a story about special relativity,who can explain it？

(Q) said:
And of course, you haven't posted any such experimental observations because there are none. Once again, you prove you're just blowing hot air out your ass.
Click to expand...
Light bending observations were done decades ago.
The gravitational field refraction model can explain the bending of light. This is just a model. It is not important how much it differs from general relativity. We have proved 1 + 1 = 2. Do we have to prove 10 + 10 = 20 ?
 
Doppler effect proves that light is pulled by gravitational field.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2bRt3bh1qJXnCuJRA

The Doppler effect and the gravitational field pulling light are the ideas that I suddenly thought of. I temporarily put it here. Whether it can be used as evidence is still unclear.
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Doppler effect is when the source or object is moving away. You're drawing is bunk.
Click to expand...
The Doppler effect and the gravitational field pulling light are the ideas that I suddenly thought of. I temporarily put it here. Whether it can be used as evidence is still unclear. It's too late, I must go to bed.
 
(Q) said:
Do you even know what refraction is? Obviously not. Clueless.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you're talking about. You can google the information you want.
I need to go to bed. see you tomorrow.
 
(Q) said:
So far, the findings don't show light slowing down in a gravity field, it either gains energy or loses it, ie; blueshift or redshift.
Click to expand...
Locally, one cannot detect a slowing, but from the perspective of a distant observer (the one observing the bending of light), light very much does slow down in a gravity well since time slows there. I posted about that pages ago when discussing variable speed light to and from the moon.
Thus, bending of light as a function of diffraction is not necessarily wrong. It has to have an effect.
Question is, does this diffraction alone explain the angle observed? I've seen nobody (Tony in particular) run the mathematics, so it is all just bad bad science, asserting this and that without evidence. Run the computation, compute the angle using only the slowing of light due to the gravity well, and see if it agrees with what GR says or what Newton says. Newton of course did predict bending, but the same bending as a rock going that speed. Diffraction did not come into play. It didn't match observations.
 
Halc said:
Locally, one cannot detect a slowing, but from the perspective of a distant observer (the one observing the bending of light), light very much does slow down in a gravity well since time slows there. I posted about that pages ago when discussing variable speed light to and from the moon.
Thus, bending of light as a function of diffraction is not necessarily wrong. It has to have an effect.
Question is, does this diffraction alone explain the angle observed? I've seen nobody run the mathematics, so it is all just bad bad science, asserting this and that without evidence. Run the computation, compute the angle using only the slowing of light due to the gravity well, and see if it agrees with what GR says or what Newton says. Newton of course did predict bending, but the same bending as a rock going that speed. Diffraction did not come into play. It didn't match observations.
Click to expand...
Yes, we can't use classical flat throw theory to calculate. Need to use the principle of refraction for analysis.
 
TonyYuan said:
Light bending observations were done decades ago.
Click to expand...
Light/Photons simply follow geodesics in curved spacetime.
TonyYuan said:
Doppler effect proves that light is pulled by gravitational field.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2bRt3bh1qJXnCuJRA
Click to expand...
Doppler Effect is the change in frequency when an emmitter and observer move closer or away from each other.
Cosmological Redshift is the change in frequency due to spacetime expansion.
Gravitational Redshift is due to a change in frequency, caused by climbing outwards from a gravitational well.
 
Back to our discussion of special relativity. Some scenarios, you have not given the answer.

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win? Who can give the answer?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/o2WkLK5M3uji7aMc7


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.goo.gl/GTvVoKDWDBqPPe4c9
What is the relative speed of AB?
Janus gave the answer: w=(0.2c+0.4c)/(1+0.2c*0.4c/c^2) = 0.555c.

scene2:https://photos.app.goo.gl/Zy12Qxz1WHXEehVg6
What is the relative speed of AB?
Janus gave the answer: w=(-0.2c+0.4c)/(1-0.2c*0.4c) = 0.217c.

scene3:https://photos.app.goo.gl/cTUiMYNjXCdveHnQ6
What is the relative speed of AB?
Janus gave the answer: r=sqrt[1-(0.4c)^2/c^2] ; w=sqrt[(r*0.2c)^2+(0.4c)^2] = 0.44c.

scene4:https://photos.app.goo.gl/UuUJ6ABoY2M6W5jv6
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? Who can give the answer?
A and B who will reach Earth first?

scene5:https://photos.app.goo.gl/UowoF19W5MfZ6GAJ6
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? Who can give the answer?
A and B who will reach Earth first?

These simple scenarios look embarrassing to supporters of special relativity, and no one has been able to answer these questions. I really hope Janus can take some time to take a look.
If none of these simple problems can be solved, it is really hard to imagine that such a complicated cosmic phenomenon can be solved.
 
Last edited:
Halc said:
Locally, one cannot detect a slowing, but from the perspective of a distant observer (the one observing the bending of light), light very much does slow down in a gravity well since time slows there. I posted about that pages ago when discussing variable speed light to and from the moon.
Thus, bending of light as a function of diffraction is not necessarily wrong. It has to have an effect.
Question is, does this diffraction alone explain the angle observed? I've seen nobody (Tony in particular) run the mathematics, so it is all just bad bad science, asserting this and that without evidence. Run the computation, compute the angle using only the slowing of light due to the gravity well, and see if it agrees with what GR says or what Newton says. Newton of course did predict bending, but the same bending as a rock going that speed. Diffraction did not come into play. It didn't match observations.
Click to expand...
You mean refraction, surely?
 
Halc said:
Locally, one cannot detect a slowing, but from the perspective of a distant observer (the one observing the bending of light), light very much does slow down in a gravity well since time slows there. I posted about that pages ago when discussing variable speed light to and from the moon.
Thus, bending of light as a function of diffraction is not necessarily wrong. It has to have an effect.
Question is, does this diffraction alone explain the angle observed? I've seen nobody (Tony in particular) run the mathematics, so it is all just bad bad science, asserting this and that without evidence. Run the computation, compute the angle using only the slowing of light due to the gravity well, and see if it agrees with what GR says or what Newton says. Newton of course did predict bending, but the same bending as a rock going that speed. Diffraction did not come into play. It didn't match observations.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Shapiro time delay? Doesn't that effect refer to just the lengthening of the path of light as opposed to decreasing it's speed?
 
TonyYuan said:
Back to our discussion of special relativity. Some scenarios, you have not given the answer.

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win? Who can give the answer?
Click to expand...
If the vectors shown represent component vectors in Earth frame, then both get to the line at the same time, but only in Earth frame.
If, on the other hand, both Newton and Einstein are going straight to the side, but they each have an identical gun that shoots a bullet at the line at 0.2c, then Newton's bullet gets there first in Earth frame. Again, the answer is different in different frames.

The latter answer assumes the two of them both shoot their bullets as they pass each other, thus eliminating any contention about which shot first.

There are several scenarios here. The distances between A and B are the same.
Click to expand...
I'm good with answers for 1st three.

scene4:
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? Who can give the answer?
A and B who will reach Earth first?
Click to expand...
zero and .38c respectively.

[/QUOTE]scene5:
What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? Who can give the answer?
A and B who will reach Earth first?[/QUOTE]zero and ambiguous.
C's speed relative to B is continuously changing. Its speed would only be constant if they meet at some common event, and these don't.

For both, Picture doesn't give distance, but if A and B are equidistant in Earth frame, they get there at the same time.

These simple scenarios look embarrassing to supporters of special relativity
Click to expand...
How so? Some are complicated, yes, but embarassing? Only if you assert a wrong answer is it embarrassing.
 
Halc said:
For both, Picture doesn't give distance, but if A and B are equidistant in Earth frame, they get there at the same time.
Click to expand...
As proven by Einstein's "man in the box"?

physics-png.83210

Yes you are right the light beam will bend, the trick is to think of the question relativistically, i.e. light always travels the same speed in any reference frame. Therefore, lets say it takes time t for light to go from one side of the rocket to the other if the rocket was standing still, the light then travels a distance c t ct. Then if the light went horizontal through the rocket with respect to the rockets floor, if the rocket moves distance s s in time t t, the light will actually travel a distance √ c 2 t 2 + s 2 > c t c2t2+s2>ct. Therefore the light seems to bend for the observer inside the rocket, as if the light enters the rocket at distance H H above the floor of the rocket, it needs to exit the other side of the rocket at a distance H − s H−s such that we have √ c 2 t 2 + [ ( H − s ) + s ] 2 = √ c 2 t 2 = c t

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/equivalence-principle-light-beam-through-a-rocket.812809/

The odd thing is that the curved light will appear to travel a greater distance than the straight light in the first frame.
But both light beams travel the same distance and arrive at the opposite side at the same time!
 
While I don't particularly disagree with what you posted, it seems irrelevant as a response to my post, which involves no light beams or accelerating observers or anything. It was a trivial question of: If two guys are a each a mile from the store in different directions and walking at the same pace towards it, they'll get there at the same time.
 
Halc said:
If the vectors shown represent component vectors in Earth frame, then both get to the line at the same time, but only in Earth frame.
If, on the other hand, both Newton and Einstein are going straight to the side, but they each have an identical gun that shoots a bullet at the line at 0.2c, then Newton's bullet gets there first in Earth frame. Again, the answer is different in different frames.
Here are the answers I want to see. There is no definite answer in the special theory of relativity.
We often say that the light on Earth comes from the surface of the sun 8 minutes ago. If the sun is gone, the earth won't know until 8 minutes. So what is the truth of the facts? Did the sun just die or did it die 8 minutes ago?
If spacecraft A is moving away from the sun at a speed of c, will the sun not die?
Tom killed Jerry, but in a frame away from the earth at c speed, will Tom be innocent?

Because of the distance, it takes time for the light to reach the human eye. Classical physics tells us that when the relative speed of AB is v = 0, then the time required for the image of A to reach B's eyes is t = L / c. When AB moves to the opposite direction t = L / (c + v), when AB is far from each other t = L / (c- v), nothing more, it takes a certain time for the image to reach your eyes, but time does not change the existence of the fact.

The root cause of the uncertainty of the special relativity is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Based on this premise, some mathematical formulas are derived, and these formulas are used to demonstrate that the speed of light is constant. It is like using A to prove that B is correct， then use B to prove that A is right.

All experiments used to prove that the speed of light is constant, they can be explained by the model of light being pulled by the gravitational field. The well-known Morley experiment can be easily explained using this model.

LIGO has observed the effect of gravitational waves on light. Such weak gravitational waves can affect the propagation of light on Earth. What other reasons do we have to deny the effect of gravitational fields on light?
Click to expand...
The gravitational field affects the propagation of light. LIGO is the best proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top