The Speed of Light is Not Constant

lpetrich is correct, you base your position on the speed of light on one quotation, not on the mathematics...
I don't base my position on one quotation, and I don't base it on the mathematics. I base it on what Einstein said repeatedly, and what Professor Ned Wright said, and what Don Koks said, and more importantly, on the hard scientific evidence. Oh, if I might remind you of what you said yourself:

"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".

The speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region. But not in a non-infinitesimal region like the room you're in. Face up to it PhysBang, you've already admitted I'm right. And for all your feather-spitting allegations, you can't change that. You slipped up. And I'm too sharp for you.

Beer w/straw said:
If only Jesus did math about God! And maybe those twelve other guys: "Peter the fisherman/mathematician..."
lpetrich and rpenner are giving you maths dumps as a smokescreen to try to obscure the fact that they've lost the argument. Rpenner was hoist by his own petard, and lpetrich was found guilty of crying "Einstein woz wrong". When a guy like rpenner can't explain something or has no response to a convincing argument, he resorts to smoke-and-mirror mathematical incantations that he knows you don't understand, hoping to pull the wool over your eyes Emperor-New-Clothes style and/or derail the thread. Don't fall for it.
 
Are you for real? How many times have I referred to the Einstein quotes, plural?
The point is, you cannot use a pretense at textual analysis to contradict the currently most accurate, precise, communicable and useful description of the behavior of phenomena related to space, time and gravitation. No one cares what you think Einstein said, because Einstein the man is not as important to physics as the physical theories attributed to Einstein because it is the latter which is the proper concern of physics and practically because the latter is better developed today than when Einstein is alive.
 
Thank you, rpenner.

Why is Farsight's crap still in the Physics & Math section? This should be relegated to Alternative Theories at best, since he discards all the excellent arguments made to address him and continues the woo. :rolleyes:
 
The point is, you cannot use a pretense...
It's no pretence. And really, what is with all the hyperlinks? Like to the Dunning-Kruger effect? Which is "a cognitive bias manifesting in unskilled individuals suffering from illusory superiority". It was you who demonstrated your total lack of skill by getting confused about local and non-local, such that local was reduced to infinitesimal and you were hoist by your own petard. It's you who is suffering from the illusory superiority, so much so that you dismiss Einstein and the hard scientific evidence. As "textual analysis", ye Gods! You think you know better than Einstein rpenner? Well, get this: you don't.
 
I don't base my position on one quotation, and I don't base it on the mathematics.
It seems that half-truths are the best we can expect of you. You should be embarrassed that you do not base your position on the mathematics when you call yourself a "physics expert".

I base it on what Einstein said repeatedly, and what Professor Ned Wright said, and what Don Koks said, and more importantly, on the hard scientific evidence.
As I have said before, that is clearly a lie. The very quotation you provided from Wright is a direct contradiction to your theory.

Oh, if I might remind you of what you said yourself:

"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".

The speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region. But not in a non-infinitesimal region like the room you're in. Face up to it PhysBang, you've already admitted I'm right. And for all your feather-spitting allegations, you can't change that. You slipped up. And I'm too sharp for you.
As I have said repeatedly, and as you know so you know that you are lying, I disagree with your position. For one thing, I know that a room is not an infinitesimal region, just as I know that the top of my head is distant from my feet, so I know that they are not local in the strict sense in which we might claim that the speed of light is different in different regions of a room.

In order to make your case that regions of a room are both local and have different speeds of light, you need to make your case mathematically. A speed is a mathematical construct, so do us the courtesy of giving us a proper mathematical description of speed.

Remember, you have been saying that it is the speed of light change that creates a change in time, so you cannot use the same equations that Wright uses when he claims, as you quoted, that a change in time results in a change in the speed of light.

Edit-to-add: To be clear, what I have said is exactly what the Baez site also says: the specific theory that Einstein drafted in mathematical form requires that speeds in the classical sense be well-founded only at the level of infinitesimal distances of the manifold and that all distances, times, and thus speeds at any finite distance are subject to the constraints of the specific coordinate system used in their description. This is something Farsight explicitly rejects and it is why he is being intellectually dishonest to claim that he is gathering support from the Baez site; he is accepting a fraction of their conclusions but rejecting the assumptions on which they base their conclusions as well as their reasoning. If Farsight could express his thoughts with enough rigor to produce mathematical descriptions of systems, this would be clear. Sadly, he refuses to engage in mathematics, likely because he knows that his errors and his duplicity will be immediately revealed.
lpetrich and rpenner are giving you maths dumps as a smokescreen to try to obscure the fact that they've lost the argument. Rpenner was hoist by his own petard, and lpetrich was found guilty of crying "Einstein woz wrong". When a guy like rpenner can't explain something or has no response to a convincing argument, he resorts to smoke-and-mirror mathematical incantations that he knows you don't understand, hoping to pull the wool over your eyes Emperor-New-Clothes style and/or derail the thread. Don't fall for it.
They should instead fall for you no math fantasies? How is anyone to launch a rocket with your theories? Could you please answer that one question instead of dodging every question?
 
It's no pretence. And really, what is with all the hyperlinks? Like to the Dunning-Kruger effect? Which is "a cognitive bias manifesting in unskilled individuals suffering from illusory superiority". It was you who demonstrated your total lack of skill by getting confused about local and non-local, such that local was reduced to infinitesimal and you were hoist by your own petard.
This statement is as embarrassing as the "I don't use mathematics" statement, and it is not unrelated.
 
This statement is as embarrassing as the "I don't use mathematics" statement, and it is not unrelated.

Well he is now entitled to as many embarrassing statements as he likes, being in the fringe section.
And he most certainly still should be corrected on those many embarrassing statements!
 
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.

It is obvious that this is what you believe. That does not make it true.

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?"

And how do you get from the above that Newton was talking about gravity? Just because you cannot separate how light moves through the ether and gravity, does not mean that Newton had the same issues.

Newton never claimed to explain the why or how of gravity.., and neither did Einstein. Some modern interpretations of GR make that leap, but Einstein didn't. He like Newton before him were smart enough to know that some things remain a mystery and unknown.

And you keep bringing up the Leyden Address. It was a not for credit presentation, not a published scientific paper and you always neglect to take any notice of the background of the audience he was addressing. You read into his words what you want to hear.

No, I'm not doing it. You are.

Everyone does! Most of us realize it. You don't seem to, as demonstrated in your interpretation the the Leyden Address. I mean it is called an address...

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.

This is an example of what drew me into the discussion to start. You are mixing conditions that are theoretical and practical. Theoretically, there is spacetime curvature between the floor and ceiling. In most practical ways the room as a whole can be treated as flat.

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.

That is an extraordinary claim there! When you say, "All relativatists know..." anything, you are going to need to add a very long list of references. There are many things that not all relativists agree on.

You made the classic mistake. It's space in our solar system, not spacetime. Light moves through space. There's no motion through spacetime.

Spacetime is a geometry. Without space and time you have no motion, at all. The mistake is your own when you assume the use of the word spacetime automatically describes a physically distinct "thing".

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.

Again, it is your understanding that is flawed. I never mentioned any "flow" of time, and optical clocks are not directly associated with the speed of light. They are based on the knowledge that the optical frequency associated with specific atoms, under closely controlled conditions, remains constant. The NIST clock example you keep quoting demonstrates that as predicted, the elevation of a clock in a gravity well affects that frequency.

Use a ruler and a stop watch in the same room and the space is flat and time invariant.

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.

Farsight, I have long wondered what the result would be if the speed of light were measured on the surface of the moon or in free fall somewhere in deep space, and here on earth with the same clocks and equipment. But so far all of the really accurate measurements of the speed of light have been conducted here on earth and they agree.

Basing an argument of fact on what anyone believes, is not science. Science consists of theory and experiment. The results of experiment is from where the facts are drawn, not from theory or belief. Theory can provide us with predictions of what we might expect, but only when observed and confirmed do those predictions become fact. What you believe is the stuff of story books and science fiction. Sometimes bad science fiction... But then many of us let our imaginations run wild on occasion. The trick is to be aware of the difference between what we know and what we believe and/or imagine.
 
Are you for real? How many times have I referred to the Einstein quotes, plural?
Arguing by quoting Einstein, as opposed to working out the theory. So like a theologian.

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.
Einstein was not a prophet of revealed truth, contrary to what you seem to think.

I don't base my position on one quotation, and I don't base it on the mathematics.
It's the math that counts. Farsight, your heroes had used math in the work. Why did they do so?

I base it on what Einstein said repeatedly, and what Professor Ned Wright said, and what Don Koks said, and more importantly, on the hard scientific evidence.
More and more book-thumping.

lpetrich and rpenner are giving you maths dumps as a smokescreen to try to obscure the fact that they've lost the argument.
Presenting the math of special relativity is a "math dump"?

When a guy like rpenner can't explain something or has no response to a convincing argument, he resorts to smoke-and-mirror mathematical incantations that he knows you don't understand, hoping to pull the wool over your eyes Emperor-New-Clothes style and/or derail the thread. Don't fall for it.
That's the math behind some of the theory. It's supposed to be a "math dump"?
 
Arguing by quoting Einstein, as opposed to working out the theory. So like a theologian.
Einstein was not a prophet of revealed truth, contrary to what you seem to think.

Yes he was!
E =Mc^2 is a "revealed universal truth" recognized by Einstein but not accepted and proven until much later, making him a prophet of what was to become revealed truth in physics. Are you saying that does not count in the spiritual world? How about the real world?

Darwin was also a prophet, by recognizing the truth of "evolution of species by natural selection". It also took him a long time to become accepted, so by definition that makes him also a prophet of what was to become revealed truth in Naturalism. Doesn't that count in the spiritual world? How about the real world?

p.s. theologians need not prove anything, any revealed truth claimed by theologians are not even scientific. How can one claim "revealed truth" without providing proofs, even after 3000+ years.

It seems to me that quoting Einstein is founded on solid proof, while spiritual "revealed truth" is mere speculation without any coherent mathematics whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
It is obvious that this is what you believe. That does not make it true.
Einstein said what he said. Here's the quotes again, as Don Koks said, while the translation says velocity, Einstein meant speed:

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”.


And how do you get from the above that Newton was talking about gravity?
Because later on he says "it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer, with all that power we call Gravity". Why do you even ask me that question instead of checking for yourself?

OnlyMe said:
Newton never claimed to explain the why or how of gravity
Only Newton said what he said, there it is in black and white in Opticks.

and neither did Einstein.
He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, Because space is inhomogeneous. Because a concentration of energy/matter conditions the surrounding space. And we know about the wave nature of matter.

Some modern interpretations of GR make that leap, but Einstein didn't. He like Newton before him were smart enough to know that some things remain a mystery and unknown.
No, they were smart enough to understand it.

And you keep bringing up the Leyden Address. It was a not for credit presentation, not a published scientific paper and you always neglect to take any notice of the background of the audience he was addressing. You read into his words what you want to hear.
No I didn't. You're dismissing Einstein and Newton because what they said doesn't fit your conviction. And lo, this thread has been moved to Alternative Theories. Einstein and Newton have been censored!

This is an example of what drew me into the discussion to start. You are mixing conditions that are theoretical and practical. Theoretically, there is spacetime curvature between the floor and ceiling. In most practical ways the room as a whole can be treated as flat.
I'm not mixing anything. Your pencil doesn't fall down because "spacetime in the room is curved".

Again, it is your understanding that is flawed. I never mentioned any "flow" of time, and optical clocks are not directly associated with the speed of light. They are based on the knowledge that the optical frequency associated with specific atoms, under closely controlled conditions, remains constant. The NIST clock example you keep quoting demonstrates that as predicted, the elevation of a clock in a gravity well affects that frequency.
You're wrong again. The frequency doesn't change at all. You must know this, you must know about E=hf and conservation of energy. When you direct a 511keV photon into a black hole the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c². You measure a higher frequency because you and your clocks go slower when you're lower.

Use a ruler and a stop watch in the same room and the space is flat and time invariant.
Two NIST optical clocks lose synchronisation when one is a mere 30cm above the other. And like I said, there's no time flowing through those clocks. The frequency doesn't change either. The constancy of c is a tautology, like Magueijo and Moffat said in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.

Farsight, I have long wondered what the result would be if the speed of light were measured on the surface of the moon or in free fall somewhere in deep space, and here on earth with the same clocks and equipment. But so far all of the really accurate measurements of the speed of light have been conducted here on earth and they agree.
Because local the motion of light defines the second and the metre. Which we then use to measure the local motion of light. Here's an excerpt:

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition".

Basing an argument of fact on what anyone believes, is not science. Science consists of theory and experiment. The results of experiment is from where the facts are drawn, not from theory or belief. Theory can provide us with predictions of what we might expect, but only when observed and confirmed do those predictions become fact. What you believe is the stuff of story books and science fiction. Sometimes bad science fiction... But then many of us let our imaginations run wild on occasion. The trick is to be aware of the difference between what we know and what we believe and/or imagine.
Your imagination has run wild. There is no time flowing in a clock. When a clock goes slower it's because cogs go slower, or the oscillations of a crystal go slower. Or light goes slower. But you're dismissing that hard scientific evidence, and Einstein, and Newton, and Koks and Wright and Magueijo and Moffat and me. You won't read what they said. You haven't even read the OP. If you had you would have noticed time travel is science fiction. You know, talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It doesn't matter what I show you, you're going to believe what you believe and that's that.
 
Arguing by quoting Einstein, as opposed to working out the theory. So like a theologian.
Er, no, the theologian dismisses Einstein and the evidence when it doesn't match his conviction.

It's the math that counts.
And the hard scientific evidence. Which trumps the maths. An optical clock goes slower when its lower, and all the maths in the world isn't going to change that. All the maths in the world isn't going to make time literally flow through that clock like it's some kind of cosmic gas meter. Au contraire, the math can be a distraction from the hard scientific evidence. For example rpenner is "lost in math". He confuses mathematical abstraction with reality.

That's the math behind some of the theory. It's supposed to be a "math dump"?
Yes, rpenner does it every time he loses the argument. He pumps out a ream of math. He reminds me of a bishop making incantations that he knows his audience won't understand. I mean, here we are talking about the speed of light, he makes a schoolboy error with his local and non-local, I trounce him, and he runs away. Then after he's licked his wounds does he talk physics? No. What does he come up with? This:

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 $$\eta = { \tiny \begin{pmatrix} \mp 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix} }$$.
 
Er, no, the theologian dismisses Einstein and the evidence when it doesn't match his conviction.
Exactly: you don't base your conclusions on the math. You have rejected all of Einstein's work, all the work that people have produced measurement evidence for, because it doesn't match your convictions.

That is sad.
And the hard scientific evidence. Which trumps the maths.
No, without that maths, there is no hard scientific evidence. The evidence for GR lies only in its subtle differences from Newtonian universal gravity and these subtle differences appear only after all the maths of Newtonian universal gravity and all the maths of GR. If there is no maths, then there is no evidence for GR.

You seem to live in some fantasy land where you think that you can make some sort of qualitative physics. This cannot happen.
 
Einstein said what he said.
And he was careful to write a lot of math you ignore.
Here's the quotes again, as Don Koks said, while the translation says velocity, Einstein meant speed:
He meant speed for one quotation. It is a lie to say that Koks says that all translations of velocity mean speed.
Not relevant to GR
Not relevant to GR.
Not relevant to GR.
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".
Relevant to the extent that we look at the mathematics to see what Einstein meant. As you pointed out, Farsight, Einstein uses the constancy of the speed of light every equation you can find in his work.
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”.[/I]
Relevant: Einstein is stating that the constancy of the speed of light has some limited validity. So we have to look to the mathematics to see what that validity is.
Only Newton said what he said, there it is in black and white in Opticks.
Yes, in the alchemy part that doesn't actually play a role in his science. So unless you think that he had some kind of lucky visions from a supernatural agency, it isn't relevant. You might as well claim that Democritus invented quantum mechanics.

He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, Because space is inhomogeneous.
No, that is a lie that you put together. We will only believe it if you can demonstrate it in Einstein's physics, not his random words.

I'm not mixing anything. Your pencil doesn't fall down because "spacetime in the room is curved".
Prove it: show us a description of a pencil falling that does at least as good as a description that uses curved spacetime. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler can describe a falling pencil using curved spacetime, which is far more than you can do.
Because local the motion of light defines the second and the metre. Which we then use to measure the local motion of light.
If we use different units, the speed of light remains constant (with certain specific caveats).
You know, talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It doesn't matter what I show you, you're going to believe what you believe and that's that.
This is not true: show us all some proper mathematics and perhaps our ideas will change.

And why are you bashing creationism? Newton was a creationist! Why are you trying to deny Newton?
 
You know, I don't actually care who is right or wrong, but you can base it from what I am about to say about light in general, some of these things you will know, some you may not know.


First of all, light follows a null geodesic, it's null in the sense it describes it following a null-time vector (experiences no dilation effects because it has no frame of reference.)

What people have neglected however, is that an electron truly is a photon moving at slightly less than the speed of ''c'' to an external observer, because it has to traverse a path of length I think something equivalent to $$\frac{\lambda}{2\pi}$$ - we have more than one serious scientific study which shows matter is just a form of trapped light, trapped light is the presence of inertia and gravitational mass. It only has this though when the photon is confined to a limit in the space geodesics (which my math speculates it traverses two quadrants, while somehow missing full 90 degree angles).

Now.... has the speed of light changed?

On this scale inside the interior of the electron, you'll find that everything is static outside, there is no change in events, (in a hypothetical god-frame which a photon has no frame at all). Now apply the god-frame to the universe in total and you also find there in no internal changes with respect to time. So can the speed of light change? It's likely it doesn't go anywhere at all, it's birth and death are simultaneous on the fundamental understanding, because from our frame of reference, we need to remember, when we calculate the time it takes for a photon to reach Earth, that rough 8 minutes is measured in your frame, not the photons.
 
Last edited:
''shows light is just a form of trapped light''


I mean of course, ''shows matter is just a form of trapped light.'' In an informal language depending on the true laws of relativity, can be described as a slowing down of light to produce mass.
 
Back
Top