# Gravity Works Like This

Hmmmm?

Both freezing and barbecuing steaks are forms of time travel.

Mmmmm!

Farsight

I'm not lying.

Yes, you are. The constancy of lightspeed is a fact and every time you insist it isn't is another lie.

Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. He never said light curves because spacetime is curved.

No Einstein said it is caused by curved spacetime, not variable lightspeed. Mass curves spacetime and light follows a straight line through that curved spacetime, at lightspeed. If one measures the speed between two coordinates on a curved line you get a varying COORDINATE speed even though the actual speed of light along the curve does not vary. We've thrashed this out time and again, you go away for a while and then come back with the same lie. It's really just simple geometry, any straight line between two coordinates on a curved line will be shorter than the curved segment between those same two coordinates. So comparing the straight line coordinate distance and it's expected interval of time(as if the light followed that straight Euclidian line)to the actual curved distance(that light actually travels)and expected time will give you a false reading. To mix the two knowingly is to lie. That's what you are doing here. Lightspeed never varies, time and space distort to make that so.

It's no definition-swap. You have two NIST optical clocks in front of you. One is 30cm lower than the other one. And it goes slower. Because the light goes slower. Because the speed of light varies with position.

No, it is the actual time that is going slower, distorted by mass. The lightspeed will be measured the same for both clocks. Same goes for two clocks at different speeds, both still see the exact same lightspeed, but one experiences less time than the other. And the faster one will be shorter than the slower one in the direction of travel. This is well established scientific fact(IE never been falsified, lightspeed is constant).

My "game" is ending deception.

Your game IS nothing but deception, though I leave motivation to you(ignorance? intent?), I have no idea why you lie, just that you do.

Travelling to another time. As if another time is a place you can actually travel to.

You do it every second of every minute. We all travel in time toward the future. At different rates depending on the conditions in our own frame. There is only the present, but the current present is not the same one as you experienced 5 minutes ago, that is in your past and no longer exists. So you have traveled from that past to this present and in five minutes you will be in our present's future(which does not yet exist). Time travel is not only possible, it is necessary and unavoidable. It is a property of spacetime, an actual dimension we move through. Though I consider it a half dimension, because we can only move in one direction in it, unlike the three space dimensions.

Like I said, time travel is science fiction. Because you could “travel” to the future by stepping into a glorified freezer. But you aren’t really travelling to the future. You aren’t moving. Instead everything else is.

Everything is moving in time, but each frame travels in time at the rate it's frame's conditions dictate. In a gravity well or at speed time goes slower, at lightspeed time stops. Don't confuse your movement in space with your movement in time, they are of a different character, but both are movement in their respective dimensions.

No we don't, and no it isn't. Where have you been, Grumpy? Read the OP in time travel is science fiction.

I did read your OP, it's crap, full of the same lies you always tell. Do you think repetition of lies makes them truer?
Is self reference Onanism?

You can't travel backwards in time because you don't even travel forwards in time.

That's an idiotic assertion. Are you still a baby? No? That's because you traveled away from that time to the present(and because of all the accumulated events that occurred in that time span, there are no events without a time within which to occur). You ONLY travel forward in time, you can't NOT travel forward in time, though you can vary the rate of your travel by changing the conditions in your personal frame. If you could get to lightspeed you could stop travelling in time, but nothing with mass can ever reach lightspeed. Even energy and mass are tied together by that value(E=MC^2). The value of the metric we call lightspeed is built into the very fabric of the Universe. You will not change that fact.

And your frame isn't something empirical. You can't point up to the night sky and say "look, there's a reference frame". It's little more than your state of motion. Through space.

Frame of Reference. Yes, your speed through local spacetime is part of your frame of reference, so is the degree of gravitational dilation. And yes we can measure another frames conditions and compare it to our own. It is an empirical reality for every frame and an empirical measurement of the differences between frames. But there is one(and only one)constant between all frames, the constancy of the measured speed of light in a vacuum, all other parameters will change to keep lightspeed constant.

He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. I gave the quotes in the OP of the speed of light is not constant. He said what he said.

No, you are just wrong in what you say. Einstein knew what you deny to be true, space curves, lightspeed is constant and every other parameter in spacetime warps to keep it constant. Einstein said a lot of things, but this is the stuff he said that we have found to be true by actual experiment and observation. Your total misunderstanding/dishonesty notwithstanding.

Grumpy

...No, Einstein said it is caused by curved spacetime, not variable lightspeed...
Oh yeah? OK, here's my Einstein quote: "Eine Krümmung der Lichtstrahlen kann nämlich nur dann eintreten wenn die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert". It's from die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie. Search on Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit, and look at page 51. The sentence translates into "A curvature of light rays can only occur when the propagation speed of light varies with location". Check that with a German friend. Or try Bing translate. Not google translate because some joker has screwed that up to say varies with type. Try google translate for Orte to check that out. Now where's your Einstein quote? You haven't got one, because there isn't one.

Farsight said:
Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position....

...two NIST optical clocks...One is 30cm lower than the other one. And it goes slower...

[blah, blah, blah]
Yes, we know: the coordinate speed of light varies with position and time dilation results. That's the point here: you are trying to create a discrepancy where none exists and then explaining correctly how the theory works, while using the wrong terms -- which then makes everyone else think you are arguing a theory or reality that is wrong.
It's no definition-swap.
Sure it is. We discussed it: you say "the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light", knowing full well that "the speed of light" is defined both in general word use and for equations as the invariant speed of light.

The existing definition is of course a tautology:
The "speed of light" is the invariant speed of light.
The "[invariant] speed of light" is the invariant speed of light.

The equation you keep posting for time dilation comes straight out of the wiki on time dilation, and includes in the description:
wiki said:
c is the speed of light...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

If one were to plug a coordinate speed of light into there, they'd get the wrong answer. If you want to steal that definition, you still need to replace it with something that means the same thing as the current definition for use in the equation! You've never actually completed that second half of the definition-swap: fixing the error you create with the first half.
He never said light curves because spacetiem is curved.
Your quote mining is just a distraction from the above definition-shift. Whether you track the light using the local or the coordinate speed, you get the same answer. If indeed it is correct that Einstein preferred to track it with the coordinate speed, it doesn't change anything about your definition-shift. A full swap of definitions and the uses of the words in sentences ultimately results in no change. The logic is simple:

One plus one equals two.

Now swap the definitions of "one" and "two" and swap the word usages and you get:

Two plus two equals one.

Since the definitions and word uses both were swapped, the net result is no change except to confuse anyone who doesn't know we just made the swap. That's all you're doing.
The people who say that are lying, not me....
Who said that? Personally, I don't own a library of Einstein quotes so I don't know what he said. But I do know what the math he produced says. Your swapping of the definitions of the words doesn't change the math unless someone ends up putting the wrong number into an equation because they didn't know the definition got changed. And for practical purposes, since you are using standard equations from standard sources, you are using the standard definitions even while claiming they need to be changed.
My "game" is ending deception.
I think you mean to say correcting the wrongs of current theory or word use: you appear to be claiming to unswap them because you think somehow Einstein's view got lost (perhaps in some conspiracy). But no one is using deception here except you: If you really wanted to correct the word use, you'd be more explicit that that is all you are doing. You'd show Einstein's original equations with the original definitions of the terms, which would demonstrate that today's terms and definitions have gotten swapped.
Travelling to another time.
That's vague and broad and therefore covers all of the typical definitions/types:
1. Traveling forward in your own frame naturally (what we are doing now).
2. Twins-paradox type speeding or slowing of time to create a timeline inequity (returning from your trip to find your twin dead of old age).
3. Similar to 2, but beyond just speed or slowing of rates, possibly making the rate negative. In pop culture, some time machines work this way while standing still ("The Time Machine").
4. Local, instantaneous skip forward or backwards in time. In pop culture, other time machines work this way ("Back to the Future").

#1 and 2 are of course well proven, so clearly your assertion that time travel does not exist is wrong by your own definition. Some people do not include #1 and #2 for that reason: "time machines" and therefore "time travel" are typically defined as either #3 or #4.
Because you could "travel" to the future by stepping into a glorified freezer. But you aren't really traveling to the future. You aren't moving. Instead everything else is.
Well that sounds like #3, but what you really mean is that time doesn't exist so being in stasis produces the same result. Both of those assertions by you are wrong:

1. Time does exist and despite your protestations, you've never been able to demonstrate how to remove it from equations/units and you use it all the time as normal.
2. Being in medical stasis (commonly meaning cold storage or a medical coma type state in pop culture) is not enough if you are wearing a watch. Because your watch isn't affected by drugs and most can function just fine below freezing temperatures, it shows that time is still progressing even if your biological functions are not contininuing.

But, of course, this is a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face type of argument. Rather than deal with the actual definitions of the words, you just assume the concept doesn't exist, which enables you to avoid having to deal with the actual since --- except, of course, that you can't, since as you've shown us, for practical purposes, you still use time everywhere and in the same way everyone else does.

So to sum up:
1. For the the speed of light, you're trying to swap definitions, to create confusion.
2. For time, you're trying to avoid dealing with the definitions, to create confusion.

Oh yeah? OK, here's my Einstein quote...
Google translates it OK, using the word "location".

But the end of page 50 to the beginning of 51 discusses projecting the linear motion of light onto curved space by transforming the coordinates. So clearly in the quote you posted, he's referring to coordinate speed and no discrepancy exists.

Page 77 he discusses the curvature of space using the apparently flat but actually not surface of the earth as an analogy.

I must admit to never having read the paper, but a quick skim and keyword search shows it to be exactly as I expected. Which makes your false claims about it - and indeed the very fact you are so willing to boldly cite it - all the more bizarre.

Yes, we know: the coordinate speed of light varies with position and time dilation results. That's the point here: you are trying to create a discrepancy where none exists and then explaining correctly how the theory works, while using the wrong terms -- which then makes everyone else think you are arguing a theory or reality that is wrong.
I'm pointing out the obvious. See The Speed of Light is Not Constant and note that if one NIST optical clock 30cm higher than the other, we can see the difference in the rates they run at. And they're optical clocks. The "coordinate" speed of light varies in the room you're in. Because it isn't the "coordinate" speed of light, it's just the speed of light. And like Einstein said, the speed of light varies with location. It's that simple Russ. If the speed of light didn't vary in the room you're in, your pencil wouldn't fall down.

Sure it is. We discussed it: you say "the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light", knowing full well that "the speed of light" is defined both in general word use and for equations as the invariant speed of light.
But that "definition" contradicts Einstein and the evidence. If that definition was correct, the NIST optical clocks would run at the same rate. As would the parallel-mirror light-clocks. But they don't.

Image credit: Brian McPherson

If one were to plug a coordinate speed of light into there, they'd get the wrong answer. If you want to steal that definition, you still need to replace it with something that means the same thing as the current definition for use in the equation! You've never actually completed that second half of the definition-swap: fixing the error you create with the first half.
We know about all that. Changing the equations to use the variable c means recasting relativity to describe everything from the God's eye view rather than the local view. It isn't easy.

Russ_Watters said:
Your quote mining is just a distraction from the above definition-shift. Whether you track the light using the local or the coordinate speed, you get the same answer. If indeed it is correct that Einstein preferred to track it with the coordinate speed, it doesn't change anything about your definition-shift. A full swap of definitions and the uses of the words in sentences ultimately results in no change. The logic is simple:

One plus one equals two.
Now swap the definitions of "one" and "two" and swap the word usages and you get:
Two plus two equals one.

Since the definitions and word uses both were swapped, the net result is no change except to confuse anyone who doesn't know we just made the swap. That's all you're doing.
Geddoutofit. I'm doing no such thing, nor am I quote-mining. But you are however playing the naysayer and coming out with straw-man trash and saying nothing useful.

...I must admit to never having read the paper, but a quick skim...
Says it all really. You've never read what Einstein said, and you will airily dismiss what he said when it doesn't square with what you think you know. He said this: a curvature of light rays can only occur when the propagation speed of light varies with location. You dismiss it. And you're calling me bizarre?

Why don't you start a thread on Hawking radiation, and I'll rip it to shreds.
Here’s you as John Duffield …Posting to Strassler’s blog here
How can there be any Hawking radiation when gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon? Where the coordinate speed of light is zero, which is why the light doesn’t get out?[/b]

You seem to suggest Hawking radiation originates on the event horizon and so can’t escape because of gravitational time dilation goes infinite there.
Yet, to quote Ethan Siegel here
What would sometimes happen, however, is that if you had a fluctuation just outside the event horizon, one of the particles (or antiparticles) would sometimes escape from the black hole, while the other one fell in!
Do you notice it’s not originating on the horizon?

Do you notice that both particles would fall in, whereupon the black hole would be consuming vacuum energy? That's the vacuum energy of the space outside the black hole. That black hole wouldn't evaporate. It would grow. And did you notice the "negative energy particle" part of the given explanation for Hawking radiation:

"A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."

It's garbage. There are no particles with negative energy.

Do you notice that both particles would fall in, whereupon the black hole would be consuming vacuum energy? That's the vacuum energy of the space outside the black hole. That black hole wouldn't evaporate. It would grow. And did you notice the "negative energy particle" part of the given explanation for Hawking radiation:

"A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."

Why didn't you finnish your wiki quote...
In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole).By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon
Tunnels out...escapes

If you don't like the negative and positive idea what's your beef with the quantum tunnelling idea? the energy can be from the vucuum energy inside the horizon, and so, giving rise to two particles with one quantum tunnelling free.

Do you notice that both particles would fall in,
Where does ethan or anyone say that??
But, if you mean what happens in the negative and positive idea of both particles falling in...there's no net gain, since in that picture the hole has taken on board equal negative and positive energy.

I notice you, as john Duffield, had to be corrected on your ‘mis-reading ‘ of Sabine Hossenfelder here
John,
"Frozen stars" is how black holes were called before they were called black holes and it's not what I was referring to. I was, as I wrote, referring to objects with a material surface hovering just outside the Schwarzschild horizon. According to GR, these objects should be unstable and collapse. It requires a significant deviation from GR on scales that we know there's no deviation to make this option work and, as I wrote above, it's in conflict with observation. Before you go on to misread me, maybe follow the links I have provided. Best,

Last edited:
Farsight, since you have admitted here that you can't do any physics with your "physics", what are you trying to say?

I'm pointing out the obvious. See The Speed of Light is Not Constant . The "coordinate" speed of light varies in the room you're in...
The coordinate speed of light is not constant. Yes, we agree and we know why. You don't have to keep saying "the speed of light is not constant" as if it is any different from the rest of us saying "the coordinate speed of light is not constant". We're on the same page that all you are doing is swapping the definition and word use.
Because it isn't the "coordinate" speed of light, it's just the speed of light.
Lol, a directly false tautology: black isn't black. White isn't white. The coordinate speed of light isn't the coordinate speed of light. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

And you still haven't fixed the other half of the definition swap:
If the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light, then what is the speed of light?

Don't understand what I mean? I mean what everyone else calls the "speed of light" or the invariant/local speed of light: "c" in the equations. Since you've stolen the term "speed of light" term away from it, it needs a new one. What do you want to call it?
But that "definition" contradicts Einstein and the evidence. If that definition was correct, the NIST optical clocks would run at the same rate.
Nonsense. Again: you posted the equation that describes this scenario. It works just fine the way it is. You swapped the words and definitions, resulting in nothing about the theory being different.
We know about all that. Changing the equations to use the variable c means recasting relativity to describe everything from the God's eye view rather than the local view. It isn't easy.
Wait, you mean Einstein never did that? I thought you were with Einstein?!? I'm shocked that you now admit you want to "recast" relativity into something different from what Einstein created. Why even bother with the charade, then? I guess that must be part of the troll: you know no one will listen to you if you admit right from the start that you want to throw relativity in the recycling bin and "recast" it. At that point, you may as well just introduce yourself: "Hi, I'm a crackpot and I propose a replacement for Relativity that I've not been able to create but know must exist...." That would save everyone a lot of time wasted. Perhaps saving wasted time isn't what you want?

More to the point: Can you tell me what the value of "C" would be in the God's Eye View frame? I'll give you a hint: it is an easy question.
Geddoutofit. I'm doing no such thing...
The statements you've made are black and white. Or white and black, as you seem to prefer.
....nor am I quote-mining.
Let me explain what that is. It is taking quotes out of context and then denying that the context exists. It is a misrepresentation followed by a lie.
Says it all really. You've never read what Einstein said, and you will airily dismiss what he said when it doesn't square with what you think you know.
No, I have read what Einstein said now. What is sad is that I knew what he said before reading it and you have supposedly read it but still don't know what he said.
He said this: a curvature of light rays can only occur when the propagation speed of light varies with location. You dismiss it. And you're calling me bizarre?
I didn't dismiss it, I put it in context. The context is that he is talking about the coordinate speed of light, not the invariant speed of light and that he's talking about the curvature of space that results in the coordinate change. You are denying that this context exists.

You also deny that light is just another dimension that you can travel through, though the paper is littered with discussion of that as well.

Part of the problem is that Einstein doesn't like the word "space", perhaps because he wants to avoid the appearance of an aether. So he talks in coordinates:
Page 6 said:
"Locations **, which runs through the stone," in reality ** on
a straight line or on a parabola? What is here
further motion "in space? ** The answer is after the
Considerations of � 2, of course. First, we let
the dark word "space **, under which we honest with us
Confession can not think of the slightest, quite aside;
we use instead "motion relative to a practically
cally rigid body of reference. ** The locations with respect to the
Body of reference (railway carriage or ground) are in the previous
Paragraphs have already been defined in detail. By
instead of "body of reference ** the mathematical description for the
tion useful term "introduce coordinate system **, can
We say that the stone describes with respect to a the
Carriage rigidly connected system of coordinates is a straight line, in
with respect to a rigidly connected to the ground coordinate
coordinate system a parabola.
Now, of course, part of the reason I've never read the translator-bot version is that it is difficult to read because of poor translation flexibility. But not so difficult that you shouldn't be able to see that he's describing the purpose of the coordinate transformations and the usage of "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

Farsight, since you have admitted here that you can't do any physics with your "physics", what are you trying to say?

I think he's trying to say ignorance is bliss, if only in a shrill and discomfiting way.

The coordinate speed of light is not constant. Yes, we agree and we know why. You don't have to keep saying "the speed of light is not constant" as if it is any different from the rest of us saying "the coordinate speed of light is not constant". We're on the same page that all you are doing is swapping the definition and word use.

Lol, a directly false tautology: black isn't black. White isn't white. The coordinate speed of light isn't the coordinate speed of light. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

And you still haven't fixed the other half of the definition swap:
If the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light, then what is the speed of light?

Don't understand what I mean? I mean what everyone else calls the "speed of light" or the invariant/local speed of light: "c" in the equations. Since you've stolen the term "speed of light" term away from it, it needs a new one. What do you want to call it?

Nonsense. Again: you posted the equation that describes this scenario. It works just fine the way it is. You swapped the words and definitions, resulting in nothing about the theory being different.

Wait, you mean Einstein never did that? I thought you were with Einstein?!? I'm shocked that you now admit you want to "recast" relativity into something different from what Einstein created. Why even bother with the charade, then? I guess that must be part of the troll: you know no one will listen to you if you admit right from the start that you want to throw relativity in the recycling bin and "recast" it. At that point, you may as well just introduce yourself: "Hi, I'm a crackpot and I propose a replacement for Relativity that I've not been able to create but know must exist...." That would save everyone a lot of time wasted. Perhaps saving wasted time isn't what you want?

More to the point: Can you tell me what the value of "C" would be in the God's Eye View frame? I'll give you a hint: it is an easy question.

The statements you've made are black and white. Or white and black, as you seem to prefer.

Let me explain what that is. It is taking quotes out of context and then denying that the context exists. It is a misrepresentation followed by a lie.

No, I have read what Einstein said now. What is sad is that I knew what he said before reading it and you have supposedly read it but still don't know what he said.

I didn't dismiss it, I put it in context. The context is that he is talking about the coordinate speed of light, not the invariant speed of light and that he's talking about the curvature of space that results in the coordinate change. You are denying that this context exists.

You also deny that light is just another dimension that you can travel through, though the paper is littered with discussion of that as well.

Part of the problem is that Einstein doesn't like the word "space", perhaps because he wants to avoid the appearance of an aether. So he talks in coordinates:

Now, of course, part of the reason I've never read the translator-bot version is that it is difficult to read because of poor translation flexibility. But not so difficult that you shouldn't be able to see that he's describing the purpose of the coordinate transformations and the usage of "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

You thrashed him pretty severely. That's all he ever gets. Maybe he gets his kicks being whipped.

And you still haven't fixed the other half of the definition swap:
If the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light, then what is the speed of light?

Sorry, I could not even finish reading the whole post before I demonstrate my psychic abilities and predict the answer, "variable"?

(This was meant as humor for those who might mistake my intent.)

...I notice you, as john Duffield, had to be corrected on your ‘mis-reading ‘ of Sabine Hossenfelder here
I wasn't corrected. She tried to accuse me of not following her links, but I had. She admitted that curved space was a misnomer.

PhysBang[/quote said:
Farsight, since you have admitted here that you can't do any physics with your "physics", what are you trying to say?
Huh? I'm telling you how gravity works.

Russ_Watters said:
I didn't dismiss it, I put it in context. The context is that he is talking about the coordinate speed of light...
No, he said the speed of light, and you did dismiss Einstein.

Russ_watters said:
...At that point, you may as well just introduce yourself: "Hi, I'm a crackpot..."
No. You dismissed Einstein, and now you're comforting yourself with ad-hominems instead of offering a sincere argument. So you're back on ignore. The words timewaster and ignorant naysayer spring to mind.

Sorry, I could not even finish reading the whole post before I demonstrate my psychic abilities and predict the answer, "variable"?
The answer Russ was looking for is that the locally measured speed of light is constant by tautological definition. George Ellis admitted it. You use the local speed of light to define your second and your metre, and then you use them measure the local speed of light. So regardless of the actual speed of light, you always say the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. And then some people will say one 299,792,458 m/s is the same as another even when the seconds aren't the same. Even though a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation passing you by.

You thrashed him pretty severely. That's all he ever gets. Maybe he gets his kicks being whipped.
LOL, troll.

Huh? I'm telling you how gravity works.

C'mon, can't you tease a little more before giving the raw deal?

Too quick, I say.

This message is hidden because Beer w/Straw is on your ignore list.

Since Farsight seems to be repeating this garbage in every single thread on General Relativity, and thus already has plenty of opportunities to clutter up the Physics section, I propose that the moderators should move this particular thread to Alternative Theories, which is where it should have been posted in the first place.