Farsight hasn't changed his mind and he's the one claiming that "the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light," not me. I don't think you are following your own favored position. Also, I think you may have forgotten that you accosted me, not the other way around.
So do you have a reference to him using that term?
RC
Not only no, but hell no. I'm not wasting my time going back over the reams of woo you guys have been generating.
Explain where the hell you got that stupid "energy-space" non-sense. There is no such concept in Relativity and you avoid explaining your meaning time after time. Each clock is in spacetime. Energy is something spacetime has in it. Movement is something that occurs in it. We don't describe a glass as a wet liquid do we?
No, frames are simply a way of looking at things. In Relativity they are essential because things look differently depending on your FRAME OF REFERENCE, you cannot discard frames of reference and still make sense about the way the Universe works. It's all Relative to your reference frame. You cannot force us to accept such non-sense by superciliousness.
As I have pointed out numerous times lately, just because they are inventions does not mean they do not accurately model the reality. In the case of Relativity, very well indeed.
No, there is also the reality that those models are based on, checked against and corrected by until they are accurate.
This sentence is just garbled to the point that no real meaning can be extracted from it. You do know that both SR and GR are included in the Theory of Relativity, don't you? There's no conflict between them. Why can you not write simple declarative sentences that make your position understandable instead of the horribly butchered word salad of the above? Try again. And never use that stupid, meaningless phrase "energy-space" again until you explain, plainly, what you think it means. And both me and Russ are perfectly able to indicate what we agree with, you cannot force us to agree with the non-sense you post by claiming falsely that we agree with your non-sense.
Run away! Run for your life!:runaway:
When you come back be prepared to simply explain what energy-space means and where you got it, or be prepared to be called out about ever using it again. I've given you Relativity 101, deal with it.
Grumpy
RC
He said it has energy IN IT and is not empty.
Gobbledegoop. So you made a bunch of crap up on your own? Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. So energy-space is a meaningless, made up concept hatched by your ignorance of Relativity you just thought you would throw into a conversation about SR and GR effects? No wonder you've got everything so wrong.
No, you haven't made sense yet, just like Farsight. What Farsight was saying about slower lightspeed is a stupid claim, we know it is never measured to travel any other speed than c and no amount of internet woo is going to change that fact. His diagram does not illustrate time dilation properly, so his answer based upon that error was dead wrong.
This is the correct illustration showing that light speed remains constant, even in accelerated frames, and that it is time itself being dilated by the motion or acceleration.
The upper left diagram is what a comoving observer sees, the upper right what a stationary observer sees in a moving clock, notice the lines between mirrors are longer, light takes longer to tick, so time is slowed down in the moving frame. SR tells us that both observers see this in the other's clocks and without reference to things outside the two of them, neither could determine which one was moving and which stationary. In SR all that is dealt with is Relative motion.
The bottom left illustrates acceleration from rest of a comoving observer in GR(or of a comoving observer in a gravity field), the bottom right is acceleration in an already moving frame from the the perspective of a stationary observer. Notice the "adjusted" lines. Under acceleration the beam bends because between the time the photon is emitted and the time it reaches the mirror, the mirror has moved and the photon hits behind the detector. Adjusting the angle so that the photon once again hits the sensor you form an arc to the other mirror. All curved lines are longer than a straight one between the same two points, so that photon now takes longer to get to the sensor even though the photon is moving at c. Time moves slower under acceleration/gravity, light continues to move at c, just like Einstein said. In the comoving frame time is slowed down to the extent that they continue to measure lightspeed the same between the two mirrors, to the stationary observer, the light travels a longer distance at the same lightspeed the stationary observer measures with his clock and the comovers are seen to be moving slower in time. Under GR acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity(we describe gravity in terms of acceleration for a reason, we also describe acceleration in terms of G).
Now what part of the above explanation are you having trouble understanding? Notice I didn't use that scary "Frame" word yet still got it done. And no math. This is time dilation with constant c, just like Einstein put into SR and GR and it is the same today as it was 100 years ago. I would put money on a bet that it will still be valid science 100 years from now.
No, they have agreed that our abstractions are an invention, but that does not make them invalid or moot, far from it, they are essential to understanding Relativity, different frames see different things so specifying the frame is vital to being able to make sense of the whole thing. They cannot be ignored or discarded. Relativity is about comparing one frame relative to another.
The abstractions describe the reality, they are not woo, they are not irrelevant and even if you discarded them you would have to make up a whole new set(maybe metric this time)to replace them with. But then your new ones are abstractions, too. And I know much more about the reality in front of me than you have shown that you know about it. You've admitted to making it up as you go along.
Grumpy
Ahh, so you admit that "energy-space" is a term you invented?
In appears you lost track of your own nonsense: you accosted me, not the other way around. I haven't withdrawn anything because I'm not the one who put forward an objection to what you were saying!
The photon's gravitational field is irrelevant. And it doesn't gain any kinetic energy, just as the SR photon doesn't gain any energy when you accelerate towards it. If you drop an electron some of the electron mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, but the photon doesn't have any mass, it's nothing but kinetic energy. You can use Compton scattering to convert some of the photon energy into electron kinetic energy. If you do another Compton scatter on the selfsame photon and repeat, in the limit all the E=hf wave energy has gone, the wave no longer exists, and the photon has been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy.
But Einstein told you why light curves, because the speed of light varies with position. And you know about the wave nature of matter. So if you rub a couple of brain cells together you can come up with the OP to this thread.CptBork said:
That's at odds with just about everything Einstein ever said. Like the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. It contains energy. Energy is a thing. Matter is made of it. It causes gravity.CptBork said:
So the 511keV photon doesn't gain any energy.CptBork said:
It's the map, not the territory, and it is static. The territory is inhomogeneous space and motion through it.
No I don't. What I've said is there is no literal time flowing or passing in a clock. And that a clock clocks up some kind of regular cyclic motion, so when the clock goes slower it's because that motion goes slower. That applies to mechanical clocks, quartz clocks, atomic clocks, optical clocks, and the idealised parallel-mirror light clock.
Pay attention. Clocks clock up some kind of regular cyclic motion. So in any empirical observation or experiment time is always a magnitude of change in position.Aqueous Id said:
Not quite, because displacement is a vector whilst distance is a scalar. You can have a negative displacement, but not a negative distance.Aqueous Id said:
No, the magnitude of change in position is usually called displacement.
Displacement is a distance. In 3-space we speak of the Eulidean distance as the square root of the sum of square squares of the displacements in each of the (x, y, z) directions:
Events may be coincident with each other, but it makes no sense to say they are coincident with time. Speed is not an event, so it can not be called coincident with anything. You could at best try to rescue this by explaining acceleration, but you lack the high school chops to do even that much.
"Magnitude" means square root of the sum of squares as above.
If you mean to say the distance is changing with respect to time, then that at least works as a definition of speed (or acceleration). But all of this is inaccurate and roundabout. Just stick with standard definitions or it all sounds like gibberish.
Here you're just butchering the math that you were accusing others of doing. Remember I said math is more than equations? It's a disipline. You're not exercising that discipline, which makes me wonder why you are so critical of physicists who master it. There are two kinds of speed in kinematics:
Linear speed: s = dx/dt
Angular speed: ω = dθ/dt
In all discussions of the nature of space and time, you need to at least acknowledge this much. It's pretty evident you haven't made it past about 7th grade math. For that reason alone, you shouldn't presume to be competent enough to criticize experts. You haven't said why you harbor these illusions, so I'm left to assume you are here as an operative for the anti-science coalition of the Right Wing. At some point if you ever show your true colors you may have opportunity to prove me wrong. But there is no other philosophy in the world I can think of which would drive a person with a 7th grade level of literacy into posting complaints about how experts do their work.
When you start using jargon like "ethereal time" and "empirically and experimentally factual" you diminish yourself further as a person qualified to judge novices, much less experts.
You shouldn't pretend to know SR. If you don't know what a differential is, then you couldn't possibly have understood Einstein's evidence for propounding SR.
Oh sure it's simple. But only if you read what the theory actually says with the same conclusion that "the math is simple" which can't possibly be true for a person who posted what you just posted.
There is no such thing as contraction of motion. You just made that up. That's fatal. Further, nothing is proportional in the Lorentz transformation. It's a coordinate rotation, with a projection onto the axes of the reference frame. You have to understand linear algebra to even begin to understand that. As you see all of your arguments against the stuff that works is merely a reflection of your infamiliarity with it.
Which is wrong; the evidence was the asymmetries of Maxwell's equations which I'm sure is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Wrong. SR is the theory which arose from investigating the implications of Maxwell's equations to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But you wouldn't know that would you?
You've not only made massive changes to it, you've given it an abortion.
After mangling the lower division math needed to comprehend SR, you can't possibly hope to conquer the upper division math of GR. You're just making all of this up without and firsthand experience to guide you. Hence you're dead wrong.
All you've done is to latch onto maxims here and there which you picked up from who knows where (Creationist boards?) and set up a very vacuous pretense for tying them together. You haven't introduced any facts about GR much less QM, but it's obvious that even if you tried to do so, it would amount to an abortion as well.
Why are you worried about Mercury's precession? You don't even know what a differential is. How can you possible know what precession is, much less it's origins, and even much less the specific issue with Mercury?
For a 7th grader indeed physics must seem quirky. But that's what high school and college are for. You get to develop yourself just to that point where all the myths you were fed in church begin to untangle. And of course the first time you are given 15 minutes to summarize Einstein's explanation of SR, you get another kind of religion, one that sends you to your knees begging the God of Math to show you mercy.
Your inability to say anything meaningful further reduces your authority to speak on physics at all.
Nothing is as obvious as your lack of preparation. Class dismissed. Good luck with your remedial math class. And send our regards to the knuckleheads over at the Creation Institute. They're freaking genuises . . . of the criminal sort.
GR is likely not perfect, but dark energy is not a potential flaw in it because dark energy is not a component of GR. You are confusing GR with the Big Bang Theory.
Why do you ignore that Einstein abandoned such clocks entirely?
So can we please move away from considering clocks in the form of regular cyclical motion? Like Einstein wanted us to?
PhysBang to Farsight said:
Grumpy to Maxila said:
Since we're using words, we must be talking about some abstract construct.