a story about special relativity,who can explain it？

[(Q)]

Don't discourage him. IMO, he is making a serious effort and appears to have some knowledge of the subject.
I don't (can't) follow any of the mathematics , but find the narratives interesting.

As to "changing the future of physics" might be a tad optimistic, but we can dream....

Yet, he said light slows down and relativity is bunk. Reading the exchanges, no one here seems to think he knows what he's doing or talking about.

 

[TonyYuan]

Yet, he said light slows down and relativity is bunk. Reading the exchanges, no one here seems to think he knows what he's doing or talking about.

Janus knows what I'm talking about. Let's look forward to his answer.

 

[(Q)]

Janus knows what I'm talking about.

Yet, his words say otherwise...

"I think the problem here is that you only have a very superficial grasp of Special Relativity.

The fact that you not comfortable with the answers SR gives doesn't make it flawed. The universe is not concerned with what you are or are not comfortable with. If only it had consulted with you before it adopted its operating principles.

The reason you keep getting answers that seem bizarre is that you are really bad at knowing how to properly arrange the equations so that they accurately represent the scenario. The problem isn't with SR, but with your inability to apply it correctly."

Not only that, but you keep ignoring the request for you to show how light slows down due to gravity. You'll probably just keep ignoring that little tidbit.

 

[TonyYuan]

Yet, his words say otherwise...

"I think the problem here is that you only have a very superficial grasp of Special Relativity.

The fact that you not comfortable with the answers SR gives doesn't make it flawed. The universe is not concerned with what you are or are not comfortable with. If only it had consulted with you before it adopted its operating principles.

The reason you keep getting answers that seem bizarre is that you are really bad at knowing how to properly arrange the equations so that they accurately represent the scenario. The problem isn't with SR, but with your inability to apply it correctly."

Not only that, but you keep ignoring the request for you to show how light slows down due to gravity. You'll probably just keep ignoring that little tidbit.

So please use special relativity to explain this running race and tell us whether Newton won or Einstein won.
I hope we can use data for analysis, not philosophy.

 

[(Q)]

So please use special relativity to explain this running race and tell us whether Newton won or Einstein won.
I hope we can use data for analysis, not philosophy.

For someone who wants data, all I've got from you so far is philosophy, and some very specious philosophy at that. Of course, you can continue to dance around or ignore it, but the data just does not agree with your philosophy.

The assumption that the speed of light is constant is wrong. That is to say, the theoretical basis of special relativity is not tenable.

You could also continue on stroking your massive ego pretending to know what you're talking about or be honest and simply admit you're just blowing hot air and trying to yank our chains. What say you?

 

[TonyYuan]

For someone who wants data, all I've got from you so far is philosophy, and some very specious philosophy at that. Of course, you can continue to dance around or ignore it, but the data just does not agree with your philosophy.
You could also continue on stroking your massive ego pretending to know what you're talking about or be honest and simply admit you're just blowing hot air and trying to yank our chains. What say you?

Light deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds =1.667*10^-7 degree.
The earth's revolution degree: 360/365*24*60*60 = 1.1415*10^- 5 degree/s.
If the time of light passing through the earth is 0.01 seconds, about 3000 km,the angle of rotation of the earth is 1.1415*10^- 7 degree. It can't be ignored!

Now let's analyze Eddington observation.
There are two reasons that can lead to the bending of the object's moving path, one is the effect of the force, resulting in the speed in the vertical direction, the other is the refraction caused by the inhomogeneous medium or field, resulting in the bending of the path. Then the bending of light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by a circle of gravitational field, the stronger the gravitational field is. When the light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light bends like refraction due to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field. The bending of this path is different from the bending caused by the direct action of gravity. So it is not suitable to calculate the bending angle of light with the classical theory of flat throw.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/1kPbdLVXdxm2qqVD6
In this paper, we have analyzed that no matter sun moves in the same or opposite direction or at a certain angle, the speed of light relative to sun will not change. In the calculation of the theory of flat throw, because there is an acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be more far away from the sun, less affected by gravity, so the deflection angle of light will be smaller. This is the reason why the deflection angle of light calculated by the classical theory of flat throw is too small. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics, but it was not used correctly that time.
Your data supports the idea that light is trapped by gravity.
The rotation of the earth does not affect the strength of the gravitational field, so we should consider the rotation of the earth around the sun.

 

[Write4U]

TonyYuan,

This from a pure layman. Do you believe "c" can be exceeded or is "c" the absolute speed any physical object van attain, but no faster.
If that is true, then gravity may be able to slow an object from "c", but never accelerate an object to faster than "c", no?

Somewhat like reaching terminal speed but unable to exceed terminal speed. Can "c" be a terminal speed?
All theoretical calculations become moot, when an absolute physical limit has been reached, no?

Just wondering.......

 

[TonyYuan]

TonyYuan,
This from a pure layman. Do you believe "c" can be exceeded or is "c" the absolute speed any physical object van attain, but no faster.
If that is true, then gravity may be able to slow an object from "c", but never accelerate an object to faster than "c", no?

Somewhat like reaching terminal speed but unable to exceed terminal speed. Can "c" be a terminal speed?
All theoretical calculations become moot, when an absolute physical limit has been reached, no?
Just wondering.......

With absolute speed C, there is absolute space-time. The speed of light may not change in the gravitational field, but it does change in the original direction of light. Otherwise it will not bend. I'm not a professional astronomer, I just use the classical Newtonian mechanics to explain the bending of light. And this calculation can match the result calculated by general relativity very well.
I have never doubted the correctness of some conclusions of general relativity, but I think it is wrong that the speed of light is constant and the special relativity based on it is wrong.

Light refracts under different gravitational field intensities, much like light refracts in air. As for whether the speed of light will decrease in the gravitational field, I believe it will, because black holes are a good example.

It would be surprising if, as the authority of special relativity, such a simple scene could not be explained.
A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win?
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPiogT4OFvz8gAvi-LHHCWNFKLEQUk6IGdGcgEw

I have asked many "authorities" of special relativity to calculate AB relative speed in simple scenes. Their answers are various and very funny. Janus's answer is the most reliable one I have ever met, so I hope to end this discussion here. I will use logical reasoning and mathematical model calculation to verify and refute his point of view. Until he convinced me or I convinced him.

 

[paddoboy]

With absolute speed C, there is absolute space-time.

While I'll admit that I'm only a lay person with regards to SR/GR. you have just shown that you are a fraud. C is the symbol for Carbon: "c" is the symbol for the speed of light, from the Latin word "celeritas"
I don't believe I need to refute any more of your erronious claims after that.

 

[TonyYuan]

While I'll admit that I'm only a lay person with regards to SR/GR. you have just shown that you are a fraud. C is the symbol for Carbon: "c" is the symbol for the speed of light, from the Latin word "celeritas"
I don't believe I need to refute any more of your erronious claims after that.

Thanks very much for helping me point this out. I just checked the information, you are right, the speed of light is indicated by the lowercase “c” letter.

 

[Write4U]

The speed of light may not change in the gravitational field, but it does change in the original direction of light. Otherwise it will not bend.

As I understand it it gravity may give the appearance of bending the light but it is not the light itself bending, but the curvature of spacetime fabric which it must follow. The appearance is a curve, but the light is always going in a straight line at every spacetime coordinate. Spacetime is bending, light is always going straight.

Basically there is no difference between that and a racecar driving on a banked race track, as the track banks relative to the curve the racecar will appear to curve, but the driver never has to turn the steering wheel .

And yes, believe it or not Mercedes-Benz does send its commercial vehicles around that bend. This video shows a bunch of bus drivers riding along for a testing session in the Tourismo K coach, and things look pretty hairy from the inside as it basically goes horizontal on the attempt. Mercedes notes in its press release that once a car gets above 93 mph, the driver can take their hands off the wheel as the centrifugal force keeps the front wheels pointed straight.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/9657/mercedes-benzs-famous-high-banked-test-track-turns-50

p.s. if the light actually can slow down or speed up would that not be observable by a red or blue shift in the light itself?

 

[TonyYuan]

As I understand it it gravity may give the appearance of bending the light but it is not the light itself bending, but the curvature of spacetime fabric which it must follow. The appearance is a curve, but the light is always going in a straight line at every spacetime coordinate. Spacetime is bending, light is always going straight.

Basically there is no difference between that and a racecar driving on a banked race track, as the track banks relative to the curve the racecar will appear to curve, but the driver never has to turn the steering wheel .

And yes, believe it or not Mercedes-Benz does send its commercial vehicles around that bend. This video shows a bunch of bus drivers riding along for a testing session in the Tourismo K coach, and things look pretty hairy from the inside as it basically goes horizontal on the attempt. Mercedes notes in its press release that once a car gets above 93 mph, the driver can take their hands off the wheel as the centrifugal force keeps the front wheels pointed straight.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/9657/mercedes-benzs-famous-high-banked-test-track-turns-50

p.s. if the light actually can slow down or speed up would that not be observable by a red or blue shift in the light itself?

Yes, my gravitational field refraction model is similar. They are all models. The speed of light does not change where the gravitational field is uniform, but if the gravitational field is not uniform, then light refraction will occur, causing the light to bend.

What I want to explain is that the bending of light can also be explained by classical physics, and it is equal to the bending angle calculated by general relativity.

Janus said that the bending angle of the earth ’s gravitational field to light is only 1/6000000 degrees, which is similar to the angle caused by the refraction of the gravitational field in my article.

 

[(Q)]

Light deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds =1.667*10^-7 degree.
The earth's revolution degree: 360/365*24*60*60 = 1.1415*10^- 5 degree/s.
If the time of light passing through the earth is 0.01 seconds, about 3000 km,the angle of rotation of the earth is 1.1415*10^- 7 degree. It can't be ignored!

Now let's analyze Eddington observation.
There are two reasons that can lead to the bending of the object's moving path, one is the effect of the force, resulting in the speed in the vertical direction, the other is the refraction caused by the inhomogeneous medium or field, resulting in the bending of the path. Then the bending of light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by a circle of gravitational field, the stronger the gravitational field is. When the light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light bends like refraction due to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field. The bending of this path is different from the bending caused by the direct action of gravity. So it is not suitable to calculate the bending angle of light with the classical theory of flat throw.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/1kPbdLVXdxm2qqVD6
In this paper, we have analyzed that no matter sun moves in the same or opposite direction or at a certain angle, the speed of light relative to sun will not change. In the calculation of the theory of flat throw, because there is an acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be more far away from the sun, less affected by gravity, so the deflection angle of light will be smaller. This is the reason why the deflection angle of light calculated by the classical theory of flat throw is too small. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics, but it was not used correctly that time.
Your data supports the idea that light is trapped by gravity.
The rotation of the earth does not affect the strength of the gravitational field, so we should consider the rotation of the earth around the sun.

You're just dancing around, you did not address your claim: "The assumption that the speed of light is constant is wrong."

You're still just pretending and still just blowing hot air. When are you going to support your claim or come clean and admit you have no idea what you're talking about?

 

[(Q)]

With absolute speed C, there is absolute space-time. The speed of light may not change in the gravitational field, but it does change in the original direction of light. Otherwise it will not bend. I think it is wrong that the speed of light is constant and the special relativity based on it is wrong.

You have not in any way supported that assertion.

As for whether the speed of light will decrease in the gravitational field, I believe it will, because black holes are a good example.

Then, you need to support that assertion rather than just asserting it because so far that is just a lot of hot air coming from you.

I will use logical reasoning and mathematical model calculation ...

Then do it, show us how the speed of light slows down or admit you're just blowing hot air? The data does not agree with you so you need to show the data is wrong?

 

[(Q)]

Yes, my gravitational field refraction model is similar. They are all models. The speed of light does not change where the gravitational field is uniform, but if the gravitational field is not uniform, then light refraction will occur, causing the light to bend.

What I want to explain is that the bending of light can also be explained by classical physics, and it is equal to the bending angle calculated by general relativity.

The bending of light and the speed of light are two different things. Your assertion is that light slows down, this is what you need to support, where are your answers and sources?

 

[TonyYuan]

The bending of light and the speed of light are two different things. Your assertion is that light slows down, this is what you need to support, where are your answers and sources?

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNC3qAi_CxSaruP2kfm1gNIarhPfv4MRinf1VSQ
Let the speed of light in media 1 and 2 be v1 and v2, and take the width of the beam as d.
If the left end of the beam is in contact with the interface at t = 0, then the right end of the beam will only touch the interface when t = dsinθ1 / v1, at this point, the left end of the beam has advanced v2 * dsinθ1 / v1.
sinθ2=(v2*dsinθ1 / v1)/d.
n1=c/v1; n2=c/v2, then we can get the well-known law of refraction: sinθ1/sinθ2 = v1/v2 = n2/n1.
The refraction of light must be due to a change in speed, either faster or slower. From the direction of light bending through the sun, the speed is slower.

Hope my explanation can help you understand my point.

 

[Write4U]

So please use special relativity to explain this running race and tell us whether Newton won or Einstein won. I hope we can use data for analysis, not philosophy.

Where are they in competition? I always heard that Einstein did not falsify Newton, but improved on his theory. i.e. a refinement of a functional but incomplete theory.

 

[TonyYuan]

Where are they in competition? I always heard that Einstein did not falsify Newton, but improved on his theory. i.e. a refinement of a functional but incomplete theory.

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win?
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPiogT4OFvz8gAvi-LHHCWNFKLEQUk6IGdGcgEw


There are several scenarios here. The distances between A and B are the same.
If you are interested, you can try to answer the following questions based on these scenarios.
scene1: https://photos.app.g...q7X66YJgFqSjPb8
What is the relative speed of AB?

scene2:https://photos.app.g...GFa6PhzZRH9CPe7
What is the relative speed of AB?

scene3:https://photos.app.g...ztLEA345MMXwgbA
What is the relative speed of AB?

scene4:https://photos.app.g...BZXvytfhyXfi349
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C?
A and B who will reach Earth first?

scene5:https://photos.app.g...msbzY72zQHuHE18
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C?
A and B who will reach Earth first?

 

[Halc]

I always heard that Einstein did not falsify Newton, but improved on his theory. i.e. a refinement of a functional but incomplete theory.

This is true for much of Newtonian mechanics, but some parts were outright falsified, such as Newton's theory asserting that light speed, like sound, was a function of the speed of the medium, and thus not frame independent.

As for this race of Tony's, I have no idea what he's going on about. He's posted a link to a private google hosted thing, which does none of us any good. I haven't asked because he's not interested in actual answers.

 

[(Q)]

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNC3qAi_CxSaruP2kfm1gNIarhPfv4MRinf1VSQ

The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

There was no photo there, can you post it here?