Gravity Works Like This

[Russ_Watters]

No, he said the speed of light, and you did dismiss Einstein.

I don't think you know what the word "dismiss" means in this context either. It means to be done with an argument point after only a summary treatment. That's what you are doing (or stronger: ignoring). You didn't even respond to, much less address the Einstein quotes I posted. Posting those quotes and using them to explain what the quote you posted means is not "dismissing" it it is directly addressing it.

So you're back on ignore.

Farsight, you declined to answer most of my post. That's you giving up and admitting you've been exposed. Note, I didn't say "defeated": since, as PhysBang and I pointed out, you admit there is no physics in your physics, you were never really in the game to begin with.

Also - "back on"? You said once that you were putting me on ignore, but I never noticed a change in the frequency with which you responded to me. I guess we'll just have to see this time...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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.

"Farsight's thread of intrigue"

Oooh! I feel in the mood all over again.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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.)

Humor appreciated, but that's not what I meant. I wasn't asking the value (though that comes next), I was asking the name. See, everywhere you see "c" defined, including in citations Farsight posts, it is defined as "the speed of light". If you take away that definition of "c", you need to replace it with something else, because just repurposing the name doesn't eliminate the term from the equation.

The answer Russ was looking for is that the locally measured speed of light is constant....

Fair enough. So we can re-label "c" in every textbook and internet link discussing Relativity to be "the locally measured speed of light". Next, then, is the value:

...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.

I don't know who George Ellis is and that link contains no quotes from him, but yes, today, the constancy of the speed of light is tautological. Why? Because the local speed of light truly is constant. You, of course, know this since you just acknowledged it above by providing the alternate definition of "c" that preserves it. You bring this up just as an additional diversion, which you then follow with a lie about history. I'll just jump ahead and debunk it right now:

The equation you keep posting:
$$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}$$
was derived in 1916, long before the definition was made tautological. The locally measured speed of light is constant because it is constant. The definition just codified that already known fact. And it is then also a historical fact that the definition was made tautological because it reflects the truth that the local speed of light is constant. Arguing against that is just another one of your common lies. And I really don't get it because it doesn't help you any. Even if you were right about the history and even if you were right about the definition being recursive and therefore useless, it still doesn't eliminate "c" from the equation.

And by the way, that God frame of yours, where the "real" value of "c" resides: what is the value of "c" in that frame? I'll give you a hint: you already posted the answer in this thread.

 

[Undefined]

Guys, Guys! When all else fails, why not just concentrate on reducing the case to the real observables/essentials, and obviate all these cross-purpose tit-for-tat exchanges getting nowhere?

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.

Consider:

Two clocks. One just above the other. Each clock can register a CUMULATIVE COUNT for its 'ticks'.

You place both clocks from a common position to their new positions one above the other, and set their counters to zero at the same moment. Leave the clocks to tick-count for a YEAR.

After a year you DIRECTLY compare the counts and observe DIRECTLY that (according to Einstein GR effect on clock rates) the LOWER clock's ACCUMULATED tick count is LESS than the upper clock's ACCUMULATED tick count.

No-one 'sees' the clocks tick during that time; so NO observers of any kind except the clocks themselves are involved while they tick. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else 'sees' during that year. OK?

At the END of that year (by the common lab clock 'control' or by calendar reckoning or whatever you like) you just consult the clocks and compare their accumulated tick counts.

You have your answer!

No abstract/remote 'co-ordinate systems or frame' needed! The clocks indicated their OWN effects in their OWN GR affected 'frames'. Period.



So why not just stop all the chatter and cross-purpose superfluous 'overlays' and confusions, and just CONSULT THE CLOCKS DIRECTLY. They tell their own REALITY 'story', as is, not as 'conjectured' or 'made abstract' etc from some theoretical overlays which are made MOOT when the clocks cumulative counts are used without any further superfluous manipulation, interpretation etc etc.

Any objections to consulting the clocks themselves like that instead of arguing endlessly from superfluous 'abstract analysis' contruct 'interpretations' like 'co-ordinate systems and frames' that are not real (as many Relativity experts here have stressed more than once now, here and elsewhere)?

Stop playing and start conversing from that straightforward point of departure for this particular discussion point. Ok? Good luck, guys.

 

[Motor Daddy]

"Farsight's thread of intrigue"

That's funny, I don't care who you are!

 

[Undefined]

Hi CptBork.

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.

You must have missed where Farsight made clear (and obviously the mods have understood the reasons) that he was opening separate threads to treat/conclude each separate issue in turn so as to prevent multiple-strand discussions in the original thread creating complications which prevented getting to the final conclusion overall in that one thread unless that 'step-by-step' sorting of each issue in turn is done in dedicated threads for each issue 'step'?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Consider:

Any objections to consulting the clocks themselves like that instead of arguing endlessly from superfluous 'abstract analysis' contruct 'interpretations' like 'co-ordinate systems and frames' that are not real (as many Relativity experts here have stressed more than once now, here and elsewhere)?

In this context, yes, because it is a separate issue completely from what we are discussing.

 

[PhysBang]

Huh? I'm telling you how gravity works.

But in another post in this thread, you said that you could not do even a simple example of relativistic gravity. So you clearly know that you don't know the relevant physics. So what are you trying to say about gravity, given that you have already admitted that you don't understand the specifics?

 

[Undefined]

In this context, yes, because it is a separate issue completely from what we are discussing.

Can you explain exactly where the 'separateness' lay in your opinion?

I ask because if the speed of light in light clocks is at issue, then the directly observable differences in the two cumulative tick counts gives direct indication that there IS a difference in the rate at which the light bounces between the mirrors in each of the two clocks at their respective GR locations.

We don't have to get an exact quantification of that 'difference', but only an indisputable indication that that difference is real, local, and due to the two clock's respective light-across-space-between-mirrors GR-affected travel rate?

As the clocks tell us via their accumulated tick counts irrespective of any observers/co-ordinates/frames considerations during that year they ticked/counted away in reality not in abstract analytical overlay 'construct'.

Hence why I again urge you and Farsight to consider that case I reduced it to in my post #84, and start your 'gravity' discussion from that point of independent-reality-case understanding.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Can you explain exactly where the 'separateness' lay in your opinion?

I ask because if the speed of light in light clocks is at issue.....

No, the speed of light is at issue. Not just the speed of light in clocks.

...then the directly observable differences in the two cumulative tick counts gives direct indication that there IS a difference in the rate at which the light bounces between the mirrors in each of the two clocks at their respective GR locations.

Not really, no: there are several reasons why the tick rates might be different.

 

[Undefined]

No, the speed of light is at issue. Not just the speed of light in clocks.

How do you separate the essentials of light speed in clocks from light speed outside clocks under the same GR location effect on light propagation per se in GR conditions at the two levels irrespective of between clock mirrors or between any other 'termini' we use to determine and measure light speed per se?

Not really, no: there are several reasons why the tick rates might be different.

If the clocks are at the North pole, and the clocks are so close one upon the other, such that rotational/orbital etc SR considerations are negligible; and the clocks can be swapped and the experiment run again to cancel out any slight manufacturing considerations between the clocks, then what other 'reasons' for the differences do you have in mind?

 

[Russ_Watters]

How do you separate the essentials of light speed in clocks from light speed outside clocks under the same GR location effect on light propagation per se in GR conditions at the two levels irrespective of between clock mirrors or between any other 'termini' we use to determine and measure light speed per se?

By measuring the speed of light itself, with a clock instead of trying to deduce the speed of light in a clock. Or by comparing light waves without even measuring their speed at all (a Michelson-Morley type device). This really isn't important enough to argue about though, so I'm not going to bother taking it any further.

If the clocks are at the North pole, and the clocks are so close one upon the other, such that rotational/orbital etc SR considerations are negligible; and the clocks can be swapped and the experiment run again to cancel out any slight manufacturing considerations between the clocks, then what other 'reasons' for the differences do you have in mind?

In a light clock, time is registered using the equation t=d/s. So if you get differences in t between two clocks, it could be because:
1. d has changed.
2. s has changed.
3. both d and s have changed.
4. you've traveled a different path through spacetime and none of the terms in the equation have changed and therefore the principle of relativity is still valid.

 

[Undefined]

By measuring the speed of light itself, with a clock instead of trying to deduce the speed of light in a clock.

But I obviated all those superfluous considerations in this case advisedly. Didn't you see where the clocks cumulative tick count differences were all the DIRECT INDICATION NEEDED to conclude that there WAS SOME DIFFERENCE IN the light speed, irrespective of any 'quantitative values' OF a speed as such for light which you may wish to determine in other experiments for that particular 'quantification' of the speed.

My suggested scenario gives an indication that SOME difference DOES exist, between the speed/travel-duration or whatever it is, of light in the lower and upper clocks.

That's ALL we wanted as a COMMON, mutual understanding, starting point for your and Farsight's discussing the further gravity-related effects and what may cause that observed indication that there IS a difference....LOCALLY, REALLY and not due to abstraction interpretations from 'co-ordinate systems/frames etc' overlays which cloud the issue of trying to establish the real, local indications OF a difference per se.

In a light clock, time is registered using the equation t=d/s. So if you get differences in t between two clocks, it could be because:
1. d has changed.
2. s has changed.
3. both d and s have changed.
4. you've traveled a different path through spacetime and none of the terms in the equation have changed and therefore the principle of relativity is still valid.

Like I said, all that is for further discussion ONCE you two agree that there IS a difference in the LOCAL, REAL, light rate/motion or whatever in the two clocks as independently indicated by the clocks' own cumulative count differences which has been determined DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY.....without involving unnecessary abstract 'co-ordinate system/frame' overlay considerations/interpretations into the exercise/results/conclusions. Yes?

Any abstract INTERPRETATIONS/OVERLAYS like 'spacetime distance contraction' etc etc (note 'spaceTIME 'contraction', NOT spaceONLY contraction, so be careful everyone, don't get confused what the meaning is in the two different contexts) is probably what is the next 'step' in your discussion....BUT you two need to agree FIRST that there IS a difference between the two clocks' cumulative counts, before you take that next step in discussion, yes?

I'll be reading it with great interest. Thanks. Good luck, guys!

 

[Russ_Watters]

BUT you two need to agree FIRST that there IS a difference between the two clocks' cumulative counts, before you take that next step in discussion, yes?

It is agreed: there has never been any debate about that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

"Farsight's thread of intrigue"

Oooh! I feel in the mood all over again.

Yeah it could be a forum unto itself. People the world over would flock there to watch the guy who hammers a 16 penny nail into his eye socket over and over again without flinching. Well, OK, geeks the world over but that's a least a few million.

 

[Undefined]

It is agreed: there has never been any debate about that.

I read where you and przyk contend that the difference is related to 'co-ordinate system/frame' perspectives, not local GR differences in the real GR-conditioned energy-space where the clocks are. Have you changed your mind/assertions about that?

 

[Grumpy]

RC

The problem here is Farsight's claims, not our corrections. The speed of light is invariant in all frames, he claims it is variable and has the temerity to try to claim Einstein agrees with him. None of that is remotely true. He based this claim, evidently, entirely on an out of context quote where he is mixing Einstein's statement about Coordinate speed as being about the speed of light through spacetime. Einstein said a lot of things in his argumentation, often making the arguments of other paradigms(Darwin did the same thing)before explaining how Relativity makes such arguments moot. So if one wants a suitable gem of a quote for your argument, and you are willing/able to ignore every other thing that person ever said, you get what Farside has done. Like sausage often has little bits of good meat, but you don't want to know where the rest of it came from. Einstein also used different kinds of space in his thinking processes and some things that can be said in one are not true in others or in Relativity, the type of space that actually exists. The coordinate speed of light in Newtonian space must be variable by position(as Farsight claims)to explain the bending of light by mass, but lightspeed is constant so that explanation is falsified, nevertheless the light bends, so Einstein's solution to the paradox is that the the straight lines of Newtonian space are false, the real spacetime we live in is bent, not Newtonian at all. Thus Relativity(to grossly oversimplify). Now, Newtonian physics is a close approximation at low speeds, but it cannot explain mass bending light, the procession of the orbit of Mercury and several other little niggles on the edge of our ability to explain the Universe. That was the impetus for the research that led to Einstein's Relativity which has been supported by all evidence for almost 100 years. Farsight is not a danger to that, but we already have more than our fair share of duh in this country, we should correct it where we can, and give refutation of the woo.

Grumpy

 

[Farsight]

...So why not just stop all the chatter and cross-purpose superfluous 'overlays' and confusions, and just CONSULT THE CLOCKS DIRECTLY. They tell their own REALITY 'story', as is, not as 'conjectured' or 'made abstract' etc from some theoretical overlays which are made MOOT when the clocks cumulative counts are used without any further superfluous manipulation, interpretation etc etc. Any objections to consulting the clocks themselves like that instead of arguing endlessly from superfluous 'abstract analysis' contruct 'interpretations' like 'co-ordinate systems and frames' that are not real (as many Relativity experts here have stressed more than once now, here and elsewhere)? Stop playing and start conversing from that straightforward point of departure for this particular discussion point. Ok? Good luck, guys.

Good stuff, Undefined. Then when you place a whole lot of clocks in an equatorial slice through the Earth and the surrounding space, your plot of clock rates resembles the rubber-sheet depiction of Riemann curvature.

...I ask because if the speed of light in light clocks is at issue, then the directly observable differences in the two cumulative tick counts gives direct indication that there IS a difference in the rate at which the light bounces between the mirrors in each of the two clocks at their respective GR locations. We don't have to get an exact quantification of that 'difference', but only an indisputable indication that that difference is real, local, and due to the two clock's respective light-across-space-between-mirrors GR-affected travel rate? As the clocks tell us via their accumulated tick counts irrespective of any observers/co-ordinates/frames considerations during that year they ticked/counted away in reality not in abstract analytical overlay 'construct'. Hence why I again urge you and Farsight to consider that case I reduced it to in my post #84, and start your 'gravity' discussion from that point of independent-reality-case understanding.

More good stuff, Undefined, it's nice to know that somebody gets it and is sincere.

 

[Farsight]

In a light clock, time is registered using the equation t=d/s. So if you get differences in t between two clocks, it could be because:
1. d has changed.
2. s has changed.
3. both d and s have changed.
4. you've traveled a different path through spacetime and none of the terms in the equation have changed and therefore the principle of relativity is still valid.

We have been through all this. Surely you cannot have missed it. The slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out, leaving the metre unchanged. So only s has changed. There is no motion through spacetime. It's a static "mathematical space". It isn't what space is.

 

[Farsight]

The problem here is Farsight's claims, not our corrections. The speed of light is invariant in all frames, he claims it is variable and has the temerity to try to claim Einstein agrees with him. None of that is remotely true...

It is absolutely true. And something else that's true is that the locally-measured speed of light is invariant because it's a tautology, just like George Ellis said, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 :

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition".

The hyperfine transition results in microwaves. Microwaves are light waves. We use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, then we use them to measure the speed of light. It's circular. It's a tautology. It's like a clockwork man using a clockwork mechanism to define his second, and then declaring that the speed of clockwork never changes. Even when it does.