Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

Physics Monkey,

That is because there has never been an experiment that measures the speed of light in an object that is moving through a gravitational field. However, the decreased tick rates of atomic clocks that are moving through the Earth's gravitational field can be interpreted as indirect proof that the speed of the light inside the atomic clock has changed.

Can't it be that Maxwell's equations are a subset that only apply to observers that are at rest in a gravitational field?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your ignorance appears to know no limits and yet does not inhibit you from tossing out almost all of established physics. This is the last time I will try to help you. (I am a retired professor and still I love to teach, but even I know one can not instruct a rock.) I googled "speed of light measurements" and the first hit listed included:

"The first real measurement of the speed of light came about half a century later, in 1676, by a Danish astronomer, Ole Römer, working at the Paris Observatory. He had made a systematic study of Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, which was eclipsed by Jupiter at regular intervals, as Io went around Jupiter in a circular orbit at a steady rate. Actually, Römer found, for several months the eclipses lagged more and more behind the expected time, but then they began to pick up again. In September 1676,he correctly predicted that an eclipse on November 9 would be 10 minutes behind schedule. This was indeed the case, to the surprise of his skeptical colleagues at the Royal Observatory in Paris. Two weeks later, he told them what was happening: as the Earth and Jupiter moved in their orbits, the distance between them varied. The light from Io (actually reflected sunlight, of course) took time to reach the earth, and took the longest time when the earth was furthest away. When the Earth was furthest from Jupiter, there was an extra distance for light to travel equal to the diameter of the Earth's orbit compared with the point of closest approach. The observed eclipses were furthest behind the predicted times when the earth was furthest from Jupiter.

From his observations, Römer concluded that light took about twenty-two minutes to cross the earth's orbit. This was something of an overestimate, and a few years later Newton wrote in the Principia (Book I, section XIV): 'For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter's satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in succession (NOTE: I think this means at finite speed) and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.'
This is essentially the correct value."

From this you can see that your statements about all measurements of speed of light being done the in Earth's surface gravity were ignorant false nonsense, almost 400 years ago. I hope you will also note that the path traveled by the light during the years that Römer was making his observations passed through many differ gravitational fields as the Earth went arround the sun. Some of Römer's measurement were just after sun set or before sun rise, when the rays were passing through the sun's strong gravity (I.e. traveling in a gravitational field at least 10 times stronger than it is on earth). Others were made near midnight when no massive body was near the path.

Your idea that the speed of light changes as light passes through different gravity fields is based on ignorant specultion, and was shown to be false nearly 400 years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately you seem to have fallen into that "Joining the sheep herd" mentality. Many have re-visted the M&M situation and with modern understanding have come to much different conclusions.

Indeed Miller did years of detailed data along the lines of M&M but with improved equipment and recorded 50,000 data points. His work was superior to M&M and even M&M did not demonstrate a "Null" result as claimed by modern physicists.

All data beginning with M&M actually suggest a form of entrained ether rather than some static ether.

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111c.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM, to be fair I have tried to look into the Extinction Shift notion. I found the following comment on the details page http://www.extinctionshift.com/details.htm : "The addition of velocities are according to the Lorentz transformation of velocities, which is actually based on and is derived from the Galilean transformations ..."

This is simply not true. The addition of velocities formula in special relativity is not based on Galilean transformations. Whether the Lorentz transformations or the Galilean transformations are the correct one for our world is beside the point here. Considered as pure mathematics, Galilean transformations can be derived mathematically from Lorentz transformations (let c approach infinity), but the converse is not true.

I cannot believe a theory where the second sentence of the explanation contains a gross math error. This is doubly true when the author then proceeds to use this erroneous claim to "disprove" special relatvity.

 

I believe you are mis-interpreting what you read. He is not claiming relativity uses c+v and c-v but that in his work those functions apply and relativity is not required to explain observation or emperical data.

Like I said you are looking for any reason to not consider the concept. But you have misapplied what was written.

 

Misinterpretation may be possible in general, but not, I think, in this simple case. The statement made by the author is that a property of the Lorentz transformation applies to the Galilean transformation. This cannot be true. No number of additional assumptions about emission speeds or whatever can make it true. Velocities add one way under Galilean transformations and another way under Lorentz transformations, and the two ways are in general incompatible (though as I have said the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation for small velocities). I'm also not looking for a reason to ignore the idea, in fact I actively explored the information available after you indicated the reference. I am rejecting it not because it isn't mainstream, but because it contains statements that are not true.

 

However, the decreased tick rates of atomic clocks that are moving through the Earth's gravitational field can be interpreted as indirect proof that the speed of the light inside the atomic clock has changed.

Then logically, so would the speed of light sent by the atomic clock to a ground station, if fact, the change would increase as the information moved closer to the station as the gravitational field gets stronger. Is that also correct?

Further, a ground station at sea level would receive different information than that atop a high mountain. Also correct?

 

Billy T,

Spare me your help. I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I said that there has never been an experiment that measures the speed of light inside an object that is moving through a gravitational field and you post an experiment done in 1676 that has nothing to do with my statement.

So tell me if your so smart: How fast were those gravitational fields, that the light was passing through, moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field? If you assume that the light sped up, or slowed down, so that its speed was equal to c relative to each of the fields that it was passing through, what would be the average speed of the light during its entire journey from Jupiter to the Earth? If the average speed of the light turned out to be a little faster, or a little slower, than c, how would you know?

Let me again repeat for the tenth time: THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO C RELATIVE TO THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD THAT THE LIGHT IS PASSING THROUGH REGARDLESS OF THE STRENGTH OF THE FIELD. A STRONGER FIELD WILL NOT MAKE THE LIGHT TRAVEL ANY FASTER OR SLOWER THAN A WEAKER FIELD WOULD.

 

Q,

The speed of light would always be equal to c regardless of the strength of the gravitational field, so the light would not change its speed as it's moving from the atomic clock to the ground station. A stronger gravitational field may speed up, or slow down, light to c faster than a weaker field, but in the end, the light will be travelling at c relative to the field regardless of the field's strength.

 

MacM,

I browsed your link about the Extinction Shift Principle, and it was very interesting. If the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the source that's producing it, then that would explain the near-null results of the MM experiment without having to use time dilation or length contraction.

However, according to ESP (ha-ha), the speed of light should be equal to c in all inertial objects (if the light was create or absorbed and re-emitted in those objects). So if the speed of light does not changed in atomic clocks that are moving at a constant speed, and there is no time dilation in those clocks, why do the moving clocks tick at a slower rate than stationairy ones?

 

Prosoothus,

You seem to be confused about the number of gravitational fields in the universe. There is only one gravitational field. The field varies in strength from place to place in the universe; it is large near the Earth and the Sun for example, and it is small deep in interstellar space, but it is the same field everywhere. I don't understand your post referring to light passing through multiple gravitational fields.

 

Physics Monkey,

Since masses are moving at different speeds, they are creating gravitational fields that are moving at different speeds. As light enters these fields, the fields try to change the speed of the light so that it is travelling at c relative to themselves. So as light is traveling through different moving gravitational fields, its speed will adjust in every field it is passing through.

If you want, you can average out all of the strengths and speeds of all of the gravitational fields in the universe to come up with a single speed/strength at any given location, but that would give the same result as if you looked at each moving field seperately.

 

I agree that such a distinction can be made for electromagnetic fields (at least approximately) because the fields are linear. It makes fairly good sense to talk about the field due to this point charge over or the field due to that current loop over there. This distinction is not truly possible since electromagnetism is not truly linear (once quantum corrections are included), but it is a good approximation. The same cannot be said for gravity which is inherently non-linear according to our best understanding (GR). This means that the field of any one mass is modified by the presence of other masses. Contrast this with emag where the field of a point charge is the same no matter what other charges or currents are present. If I have two masses I cannot separate the true gravitational field into a gravitational field due to mass one and a gravitational field due to mass two. Ordinarily, because nonlinear effects in gravity are so weak, an approximate separation is possible. However, since you assert that the photons move at the speed c relative the gravitational field no matter its strength we cannot ignore the tiny nonlinear relationship that exists. The gravitational field cannot be separated into contributions. The fact different masses move with different speeds in different parts of spae merely means that the gravitational field will have different strengths and different rates of change in different places. All this is perfectly allowed within the context of a single gravitational field.

 

Prosoothus this is what you posted on 3September05:
“The speed of light is always equal to c relative to the gravitational field, regardless of the strength of the field. However, it is possible that a stronger field will accelerate/decelerate a photon faster to c than a weaker field.”

As others have pointed out to you, there is only one gravity field in the entire universe. At some locations it is stronger than at others. At a space point (near vacuum) not far from Jupiter’s surface, it is currently strong, but at that point, it will be significantly weaker in a Earth year or so. (essentially only the sun’s field) The speed of light at this point of varing gravitational strengh is, I agree unchanged “regardless of the strength of the field.” So I can’t understand what you are saying in the second sentence above about field “accelerate/decelerate a photon” Either you do not understand: (1) that to accelerate something means to change its speed (for example, wrt the space point that was near Jupiter) or (2) You don’t realize photons are light. (Do you think that photons can be accelerated but light speed is always c?)

That same day you also said:
“You're making the mistake in assuming that the principle of invariance of {speed of} light is a fact. IT IS NOT. It's only an assumption that has only been tested in an object that is stationary in the Earth's gravitational field.”

Because of this post, I told you about Römer’s experiments using Jupiter’s moon Io, to show that claiming speed of light was measured only on Earth, in Earth’s gravity was nonsense on both claims. 99.9999% of the path used was outside of the Earth’s atmosphere in high vacuum. Also when path passed near sun, the photons were in a much stronger gravity field than when path did not, yet Römer’s measurements (and predictions of Io’s appearance) were built on the confirmed assumption that the speed of light did not depend upon the velocity of the body it came from or the strength of the gravity field it pasted thru.

Frankly I don’t think there is any sense to your phrase: “in an object” Since light is so fast, you need a long path to measure its speed. Only way you could get that is a long optical fiber and that seems possible only on Earth, at least for the present.

Can you describe an experiment that could support your theory? (You have also claimed they all do, but after five tries to get you to give a published reference to even one, I now switch to asking for you to describe an experiment that NEEDS you armchair invented theory to explain it. If it can’t be tested (in a experiment that could also show it wrong) and it only predicts the same results that fall out of Maxwell’s very well confirmed equations, (which do not mention gravity and have been tested in many different gravity fields coming and going as communication to / from fast moving sattelites) who, but you, wants it?

 

Billy T,

Let me clarify what I meant: The speed of light is always equal to c relative to the gravitational field that it is passing through. However, in the universe there are multiple gravitational fields moving at different speeds. So, if light is travelling through field A at the speed of c relative to field A, this does not mean that it is travelling at c relative to field B. If the light moves from field A to field B, its speed will increase, or decrease, so that its speed becomes equal to c relative to field B. The stronger field B is, the faster the light will accelerate, decelerate, to c relative to B, even though, eventually, its speed will only be equal to c relative to field B.

Of course, it's important to state that the light would not suddenly exit field A and enter field B, instead its speed would gradually change since the fields overlap. Also, since field A will always have a small effect on the light no matter how far the light has travelled into field B, the speed of the light relative to field B will never be exactly equal to c. Also let me state, as you and Physics Monkey pointed out, you can look at fields A and B as a single field with different strengths/speeds at every location that the light passes through.

You're correct in stating that the light in Romer's measurements travelled through several gravitational fields during its journey from Jupiter to Earth, but the only problem is that those fields were relatively stationairy to the Earth's gravitational field so the change in the speed of light would have been very small.

For example, most of the light's journey was through the Sun's gravitational field. But since the Earth's distance from the Sun is relatively fixed, the Sun's gravitational field is stationairy to the Earth's (excluding Earth's orbital motion around the Sun). However, if Jupiter and Earth were moving at a high speed towards, or away from the Sun, then a large change would be observed in the speed of the light arriving from Jupiter.

But regardless if the change in the speed of light from Jupiter was small, or large, physicists would simply conclude that the speed of the light is still c, but that the distance between Jupiter and Earth needs to be adjusted to reflect the results. (Or they would make minor adjustments to gravity (I'm not saying that this is what Einstein did

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)).

If you put a MM inferometer in a spacecraft that is orbiting Earth at a high speed (Not in a geostationairy orbit), the interference patterns would prove whether I'm right or wrong. Also, you can put the MM inferometer in a spacecraft and launch it towards Mars (or anywhere where it would be moving through the Sun's gravitational field at a high speed). In other words, this experiment would be relatively simple to do because of all the satellites and spacecraft we are launching nowadays. But I don't think that a reputable scientist would recommend this experiment be done for fear of being labeled a crackpot.

 

The ONE gravitational field is computed by adding up the effect of al the near by sources of gravity. The field intensity can vary in time but it doesn't move. The sources move.

 

Billy T,

So, are you claiming that masses move, spacetime around those masses also moves, but the gravitational field is at all times stationairy? Do you have a published reference to support your statement?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He is saying that the gravitational field intensity at any given location in the universe will vary as the source(s) moves near or through the location.

Though, the difference in what you are saying and what he is saying is really a matter of semantics and perspective.

 

I am not sure it is only semantics. For example if you want to speak of the part of THE SINGLE gravitational field due to the sun (or evenly a golf ball) - it extends to the edge of the universe (or if you prefer, throughout the entire universe). For it to "move", at least part of it must move beyond the universe - What can that mean?

 

That reasoning only applies if space was bounded, Billy... do you think space has actual edges?

But regardless, movement is a relative concept.
If a field is stationary in one frame, then it's moving in other frames, right?