| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity fiel
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jack Sarfatti |
 Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 1:47 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Let me re-phrase this:
"If you mean here that *local* measurements performed in the local
gravitational field *in a free fall frame* always give the result c,
then that is correct."
That is true, but it is also true for local measurements in the rest
LNIF frame coincident with that LIF.
OK, then why do C&W in your own quote state only that the speed of
propagation is always c in *local inertial frames*?
Why don't they simply state that it is always observed to be c in *all*
frames?
They do not say it is not.
"They do not say it is not."
If what you say is true, then why don't they say that it is?!
They do actually, but I don't have time to look it up. Look Paul you are
stuck on elementary stuff. Besides I showed you how it works in detail.
You did not get it obviously.
It is explicitly said BTW in A Short Course in GE Foster & Nightingale
Springer 1998 2nd Ed Ch 4 "Physics in the vicinity of a massive object"
- it's also in Wheeler when I have time I will check the pages.
Scraping.
O&R explicitly say that it's not.
Yeah, where? Of course if there are rotational effects there is a speed
shift as I showed in detail - it's already there in Sagnac effect for a
rotating interferometer on a turn table using special relativity.
However, in the Schwarzschild solution there is no speed shift as I
showed. You need to look at each metric case by case. Wheeler &
Ciufolini explicitly say that the Shapiro effect is caused by a change
in length of photon path in 3D space caused by the curvature bending.
But I SHOWED you HOW it works.
In rest LNIF the radial rods SHRINK that's why
dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2 > dr IN REST LNIF
This is not true in the coincident LIF obviously because of the
equivalence principle. The LIF rods do not shrink like the LNIF rods do
when oriented along the radial in Schwarzschild metric.
and dT = dt(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2 < dt
dt = dt' = observed red shift.
and in COINCIDENT LIF its SR hence c when ds = 0
Obviously since dR > dr, and there is no warp in the orthogonal
directions to dr, the bending of the light path in 3D space will change
the length compared to the case without gravity.
JUST THINK and stop citing AUTHORITY you PRIEST!
ROTATION CHANGES THE ABOVE, then you DO get an effect as I showed.
Paul you do a bait and switch here and you over-simplified. Cliff Will
wrote:
"The only sense in which it can be said that the light slowed down is
mathematical: in a particular mathematical representation of the
equations that describe the motion of the light ray, what general
relativists call a particular coordinate system, the light appears to
have a variable speed. But in a different mathematical representation (a
different coordinate system), this statement might be false."
I was originally only talking LOCAL measurements in single LNIF's & LIFs
at one event P. I was NOT talking about AVERAGES of c measurements over
a string of such frames. Of course that might be different! My point WAS
that Hal Puthoff's PV does predict such individual local changes in c
speed whilst Einstein's does not in the SSS case. Hal never does
rotating sources. He does not know how. So we were not arguing the same
problem. Shapiro effect not relevant to my original point where it is a
Red Herring, though it is interesting on its own.
Cliff Will is good on this:
"Nevertheless, Shapiro had only a passing acquaintance with general
relativity, and might not have ever
considered it relevant to radar ranging had it not been for a lecture
he attended in 1961 on measurements
of the speed of light. Purely in passing, the speaker mentioned that
according to general relativity, the
speed of light is not constant."
"This statement puzzled Shapiro, because he had always thought that
according to relativity, the speed of
light should be the same in every inertial frame. He knew, of course,
that general relativity predicts that
light should be deflected by a gravitating body; the question was, Would
its speed also be affected? It
stands to reason that it might, because in the case of a prism of glass,
for instance, the deflection of light
as it passes through the prism is a consequence of the change in speed
of the light as it passes from air to
glass and from glass to air."
"The two phenomena, change in speed and deflection, appear to be closely
related. Einstein himself had
already considered this possibility. Once he understood, from the
principle of equivalence, that gravity could
have an effect on light (the gravitational red shift), he attempted to
construct a theory of gravity in which the
speed of light would vary in the vicinity of a gravitating body. It was
the equations from this specific theory
that he used in 1911 to calculate the wrong (one-half) bending of light."
"However, Einstein did not take the next step, the one that Shapiro
took. Shapiro consulted the classic
general relativity textbook by Eddington and found that, according to
the equations of the full general theory, the effective speed of light
should indeed vary, just as it did in Einstein's earlier model. Shapiro
then applied these equations to the problem of the round trip of a radar
signal to a distant object. The result was remarkable: According to
general relativity, the radar signal should take slightly longer to make
the round trip than one would have expected on the basis of Newtonian
theory and a constant speed of light. The additional delay depended on
how close the signal got to the Sun. Just as in the deflection of light,
the smaller the distance between the Sun and the ray at its closest
approach, the larger the effect."
"Thus, the effect would be most noticeable when the target was on the
far side of the solar system from the Earth, so that the signal would
pass very near the Sun on its round trip. Such a configuration is called
superior
conjunction. For example, a radar signal sent from Earth to Mars at
superior conjunction that just grazes the surface of the Sun suffers a
delay of 250 millionths of a second (250 microseconds). Don't forget
that the total round-trip travel time for such a signal is about 42
minutes! So the idea here would be to detect an additional delay of 250
microseconds on a total travel time of three-quarters of an hour. You
would think this was a hopeless proposition until you realized that the
distance that light travels in 250 microseconds is 75 kilometers. So
the delay represents an uncertainty in the distance to the target of
half of this, or 38 kilometers. If radar ranging could indeed achieve a
precision in distance corresponding to a few kilometers, then perhaps
this effect could be observed."
"But wait a minute, this can't be right! According to the equivalence
principle, the speed of light as measured in any local freely falling
frame is always the same. How then can we say that the light slows down
near the Sun, resulting in a delay? A similar question might have been
raised when we discussed the deflection of light. Light moves on
straight lines in local freely falling frames, so how can it be
deflected? In that case, the deflection came about because we had to
consider more than one freely falling frame; in fact we had to consider
a whole sequence of them all along the path of the light ray. No single
frame could encompass the entire light path. Similarly, even though the
rulers we laid out across the solar system were individually straight
and parallel to their neighbors, the entire stretch of rulers was bent
relative to a similar set of rulers far from the Sun."
"The problem here is the distinction between local effects, effects that
are observable in very small, freely falling frames, and large-scale or
global effects, which cover a range of space or an interval in time
large enough that the effects of curvature of space-time are important
and cannot be described by a single freely falling frame."
"One indication of the global nature of an effect like the deflection of
light was the fact that we could not detect it by looking at a single
star or quasar; we always had to compare the light from one star or
quasar with that from another that was farther from the Sun. The same
remarks apply to the time delay. The speed of light is indeed the same
in every freely falling frame, but we are forced to consider a sequence
of such frames all along the light path, and when we do so, we find that
the observer at the end of the path determines that the light took
longer to cover a given trajectory when it passed near the Sun than it
would have had it passed farther from the Sun..."
I don't see that this explanation requires a local change in speed of
light measured in any LIF or LNIF apart from rotational effects - I mean
in the non-rotating Schwarzschild metric. Maybe Cliff means a global
change in the effective AVERAGE SPEED of light over many LOCAL FRAMES.
That's OK. All my previous remarks were predicated on a LOCALLY
MEASURABLE CHANGE in speed of light such as Hal Puthoff has in PV! So
Paul you are comparing Apples to Oranges here. The Question is: What WAS
The Question? Note that Einstein himself did not think the speed of
light would change (in the non-rotating Schwarzschild case).
"Because he never goes near the Sun to make the measurement, he can't
really make such a judgment; and if he had made such a measurement in a
freely falling laboratory near the Sun, he would have found the same
value for the speed of light as in a freely falling laboratory far from
the Sun, and might have thoroughly confused himself."
"All the observer can say with no fear of contradiction is that he
observed a time delay that depended on how close the light ray came to
the Sun. The only sense in which it can be said that the light slowed
down is mathematical: in a particular mathematical representation of
the equations that describe the motion of the light ray, what general
relativists call a particular coordinate system, the light appears to
have a variable speed. But in a different mathematical representation
(a different coordinate system), this statement might be false.
Nevertheless, the observable quantities, such as the net time delay,
are the same no matter what representation is used. This is one of those
cases in relativity where the careless use of words or phrases that are
not based on observable quantities can lead to confusion or contradiction."
Clifford Will, "Was Einstein Right?" (Basic Books 1986), pp 110-113
As I said, this is a tricky issue in 1916 GR. You have to distnguish
between global effects, observed remotely, and local effect observed
locally in freely falling frames. In each case you get a different
answer for the *speed* of light propagation from GR -- unlike in SR.
I showed you exactly HOW mathematically to figure this out LOCALLY at a
single event P given ANY metric. Gravimagnetism will give local speed of
light in vacuum shifts, but Einstein's SSS case WILL NOT. My point is
that Hal Puthoff's PV theory disagrees with Einstein's LOCALLY on this
point as well as on the
dL/dR ratio in the rest LNIF where dL is orthogonal to dR.
So maybe that was what Einstein was talking about in 1920 -- the SR
answer is only good when there is no gravitational field, or when there
is a gravitational field, only locally and approximately.
Obviously, so what else is new?
Z.
The TOTAL VACUUM SPEED OF LIGHT c is INVARIANT NO MATTER HOW MEASURED
(in absence of rotating sources).
The COORDINATE TOTAL SPEED is NEVER MEASURED!
Last line refers to Hal Puthoff's PV measurement theory
But even if you are right that the locally measured speed of light is
always c, you can still determine an objective retardation of light
propagation remotely. That is the explicitly stated position of O&R
1994, regarding the Shapiro effect.
Of course, that's a Red Herring. I never said you could not. But as is
shown above the explanation is not as simple as you put forth earlier.
Wheeler SAYS it's BECAUSE photon path is stretched not because speed of
light in vacuo diminishes! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Quote:
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken
Theories witha red background ar falsified. A theory of gravitation
either contains the Equivalence Principle or it does not. First we do
the last exclusionary set of experiments, then pronounce on
mathematics.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Quote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken
Theories witha red background ar falsified. A theory of gravitation
either contains the Equivalence Principle or it does not. First we
do
the last exclusionary set of experiments, then pronounce on
mathematics.
Well Moffat's NGT, ((had dinner with him and wife,
but drank too much)), has IIRC theories that are
not entirely in accord with PoE. Also being non-
symmetrical, perhaps like parity, it may relate.
Recently, Moffat published an arXiv regarding
the application of NGT to Pioneer X anomally.
You may want to email him, very nice guy.
His focus is on nonsymmetrical connections, you
might recall that from Einstein's Non-symmetric
Field Theory, (see AE's Meaning of Relativity).
Myself, I use nonsymmetrical metrics, and
symmetrical connections.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Quote: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
Quote: valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jgreen@seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com>...
Quote: valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
You make very strange deductions. If a gravity field is present there
exist no vacuum and light velocity can be less than the maximal vacuum
value c without any violation of SR rules.
From where do you take your "c'=c+v"? I will suppose you are not one
who confuse the ordinary algebraic addition vector operation with the
relativistic composition of velocities rule(in his first Jun30-1905
relativity paper Einstein used the first many times before deriving
the second). Do you knew that if you have two moving entities A and B
with respective velocities Va and Vb in some inertial frame, you can
obtain their relative velocity (or closing velocity) Vab=Va-Vb with
ordinary vector subtraction without violating any SR rule? (light rays
included!). Do you knew that Vab is invariant in Newtonian mechanics,
but not in the relativistic one?
RVHG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
Quote: "Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what occurs
(and WHY)
Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO. This means
that the result of something can be predicted using the WRONG
assumptions.
And remember well, that in SR at all times, TWO wrong assumptions are
in use- the rubber ruler AND the rubber second. If c'=c+v is used, the
correct results are perdicted, without resorting to magical bull.
Jim G
c'=c+v
PS: In your case, the tumour must be effecting that part of the brain
which produces imaginary scenarios-----such as light knowing how fast
its source is travelling ref another source, and emitts itself
accordingly to match the others velocity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502160925.5a623ec7@posting.google.com>...
Quote: jgreen@seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com>...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
You make very strange deductions. If a gravity field is present there
exist no vacuum and light velocity can be less than the maximal vacuum
value c without any violation of SR rules.
From where do you take your "c'=c+v"? I will suppose you are not one
who confuse the ordinary algebraic addition vector operation with the
relativistic composition of velocities rule(in his first Jun30-1905
relativity paper Einstein used the first many times before deriving
the second). Do you knew that if you have two moving entities A and B
with respective velocities Va and Vb in some inertial frame, you can
obtain their relative velocity (or closing velocity) Vab=Va-Vb with
ordinary vector subtraction without violating any SR rule? (light rays
included!). Do you knew that Vab is invariant in Newtonian mechanics,
but not in the relativistic one?
RVHG
And do YOU know that placing one speed "slope" upon another, which is
the scenaro whereby velocities are added under AE magic, the objects
in question have their DIRECTIONS changed. Do you suspect that this
might incur an insummountable problem with conservation of energy? Or
are you one of those who chose to ignore the fact that energy would be
required to produce such an "addition" ? And do YOU know that plotting
velocity (which is ALREADY a function of time), against "time" on the
y axis, is not on?
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
Quote: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
Quote: The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what occurs
(and WHY)
The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.
Quote: Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.
Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.
.... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
Quote: "Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message
news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which
we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think
that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and
with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But
in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing
close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all
celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????
Quote:
The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs
(and WHY)
The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.
Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.
Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.
Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing". If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.
....that I must have put another point which Dirk v has failed to answer
before.....
Quote:
... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter Webb |
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| The velocity changes. The "speed" does not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1108685289.582397.124740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Quote:
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????
Check your dns, proxy and/or your news reader settings..
Quote:
The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs (and WHY)
The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.
Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.
Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.
Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing".
If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.
This has been told to you many times before, but since you
seem to be listening now, I will repeat it once more:
The action of observing the time of an event is not measured
as the time that the signal reaches the observer, but as the
average of the times of sending out a signal and receiving the
echo.
I send a signal at my clock time t1. The signal hits a target and
gets reflected. The echo reaches me at my clock time t2.
Then I define the time of the reflection event to be (t1+t2)/2.
Likewise the distance of the reflection event is then defined
as c*(t2-t1)/2.
This way of working assumes that the speed of the signal is
the same in both directions, which is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:23 pm
|
|