No - again, you're mixing together two different things that aren't the same. I agreed above that the tick rates of clocks are different. You are referring here to the speed of light.
Gravity Works Like This
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
I thought I was on ignore? In either case, that post wasn't to you. If you won't respond to the previous discussion you quit because you were getting thrashed in it, I'm not interested. IE:
I responded to this lie above. Feel free to read and reply. But repeating lies will never, ever make them true.
....um....this response is directly to me...?
In any case, the best case scenario you can hope for with this attempt to reboot the discussion is that I'll just copy and paste my previous demolition of your lies. Worse for you would be if someone just copied and pasted the part of post #83 where I debunk that little collection of lies from that arxiv paper as their own (I hereby grant permission to do that, so long as no substantive changes are made). You'd save yourself a tiny bit of embarrassment by avoiding that.
I think Farsight thrives on embarrassing himself, Russ. At least it makes him the center of his little world.
It truly saddens me that Farsight has brought me to the point where I am defending Ellis and against people that I have met and will meet again, no less.
When Ellis actually addresses the point that Farsight brings up, he does not deny that there can be different standards or methods for the measurement of space, just that this is an important part of variable speed of light theories.
The authors also continue the above quote as follows, "But then, within such a framework, neither can the constancy of the speed of light be falsified, thus losing its status as a scientific statement." This is false in two ways, which is good for remembering that Popper and falsification are not the final say in the philosophy of science. First, clearly the use of standards and definitions is part of science and clearly they are indispensable parts of scientific theories. Second, if one can produce a new and better standard, then one can replace the standards and definitions of a previous system. This is exactly what Einstein did with relativity theory and exactly what we should ask of any variable light speed theory.
Of course, the assumption that time and space have to be linked by assumption pre-dates Einstein and is part of Newtonian mechanics explicitly in the work of Maxwell, and Einstein pointed out this debt to Maxwell (I think there is a reference in the Pais biography, but the exact reference escapes me).
Unfortunately, the problems with the paper do not stop there. The authors ignore the important caveats that Ellis includes in his discussion of what is important in the change of a constant. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand, however.
I was wondering why Farsight quoted this paper and not the original when this paper clearly gives the location of Ellis' freely available paper. Unfortunately, Magueijo and Moffat have written a paper that seriously misreads Ellis on many points, exactly the kind of paper that Farsight likes.
When Ellis actually addresses the point that Farsight brings up, he does not deny that there can be different standards or methods for the measurement of space, just that this is an important part of variable speed of light theories.
The authors also continue the above quote as follows, "But then, within such a framework, neither can the constancy of the speed of light be falsified, thus losing its status as a scientific statement." This is false in two ways, which is good for remembering that Popper and falsification are not the final say in the philosophy of science. First, clearly the use of standards and definitions is part of science and clearly they are indispensable parts of scientific theories. Second, if one can produce a new and better standard, then one can replace the standards and definitions of a previous system. This is exactly what Einstein did with relativity theory and exactly what we should ask of any variable light speed theory.
Of course, the assumption that time and space have to be linked by assumption pre-dates Einstein and is part of Newtonian mechanics explicitly in the work of Maxwell, and Einstein pointed out this debt to Maxwell (I think there is a reference in the Pais biography, but the exact reference escapes me).
Unfortunately, the problems with the paper do not stop there. The authors ignore the important caveats that Ellis includes in his discussion of what is important in the change of a constant. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand, however.
When everything is made of clockwork, then there is no basis to claim that there is a change in speed. This is something at least Maxwell realized and it is the basis of Einstein's relativistic work on time. Farsight has no way to measure a change in speed and, as he admits, no way to represent mathematically any relevant physics, but he wants us to take on faith that these undetectable changes in speed.
Farsight
Clocks lower in a gravity well experience fewer ticks because they experience less time to measure. They still see lightspeed as a constant, from every source in the Universe, light does not slow down only within the confines of clocks, nor does light vary by position in spacetime. Gravity can bend it and can redshift it's frequency, but it does not slow it down. Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to be dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang, the other half of the half dimension of time we experience in our Universe. That wormhole would be sized proportional to the mass that enters it and to us would appear almost frozen in time, but under it's conditions would instantly dump it's load into the White Hole(the only one we know of)we call the Big Bang, avoiding any possibility of paradox. But I don't claim to know that to be true, it's just speculation
Logically we should get the fastest rate of time's passage(which is what clocks measure, whatever the type)at zero speed in empty space. This would then logically be thought of as absolute time. But just like uncertainty in the Quantum precludes an exact position, only a probability cloud of possible positions, speed is always relative and no point can be said to be absolutely motionless, in addition, the term "empty space" is an oxymoron, space is never empty, it's a veritable fizz of virtual particles. So there can be no motionless point in empty space so no absolute time, it's all relative. The reason clocks that use light to measure time have fewer total clicks in a gravity well is that they are measuring less time, not because light is going slower.
Lightspeed is a physical property of the Universe, it is intimately tied into time, space and matter. It does not matter how we measure it, our definitions are inventions for our own convenience, they have no effect on the things we are measuring no matter how you manipulate those symbols and ideas. Lightspeed is c, in all frames, from all sources, period. Time varies, space(width, height, depth)varies, gravity(mass)varies, but lightspeed does not vary whatever the metrics used to describe that value. Energy is to mass as the square of c, E=MC^2. It's what makes the stars shine. It requires an absolute value(lightspeed). If your theory requires the variability of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is crap, not science.
Grumpy
Clocks lower in a gravity well experience fewer ticks because they experience less time to measure. They still see lightspeed as a constant, from every source in the Universe, light does not slow down only within the confines of clocks, nor does light vary by position in spacetime. Gravity can bend it and can redshift it's frequency, but it does not slow it down. Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to be dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang, the other half of the half dimension of time we experience in our Universe. That wormhole would be sized proportional to the mass that enters it and to us would appear almost frozen in time, but under it's conditions would instantly dump it's load into the White Hole(the only one we know of)we call the Big Bang, avoiding any possibility of paradox. But I don't claim to know that to be true, it's just speculation
Logically we should get the fastest rate of time's passage(which is what clocks measure, whatever the type)at zero speed in empty space. This would then logically be thought of as absolute time. But just like uncertainty in the Quantum precludes an exact position, only a probability cloud of possible positions, speed is always relative and no point can be said to be absolutely motionless, in addition, the term "empty space" is an oxymoron, space is never empty, it's a veritable fizz of virtual particles. So there can be no motionless point in empty space so no absolute time, it's all relative. The reason clocks that use light to measure time have fewer total clicks in a gravity well is that they are measuring less time, not because light is going slower.
Lightspeed is a physical property of the Universe, it is intimately tied into time, space and matter. It does not matter how we measure it, our definitions are inventions for our own convenience, they have no effect on the things we are measuring no matter how you manipulate those symbols and ideas. Lightspeed is c, in all frames, from all sources, period. Time varies, space(width, height, depth)varies, gravity(mass)varies, but lightspeed does not vary whatever the metrics used to describe that value. Energy is to mass as the square of c, E=MC^2. It's what makes the stars shine. It requires an absolute value(lightspeed). If your theory requires the variability of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is crap, not science.
Grumpy
That can't be the case. It may very well be the case that there can be measurable differences in all the things that the speed of light depends upon. For example, E=mc^2 only applies to particles without mass, we could potentially use the behavior of particles with mass to track the different speed of light at different times or different regions. This is precisely what VSL cosmological theories use to generate potentially observations with which to match their theories to observations.
It just so happens that GR makes the assumption that there is no variable speed of light and that no theory that assumes a variable speed of light does as well as GR on the evidence.
PhysBang
Anyone aware of what particle accelerators tell us, even on a basic level, should know that the Relativistic connection between lightspeed and time is fact, not theory. High energy particles that are known to have extremely short lifetimes last many times that long at close to lightspeed. Each of those particles are clocks(some would say time bombs)that start ticking when created in collisions and are precisely tracked through their short lives(as is their decay products). It is a fact that faster particles of the exact same type last longer than slower ones, in exactly the way Relativity predicted they would. It is also a fact that those particles gain mass as they are accelerated, requiring more energy to get faster, which causes them to get more massive, needing more energy...in a upward spiral that means you approach infinity in all these metrics as mass approaches lightspeed, just like Relativity predicted. And recently the physical "appearance" of the proton at near lightspeed was determined, normally it is an ovoid shape, but the faster it gets the flatter it is in the direction of travel. From this >O< to this >l> . That is because the dimension of space in the frame of that proton is actually shorter, it is warped by it's speed, with lightspeed being the ultimate(which no mass can ever reach, also re Relativity). Lightspeed is a hard limit in our Universe and everything else warps to make sure that is true in all frames, from all frames. The whole Universe is tied together by that value, it's likely to be important to understanding that Universe, don't you think?
Grumpy
Anyone aware of what particle accelerators tell us, even on a basic level, should know that the Relativistic connection between lightspeed and time is fact, not theory. High energy particles that are known to have extremely short lifetimes last many times that long at close to lightspeed. Each of those particles are clocks(some would say time bombs)that start ticking when created in collisions and are precisely tracked through their short lives(as is their decay products). It is a fact that faster particles of the exact same type last longer than slower ones, in exactly the way Relativity predicted they would. It is also a fact that those particles gain mass as they are accelerated, requiring more energy to get faster, which causes them to get more massive, needing more energy...in a upward spiral that means you approach infinity in all these metrics as mass approaches lightspeed, just like Relativity predicted. And recently the physical "appearance" of the proton at near lightspeed was determined, normally it is an ovoid shape, but the faster it gets the flatter it is in the direction of travel. From this >O< to this >l> . That is because the dimension of space in the frame of that proton is actually shorter, it is warped by it's speed, with lightspeed being the ultimate(which no mass can ever reach, also re Relativity). Lightspeed is a hard limit in our Universe and everything else warps to make sure that is true in all frames, from all frames. The whole Universe is tied together by that value, it's likely to be important to understanding that Universe, don't you think?
Grumpy
You seem to be ignoring that particles could have decayed at different rates in the past. This is precisely what VSL theorists have argued might have happened to account for certain cosmological features. These theorists seem to be wrong, or at least they do not have the evidence to support their case.PhysBang
Anyone aware of what particle accelerators tell us, even on a basic level, should know that the Relativistic connection between lightspeed and time is fact, not theory. High energy particles that are known to have extremely short lifetimes last many times that long at close to lightspeed. Each of those particles are clocks(some would say time bombs)that start ticking when created in collisions and are precisely tracked through their short lives(as is their decay products). It is a fact that faster particles of the exact same type last longer than slower ones, in exactly the way Relativity predicted they would. It is also a fact that those particles gain mass as they are accelerated, requiring more energy to get faster, which causes them to get more massive, needing more energy...in a upward spiral that means you approach infinity in all these metrics as mass approaches lightspeed, just like Relativity predicted. And recently the physical "appearance" of the proton at near lightspeed was determined, normally it is an ovoid shape, but the faster it gets the flatter it is in the direction of travel. From this >O< to this >l> . That is because the dimension of space in the frame of that proton is actually shorter, it is warped by it's speed, with lightspeed being the ultimate(which no mass can ever reach, also re Relativity). Lightspeed is a hard limit in our Universe and everything else warps to make sure that is true in all frames, from all frames. The whole Universe is tied together by that value, it's likely to be important to understanding that Universe, don't you think?
Grumpy
The key words: ".......... they do not have the evidence to support their case." For me 'VSL theorists' is a stretch. Maybe we'll be told that Farsight is a VSL theorist?
PhysBang
I'm sorry, maybe I did not explain well enough. I'm talking about the same type of particles created today whose only difference is their speed. They have a known decay time that is the same(within narrow limits)as this is particle decay, not radioactive decay, the faster ones experience less time than the slower ones of the exact same type, as measured by our frame of reference(they both experience the same length of time in their perspective frames). In the present, not the past. Time dilation due to speed is firmly established in the theory and an observed fact. So is mass increase. VSL does not explain that, Relativity does. And with the recent indirect and hopefully soon direct evidence of gravity waves any theory of VSL is crap, not science, one must avoid or deny the evidence to even propose such things. The observed speed of light is invariant, period.
Grumpy
I'm sorry, maybe I did not explain well enough. I'm talking about the same type of particles created today whose only difference is their speed. They have a known decay time that is the same(within narrow limits)as this is particle decay, not radioactive decay, the faster ones experience less time than the slower ones of the exact same type, as measured by our frame of reference(they both experience the same length of time in their perspective frames). In the present, not the past. Time dilation due to speed is firmly established in the theory and an observed fact. So is mass increase. VSL does not explain that, Relativity does. And with the recent indirect and hopefully soon direct evidence of gravity waves any theory of VSL is crap, not science, one must avoid or deny the evidence to even propose such things. The observed speed of light is invariant, period.
Grumpy
I'm using the language of Magueijo and Moffat. Though some of their criticisms of Ellis miss the mark, there is serious scientific work that could be done by introducing a speed of light that varies by cosmological era. Their paper points out the theoretical relationships and the possible observable consequences of VSL theories.
Note that Farsight, despite citing this paper and hand-waving at the Ellis paper, makes no attempt to actually show that his VSL theory takes any of these things into account. He shows no interest in learning physics, just in talking about physics.
There's no misrepresentation. Ellis's paper is not some secret, it's here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703751
There's no problem then, is there?
It absolutely isn't. It goes right to the heart of the matter. The constant speed of light is tautology. It's caused problems for decades because it can't be falsified.
Phooey. There aren't any.
There is when one clockwork man goes faster than another. It's nonsensical to claim they're they're going at the same speed when they patently are not, and claim instead that "time is going faster". Now go and read the time travel is science fiction OP. A clock clocks up some kind of regular cyclic motion. It doesn't literally measure the flow of time.
All: sorry, I have to go. I'm not kidding you about all this. Read that time travel is science fiction OP then the the speed of light is not constant OP. It's all easy stuff, and so is gravity.
And yet irregular motion takes place over time, too.
That second part of the question is wrong to ask if you believe in the scientific method? Mercury’s precession was small clue Newton’s gravitation might not be a perfect description, yet it was the accepted dynamic for 200 years. GR already has many circumstantial clues that it might not be a perfect description. GR was, and will always be, a quantum leap forward in our understanding, just as Newtonian dynamics were before it. Some (of the many) possible signs of GR’s imperfections include, a singularity, the necessity for a new form of energy to explain for the excepted redshift the unexpected faintness of ever distant supernova (dark energy); GR is incompatible with QM while SR is compatible and used in it. SR equations can be interpreted as a compacting or expansion of space, proportional to a reduced or increased motion of energy, GR cannot, some of GR’s math’s are ethereal with no basis in observable reality.
This is not an attack of GR, although many will likely view it that way, rather it is meant to demonstrate that both arguments should be considered and investigated, because that’s what the evidence dictates. It may well be some dynamics of the Universe will always be incomprehensible to the human mind as a function in our observable reality, and it may turn out Einstein’s great contribution is still in need of further perfections. I consider both possibilities because that it was the evidence to date supports.
Maxila
Einstein was not perfect, some of what he thought(cosmological constant, quantum effects, entanglement)was wrong, nor is Relativity complete(any more than evolution is completely understood). That said, Relativity has passed every test and it's predictions have proven very accurate indeed. And not one bit of falsifying evidence found. Recent findings only add more credence to it's veracity. I think we should stick with the theory that has survived 100 years before going with theories that just don't fit the facts. Variable lightspeed theories are those type of theories, there's simply no evidence that light has ever traveled at any other speed. Every photon we've ever seen coming to us from space travels at lightspeed, even those in the CMB. And the way it ties in with matter and time indicates that that value is not accidental or arbitrary, it is built into the spacetime of our Universe. The problems with combining the Relative macro and the Quantum micro will probably turn out to be a problem of our understanding, not an actual disconnect between the two. Newton was a superficial understanding of reality, Relativity is a much deeper understanding of reality, one shown to be correct all the way back to several seconds after the Big Bang, Quantum and Particle physics have gotten us back to the first fraction of a second from the start. The recent findings of gravity waves in the CMB may give us hints about the very first fraction of a second. No other theory can do that.
Grumpy
Einstein was not perfect, some of what he thought(cosmological constant, quantum effects, entanglement)was wrong, nor is Relativity complete(any more than evolution is completely understood). That said, Relativity has passed every test and it's predictions have proven very accurate indeed. And not one bit of falsifying evidence found. Recent findings only add more credence to it's veracity. I think we should stick with the theory that has survived 100 years before going with theories that just don't fit the facts. Variable lightspeed theories are those type of theories, there's simply no evidence that light has ever traveled at any other speed. Every photon we've ever seen coming to us from space travels at lightspeed, even those in the CMB. And the way it ties in with matter and time indicates that that value is not accidental or arbitrary, it is built into the spacetime of our Universe. The problems with combining the Relative macro and the Quantum micro will probably turn out to be a problem of our understanding, not an actual disconnect between the two. Newton was a superficial understanding of reality, Relativity is a much deeper understanding of reality, one shown to be correct all the way back to several seconds after the Big Bang, Quantum and Particle physics have gotten us back to the first fraction of a second from the start. The recent findings of gravity waves in the CMB may give us hints about the very first fraction of a second. No other theory can do that.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy! Long time no speak! Trust you and sis and family all well as can be.
Haven't much time lately, so as briefly as I can...
As you well know from long familiarity, I am strictly lone/independent researcher into the universal physical reality. I care nothing about the source/person, only the objective issues/observations involved. Yes? Ok, having said that, I will address the facile assumptions inherent in what you understand/repeat from the current orthodoxy texts/interpretations etc...
Many moons ago I tried to explain the subtle difference betweeb the term 'constant speed' and 'invariant c'.
I explained that the former (constant speed) is moot, since every SR/GR frame which affects the clocking rates in that frame use a different 'timing' value into the equation/measurement construct. So the 'constant speed' is an obvious non-sequitur confusion, not a 'fact'.
I went on to explain that the latter (invariant c) is directly dependent ALSO on the 'in-frame-variable-GR/SR effects' as far as the 'second' measurements are used to measure the lightspeed in variously affected frames.
The real subtle point to be realized is that when the term 'constant speed' is imagined, it is imagined by automatic unconsious reference to the 'invariant c' measured speed which ONLY REPRESENTS a PROPORTIONATE EXRESSION/RATIO that is always the SAME RATIO/VALUE, but is based on CHANGING inputs of 'time' into the equation outputing the ratio of 'invariant c'.
See? If the timing used to calculate 'invariant c' IS CHANGED, then the rate of propagation has to change accordingly SUCH THAT THE RATIO OUTPUT is always the SAME 'invariant c'.
Just saying 'invariant c' does not readily explain what PRODUCES that 'c' as a ratio ONY, not an ABSOLUTE VALUE such as a 'constant speed' would be.
Then IF the Relativist theory OVERLAYS that situation with ABSTRACTIONS like 'space-time' contraction, it is OBVIOUSLY a circuitous and superfluous 'overlay', since the TIME is the only input that has 'changed (dilated/contracted as the case may be) in different GR/SR affected frames.
How can a 'spaceTIME' ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL analytical modeling convenience be able to 'contract' or 'change' in any way in REALITY. Only in 'abstract maths/graphs/equations. But those are NOT REAL THINGS. Only the actual CLOCKING RATES (from which we DERIVE the 'timing' rates/values for INPUTING to the abstract analysis) are REAL THING.
Hece any 'spacetime' contraction' is really a misnomer/confusion, because the only thing that has 'contracted/dilated is the TIMING not the SPACING parts of the RATIO CALCULATION VALUES outputting the same 'invariant c' because the timing and the light-propagation values MUST BE the only things that change to COMPENSATE each others effects on the RATIO calculation that always outputs the 'invariant c' PERFORCE of that complementary relationship/function between changing CLOCK timings and changing light propagation rate.
So, clearly and logically and even in the ratio used by relativity to calculate invariant c, the SPACE does NOT contract. And any abstract attempts to use 'space ONLY' contraction is riddled with oxymoronic circuitous self-referencing 'argument/logic' which feeds on itself to produce all the confusions still plaguing proper understanding what the reality is and what Reativity is REALLY aying about it.
Now I don't agree to every fine point in Farsight's perspective here and elsewhere. That's not what I am interested in. I have my own more complete and consistent overarching ToE which covers all these and more such that no more 'piecemeal' arguments will be necessary to get to the bottom of the physical universal reality as it is. I just want the discussion to be re-jigged between you ALL from the reduced and simplified cases I have been suggesting all over here and before elsewhere. That is the only way any consensus can be reached in such easily self-confused 'theory' as this, without playing cheerleader/favorites to sources/personalities. Irrelevant. As the Detective says in your "Dragnet" series: "Just the facts, M'am".
Again, I must caution you against facile and un-evidenced assumptions about 'space ONLY' contracting. It is the spaceTIME that is abstractly represented in your maths that is contracting in your modeling. Whereas in reality it is the TIME RATE/VALUES that change, and the light speed measured using those changing 'timing values' will always produce invariant c' because the RATION STAYS THE SAME in ll frames, since if time changes, and speed changes, there is complementary function/relationship inherent in the reality/measurement.
That 'spacetime' contraction facile 'explanations from theory' remind me of another such, regarding the 'Big Bang Origins' GRAVITY WAVES. They say that the tiny starting energy ball 'rang like a bell' with gravity waves as inflation took hold (somehow) etc etc, Can you or anyone seriously explain how a universe containing 'all there is' can have a boundary to REFLECT such waves during such early HYPOTHESIZED stages/scales/processes. There is NO 'bell' to ring with gravity waves. Only interacting energy-space.
And as Sean Carroll et al have proved by their triangulation method applied to WMAP features, the universal SPACE (not spaceTIME) is FLAT to INFINITY beyond observable universe, since the ANGLES ADDED UP TO ONLY 180 degrees in all directions!
So space is EUCLIDEAN to infinity at ground state.
The NON-Euclidean 'geometry' that mathematicians have introduced into the mix merely reflects the DYNAMICAL EVOLUTIONS and interactions/configurations of localized energy-space FEATURE surfaces/densities etc etc PARAMETERS/PROPERTIES of the ENERGY aspect of what I have postulated as the ENERGY-SPACE underlying universal substrate in which, from which and back to which ALL features of all kinds revert back to LOCALLY. The interactions between all these features of all kinds at all scales over FLAT space ONLY then CREATE THEIR OWN LOCALIZED effects on the groundstate substrate Energy-space, and so we DERIVE THE DYNAMICAL MODELING CONSTRUCTS of NON-Euclidean 'geometry' Not of the FLAT energy-space, but of the evolving/morphing surfaces/densities/gradients/process etc IN/OF that otherwise FLAT EUCLIDEAN energy-space.
I haven't time/liberty to say more, Grumpy. That as rushed so please forgive obvious typos. I will just make quick replies to a couple posts and leave again. Good luck and stay well as can be, hear!
PS: Oh, and do listen more closely to Maxil when he explains what 'time' is and what it ISN'T, mate. Else we'll never start the discussion from the same REAL page on Relativity and the rest.
Haven't much time lately, so as briefly as I can...
As you well know from long familiarity, I am strictly lone/independent researcher into the universal physical reality. I care nothing about the source/person, only the objective issues/observations involved. Yes? Ok, having said that, I will address the facile assumptions inherent in what you understand/repeat from the current orthodoxy texts/interpretations etc...
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
Many moons ago I tried to explain the subtle difference betweeb the term 'constant speed' and 'invariant c'.
I explained that the former (constant speed) is moot, since every SR/GR frame which affects the clocking rates in that frame use a different 'timing' value into the equation/measurement construct. So the 'constant speed' is an obvious non-sequitur confusion, not a 'fact'.
I went on to explain that the latter (invariant c) is directly dependent ALSO on the 'in-frame-variable-GR/SR effects' as far as the 'second' measurements are used to measure the lightspeed in variously affected frames.
The real subtle point to be realized is that when the term 'constant speed' is imagined, it is imagined by automatic unconsious reference to the 'invariant c' measured speed which ONLY REPRESENTS a PROPORTIONATE EXRESSION/RATIO that is always the SAME RATIO/VALUE, but is based on CHANGING inputs of 'time' into the equation outputing the ratio of 'invariant c'.
See? If the timing used to calculate 'invariant c' IS CHANGED, then the rate of propagation has to change accordingly SUCH THAT THE RATIO OUTPUT is always the SAME 'invariant c'.
Just saying 'invariant c' does not readily explain what PRODUCES that 'c' as a ratio ONY, not an ABSOLUTE VALUE such as a 'constant speed' would be.
Then IF the Relativist theory OVERLAYS that situation with ABSTRACTIONS like 'space-time' contraction, it is OBVIOUSLY a circuitous and superfluous 'overlay', since the TIME is the only input that has 'changed (dilated/contracted as the case may be) in different GR/SR affected frames.
How can a 'spaceTIME' ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL analytical modeling convenience be able to 'contract' or 'change' in any way in REALITY. Only in 'abstract maths/graphs/equations. But those are NOT REAL THINGS. Only the actual CLOCKING RATES (from which we DERIVE the 'timing' rates/values for INPUTING to the abstract analysis) are REAL THING.
Hece any 'spacetime' contraction' is really a misnomer/confusion, because the only thing that has 'contracted/dilated is the TIMING not the SPACING parts of the RATIO CALCULATION VALUES outputting the same 'invariant c' because the timing and the light-propagation values MUST BE the only things that change to COMPENSATE each others effects on the RATIO calculation that always outputs the 'invariant c' PERFORCE of that complementary relationship/function between changing CLOCK timings and changing light propagation rate.
So, clearly and logically and even in the ratio used by relativity to calculate invariant c, the SPACE does NOT contract. And any abstract attempts to use 'space ONLY' contraction is riddled with oxymoronic circuitous self-referencing 'argument/logic' which feeds on itself to produce all the confusions still plaguing proper understanding what the reality is and what Reativity is REALLY aying about it.
Now I don't agree to every fine point in Farsight's perspective here and elsewhere. That's not what I am interested in. I have my own more complete and consistent overarching ToE which covers all these and more such that no more 'piecemeal' arguments will be necessary to get to the bottom of the physical universal reality as it is. I just want the discussion to be re-jigged between you ALL from the reduced and simplified cases I have been suggesting all over here and before elsewhere. That is the only way any consensus can be reached in such easily self-confused 'theory' as this, without playing cheerleader/favorites to sources/personalities. Irrelevant. As the Detective says in your "Dragnet" series: "Just the facts, M'am".
Farsight
Clocks lower in a gravity well experience fewer ticks because they experience less time to measure. They still see lightspeed as a constant, from every source in the Universe, light does not slow down only within the confines of clocks, nor does light vary by position in spacetime. Gravity can bend it and can redshift it's frequency, but it does not slow it down. Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to be dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang, the other half of the half dimension of time we experience in our Universe. That wormhole would be sized proportional to the mass that enters it and to us would appear almost frozen in time, but under it's conditions would instantly dump it's load into the White Hole(the only one we know of)we call the Big Bang, avoiding any possibility of paradox. But I don't claim to know that to be true, it's just speculation
Logically we should get the fastest rate of time's passage(which is what clocks measure, whatever the type)at zero speed in empty space. This would then logically be thought of as absolute time. But just like uncertainty in the Quantum precludes an exact position, only a probability cloud of possible positions, speed is always relative and no point can be said to be absolutely motionless, in addition, the term "empty space" is an oxymoron, space is never empty, it's a veritable fizz of virtual particles. So there can be no motionless point in empty space so no absolute time, it's all relative. The reason clocks that use light to measure time have fewer total clicks in a gravity well is that they are measuring less time, not because light is going slower.
Lightspeed is a physical property of the Universe, it is intimately tied into time, space and matter. It does not matter how we measure it, our definitions are inventions for our own convenience, they have no effect on the things we are measuring no matter how you manipulate those symbols and ideas. Lightspeed is c, in all frames, from all sources, period. Time varies, space(width, height, depth)varies, gravity(mass)varies, but lightspeed does not vary whatever the metrics used to describe that value. Energy is to mass as the square of c, E=MC^2. It's what makes the stars shine. It requires an absolute value(lightspeed). If your theory requires the variability of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is crap, not science.
Grumpy
Again, I must caution you against facile and un-evidenced assumptions about 'space ONLY' contracting. It is the spaceTIME that is abstractly represented in your maths that is contracting in your modeling. Whereas in reality it is the TIME RATE/VALUES that change, and the light speed measured using those changing 'timing values' will always produce invariant c' because the RATION STAYS THE SAME in ll frames, since if time changes, and speed changes, there is complementary function/relationship inherent in the reality/measurement.
That 'spacetime' contraction facile 'explanations from theory' remind me of another such, regarding the 'Big Bang Origins' GRAVITY WAVES. They say that the tiny starting energy ball 'rang like a bell' with gravity waves as inflation took hold (somehow) etc etc, Can you or anyone seriously explain how a universe containing 'all there is' can have a boundary to REFLECT such waves during such early HYPOTHESIZED stages/scales/processes. There is NO 'bell' to ring with gravity waves. Only interacting energy-space.
And as Sean Carroll et al have proved by their triangulation method applied to WMAP features, the universal SPACE (not spaceTIME) is FLAT to INFINITY beyond observable universe, since the ANGLES ADDED UP TO ONLY 180 degrees in all directions!
So space is EUCLIDEAN to infinity at ground state.
The NON-Euclidean 'geometry' that mathematicians have introduced into the mix merely reflects the DYNAMICAL EVOLUTIONS and interactions/configurations of localized energy-space FEATURE surfaces/densities etc etc PARAMETERS/PROPERTIES of the ENERGY aspect of what I have postulated as the ENERGY-SPACE underlying universal substrate in which, from which and back to which ALL features of all kinds revert back to LOCALLY. The interactions between all these features of all kinds at all scales over FLAT space ONLY then CREATE THEIR OWN LOCALIZED effects on the groundstate substrate Energy-space, and so we DERIVE THE DYNAMICAL MODELING CONSTRUCTS of NON-Euclidean 'geometry' Not of the FLAT energy-space, but of the evolving/morphing surfaces/densities/gradients/process etc IN/OF that otherwise FLAT EUCLIDEAN energy-space.
I haven't time/liberty to say more, Grumpy. That as rushed so please forgive obvious typos. I will just make quick replies to a couple posts and leave again. Good luck and stay well as can be, hear!
PS: Oh, and do listen more closely to Maxil when he explains what 'time' is and what it ISN'T, mate. Else we'll never start the discussion from the same REAL page on Relativity and the rest.
No, I'm not mixing them. Maybe you are conflating them and assuming I am doing the same?
The point you and przyk were arguing against Farsight was predicated on you insisting that only the 'co-ordinate speed of light' was variable, but resisted the obvious observable empirical fact that the light clocks already mentioned will LOCALLY and really tick at different rates, giving the duration/interval for 'second' TICK a different value which is then input to the calculation of the ratio outputting as 'invariant c'. (for more on that please see my post #118 below to Grumpy). And as Farsight has just pointed out to you AGAIN, in his post #99, the ratio remains constant/invariant because the two values input to the calculation/measurement must be complementary. The 'second interval value/rate' time component changes in the light clocks; and the speed has differed or the ratio would not be constant/invariant to output 'c' for each respective frame conditions. If you insist on bring a 'spacetime' abstraction 'contraction into it, please read also my post #118 to Grumpy, where I explain that SPACE-only does not 'contract', it is only TIME that has varied, and the lightspeed associated with the timing IN THE LIGHT CLOKS THEMSELVES must obviously have changed. Hence the calculated 'invariant c' proportional ratio output which means that if timing has changed then speed of light has changed.
The 'spacetime contraction' is an abstract oxymoron, since the TIME has changed (as you agree), so your 'spaceTIME' contraction is already reflective of the TIME change ONLY....but because of that self-referential confusion built into the 'spacetime abstract 'contraction', you fail to acknowledge that it may be the light speed that has changed and keeping the calculation outputing 'invariant c' for each frame.
Anyhow, if you haven't 'twigged' by now, I dare say the inculcation of 'supefluous/complicating/confusing overlays from maths abstraction' is too deep. Enjoy the discussions as best you can with that deeply inculcated abstract preference instead of acknowledging the real things which the simplified exercise demonstrates DIRECTLY and independent of further 'interpretations from theoretical 'spacetime' constructs. Good luck, Russ!
Hi again, Grumpy. I was just going to read-only elsewhere when I caught these between you and PhysBang...
Those examples/scenarios aren't 'clean' indicators of the factors at play, especially with the humongous energies/accelerations/forces etc coursing through and into/out of the particles/products at every stage in such accelerator situations. You might be interested to read my post #295 to Trippy in the "Speed of light is not constant" thread, where I have mentioned that old chestnut 'example' put forwatd as /explanation' of 'spacetime contraction' for 'invariant c' instead of just time and lightspeed variations:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140905-The-Speed-of-Light-is-Not-Constant/page15
Sorry can't say more at this stage. Gotta go. Cheers mate!
I was just going to read-only elsewhere when I caught these between you and PhysBang...PhysBang
Anyone aware of what particle accelerators tell us, even on a basic level, should know that the Relativistic connection between lightspeed and time is fact, not theory. High energy particles that are known to have extremely short lifetimes last many times that long at close to lightspeed. Each of those particles are clocks(some would say time bombs)that start ticking when created in collisions and are precisely tracked through their short lives(as is their decay products). It is a fact that faster particles of the exact same type last longer than slower ones, in exactly the way Relativity predicted they would. It is also a fact that those particles gain mass as they are accelerated, requiring more energy to get faster, which causes them to get more massive, needing more energy...in a upward spiral that means you approach infinity in all these metrics as mass approaches lightspeed, just like Relativity predicted. And recently the physical "appearance" of the proton at near lightspeed was determined, normally it is an ovoid shape, but the faster it gets the flatter it is in the direction of travel. From this >O< to this >l> . That is because the dimension of space in the frame of that proton is actually shorter, it is warped by it's speed, with lightspeed being the ultimate(which no mass can ever reach, also re Relativity). Lightspeed is a hard limit in our Universe and everything else warps to make sure that is true in all frames, from all frames. The whole Universe is tied together by that value, it's likely to be important to understanding that Universe, don't you think?
Grumpy
PhysBang
I'm sorry, maybe I did not explain well enough. I'm talking about the same type of particles created today whose only difference is their speed. They have a known decay time that is the same(within narrow limits)as this is particle decay, not radioactive decay, the faster ones experience less time than the slower ones of the exact same type, as measured by our frame of reference(they both experience the same length of time in their perspective frames). In the present, not the past. Time dilation due to speed is firmly established in the theory and an observed fact. So is mass increase. VSL does not explain that, Relativity does. And with the recent indirect and hopefully soon direct evidence of gravity waves any theory of VSL is crap, not science, one must avoid or deny the evidence to even propose such things. The observed speed of light is invariant, period.
Grumpy
Those examples/scenarios aren't 'clean' indicators of the factors at play, especially with the humongous energies/accelerations/forces etc coursing through and into/out of the particles/products at every stage in such accelerator situations. You might be interested to read my post #295 to Trippy in the "Speed of light is not constant" thread, where I have mentioned that old chestnut 'example' put forwatd as /explanation' of 'spacetime contraction' for 'invariant c' instead of just time and lightspeed variations:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140905-The-Speed-of-Light-is-Not-Constant/page15
Sorry can't say more at this stage. Gotta go. Cheers mate!