isometries of special relativity with $$\eta = { \tiny \begin{pmatrix} \mp 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix} }$$.

Can you prove that the resultant 4-vector is on the spherical light wave in the target frame? It is one thing to produce a vector that measures c and another to prove that vector is also on the spherical light wave in the target frame.
 
Can you prove that the resultant 4-vector is on the spherical light wave in the target frame? It is one thing to produce a vector that measures c and another to prove that vector is also on the spherical light wave in the target frame.

That was what was proven. You ask for a proof that $$q(x_P, x_O,x_P, x_O) = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad q(x'_P, x'_O,x'_P, x'_O) = 0 $$ but I have proven at least $$\forall \Sigma' \forall x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 \in \Sigma \quad q(x'_1, x'_2,x'_3, x'_4) = q(x_1, x_2,x_3, x_4) $$ which is a stronger result.
 
That was what was proven. You want a proof that $$q(x_P, x_O,x_P, x_O) = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad q(x'_P, x'_O,x'_P, x'_O) = q(x_P, x_O,x_P, x_O) $$ but I have proven $$\forall \Sigma' \forall x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 \in \Sigma \quad q(x'_1, x'_2,x'_3, x'_4) = q(x_1, x_2,x_3, x_4) $$ which is a stronger result.

You proved the vector measures c and I agree you did that. How do you prove inside the target frame that this vector that measures c is actually on the spherical light wave in its frame. Prove that.

Again proving a vector measures c does not prove it is on the spherical light wave in a frame. For example assume t'=4 in the target frame. Then assume the transformation produced the vector (2c,2c,1c,3). This vector measures c but is not on the wave in the target frame.
 
For example assume t'=4 in the target frame. Then assume the transformation produced the vector (2c,2c,1c,3).
It would pretty stupid to assume mutually contradictory results. It would be stupid to assume what the transformation produces when I already stated what the parametrization of the transform is:
Let
$$\Large x' = X_0 + e^{ \eta A } x $$​
be a $$\frac{1}{2} n(n+1)$$-parameter transform of the vector space of x.
What values of $$X_0$$ and $$A$$ did you use? What values of $$x_1$$ and $$x_2$$ did you use?

Did you realize that $$x_1, x_2, ...$$ are mathematically vectors but because they are ordered tuples of coordinate values that they physically represent offsets from the coordinate origin and not physical vectors? A quantity like $$x_2 - x_1$$ represents a physical vector of space-time displacement. Likewise, $$X_0$$ represents a physical translation vector.

It looks like you are using $$\eta = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -c^2 \end{pmatrix}$$ which is not a valid assumption by the proof unless c = 1. You are welcome to solve this for the generic case of a diagonal matrix, but then we wouldn't have the nice property that $$\eta^2 = 1$$ which would require you to generalize the proof slightly.

You need to set you ego aside and learn that you are not skilled at presenting coherent thoughts about special relativity to an educated audience.
 
It would pretty stupid to assume mutually contradictory results. It would be stupid to assume what the transformation produces when I already stated what the parametrization of the transform is:
What values of $$X_0$$ and $$A$$ did you use? What values of $$x_1$$ and $$x_2$$ did you use?

It looks like you are using $$\eta = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -c^2 \end{pmatrix}$$ which is not a valid assumption by the proof unless c = 1. You are welcome to solve this for the generic case of a diagonal matrix, but then we wouldn't have the nice property that $$\eta^2 = 1$$ which would require you to generalize the proof slightly.

You need to set you ego aside and learn that you are not skilled at presenting coherent thoughts about special relativity to an educated audience.

I am not sure why you are hurling insults. Anyway, you continue to press that you produced a vector that measures c and therefore it is absolutely on the light wave in the target frame.

Can you prove that for us? Look, we already know the vector measures c, but we want you to pick an observer in the target frame and independently verify your claims.


Can you do this yes or no.

If you cannot prove this simply admit it without all the insults.

Now, are you claiming if a vector measure c it is absolutely on the light sphere in a frame? Please answer.
 
Can you prove that for us?.....Look, we already know.....
The above two phrases are from chinglu's post above...
Again, you attempt to mislead and defraud the forum.
Why do you persist in we and us?
I don't know of anyone on the forum that agrees with your inane attitude on light and SR, and the scientific mainstream certainly does not....even some of our best pseudo and woo characters appear to have disowned you.
So why all the pretense?
 
Last edited:
I am not sure why you are hurling insults.
It seems quite clear why he responded as he did: you asked him to do something contradictory. You can't do the math and you seem unable to learn.

It should be made clear to all who might read this that you have some sort of mental block in understanding this subject and your posts should be ignored. This does not make you a bad person, it's just your limits in this area.
 
The above and discussion generally is confusing separate issues of interpretation. Yes, spacetime as the source of gravity is a modern conceptual interpretation. As far as I have read Einstein, he never presented GR as the mechanism of gravitation only as a description of how objects interact as a result of gravitation... The only possible justification for believing that Einstein meant speed instead of velocity, is because that supports your misinterpretation of his intent.
No! It's crystal clear that he meant speed because he was challenging his own postulate. And it wasn't some one-off, see the OP. He said it time and time again. What possible justification is there to ignore the guy? And the hard scientific evidence that backs him up? None.

Again, Einstein was expanding on and improving on the mechanics of Newton's earlier conclusions.., and neither Newton nor Einstein were attempting to describe the underlying mechanism... Spacetime curvature, as the cause of gravity is a modern interpretation and one of the major issues that divide GR and attempts to develop a fully function model of quantum gravity.
They both described the underlying mechanism. In his Leyden Address where he talked about space as an aether, Einstein said a concentration of energy conditions the surrounding space making it inhomogeneous such that light curves because the speed of light varies with position. And in Opticks Newton said this:

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

It's essentially the same. It matches what Don Koks said, and what Ned Wright said.

You continually read, almost everything you read wearing your own special pair of colored glasses, such that you see what you are looking for rather than what is right there in front of you. We all do that to some extent, but you seem to carry it to an extreme, such that you raise belief and theory to a claimed state of fact.
No, I'm not doing it. You are.

I assume here your are quoting przyk? There is nothing in the above statement that is in conflict with Einstein or any modern interpretation of GR.
No, that was PhysBang. He said the speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region. The room you're in isn't an infinitesimal region. The speed of light varies in the room you're in. But the tidal force, associated with spacetime curvature, is not detectable.

All that is being said is that the constancy of the speed of light is a postulate of SR that has been supported by experiment and holds true within the context of GR where SR holds true. GR did not overthrow SR or Newtonian gravity.
But GR did overthrow the SR postulate. Einstein went on and on about it. All relativatists know that the coordinate speed of light varies with gravitational potential, and yet there's this popscience myth that the speed of light is absolutely constant.

It retains both as valid within the context of the weak field limit.., where spacetime can be treated as flat... This includes most of the volume of our solar system...
You made the classic mistake. It's space in our solar system, not spacetime. Light moves through space. There's no motion through spacetime.

You keep raising the issue of the NIST optical clocks and their separation... The clocks were separated by far more than 30 cm. they were in separate labs and even if they were in the same lab their size would result in a separation of more that 30 cm. The 30 cm references a difference in elevation not separation. And yes it does support the predictions of GR with respect to the operation of clocks in a gravitational field.., but it does not prove anything about the speed of light, nor does it prove anything about what is a local or remote measurement. Both clocks represent local time, as defined by their locations. There have been enough local measurements of the speed of light in vacuum, carried out in different locations and elevations within the earth's gravitational field, which agree on the speed of light, to support the SR postulate that the speed of light is universally constant, when measured in inertial frames of reference... At least to the extent that we have been able to experimentally confirm, with present technology and funding.
Your understanding is flawed. There is no time flowing in an optical clock. It doesn't literally "measure the flow of time". See this thread. What's inside that clock is light, moving. When the clock goes slower it's because light goes slower. That's it. It's that simple.

If you are measuring the speed of light at the floor of a lab with the accuracy of the clocks available today, the ceiling of that lab is a remote location, just as the floor would be a remote location from the ceiling under those conditions. This is true for speed of light measurements and clock rates. Reference any experiment that measures the speed of light in any two inertial locations with the same degree of accuracy, where the results do not agree on the constancy of speed of light.
You've totally missed the rpenner's petard, and PhysBang's faux pas. To measure the speed of light, light has to move beyond the infinitesimal region. So it makes no sense to talk about the speed of light in an infinitesimal region. And with respect, you have a popscience misunderstanding of all this. Go and read http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 and understand the tautology. Think about what's going to happen if you measure the local speed of light using a NIST optical clock.
 
...So your argument is not based on the math of the theory, but on your interpretation of one Einstein quote.
Are you for real? How many times have I referred to the Einstein quotes, plural? In the OP? Here?

Einstein said:
1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c₀, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²)”.

1912: "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential".

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".

1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.

That’s Einstein talking about the speed of light varying in a gravitational field. The word in the translation is velocity, but it's the common usage, as per high-velocity bullet. 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. It's crystal clear that its speed 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. See Ned Wright’s Deflection and Delay of Light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light”. Also see the Baez article where Don Koks said this:

"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."

So if you think what I'm saying is based on my interpretation of one Einstein quote, you are either crazy or dishonest or both, and you are dismissing Einstein. You are effectively saying "Einstein was wrong", and that puts you firmly on the wrong side of the crackpot fence.
 
If only Jesus did math about God!

And maybe those twelve other guys: "Peter the fisherman/mathematician..."
 
Are you for real? How many times have I referred to the Einstein quotes, plural? In the OP? Here?
lpetrich is correct, you base your position on the speed of light on one quotation, not on the mathematics. It is clear that you cannot do the mathematics and it is clear that Einstein's physics is in the specific mathematics that he used. Additionally, you continue to say things that directly contradict Einstein, like your denial of what the constant speed of light means for GR.

You stick to your dogmatic position despite the fact that this is directly contradicted in the Baez source that is one of your favorite sources. That is not a good sign for your honesty, but it is a good sign for those who want to discredit your writing in order to protect the minds of others.
That’s See Ned Wright’s Deflection and Delay of Light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light”.
It is interesting that this position is the opposite of the one that you hold, Farsight, yet you cite it as if it is evidence for your position.

You do not have a theory of relativity, despite your claims that scientists are doing things wrong. Wright is, according to you, wrong because he calculates differences in time and uses those to calculate the deflection of light. You claim that the deflection of light leads to apparent changes in time, yet you give us no calculation and only dogma.

So if you think what I'm saying is based on my interpretation of one Einstein quote, you are either crazy or dishonest or both, and you are dismissing Einstein. You are effectively saying "Einstein was wrong", and that puts you firmly on the wrong side of the crackpot fence.
You are basing your position on one Einstein quotation, because you ignore everything else (for example, most of the content of the Baez article) in order to preserve your interpretation of that one quotation. It leads you to interpret things that Einstein said about theories that were not GR, theories Einstein abandoned, as if they were about GR.

You are offering us Farsight-Relativity, a new interpretation of Einstein at odds with contemporary relativity theory and all the evidence gathered for what we call general relativity. Your continued failure to produce equations for Farsight-Relativity is more continued failure to do any physics.
 
Back
Top