 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2007Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity
Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant in special relativity. In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity. Can Special Relativity handle accelerations? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics did. The difference between general and special relativity is that in the general theory all frames of reference including spinning and accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames. Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity space-time is always flat. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html I fail to see a conflict, Pentcho. When gravitational fields are important, general relativity is the tool to use. When gravitational fields are negligible, the speed of light is measured c for all observers. Let the data do the talking. There has not been an observation that contradicts a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general relativity. !! Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity !! !! Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is !! that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and !! some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant !! in special relativity. !! !! In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein !! arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of !! equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a !! freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the !! infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR !! remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity. !! !! Can Special Relativity handle accelerations? !! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html !! !! The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when !! there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as !! generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course !! there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when !! massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many !! applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives !! a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of !! accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics !! did. !! !! The difference between general and special relativity is that in the !! general theory all frames of reference including spinning and !! accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special !! relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames. !! Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In !! general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change !! general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity !! space-time is always flat. !! !! See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html pretty good so far a recapitulation of the basics of the theory !! I fail to see a conflict, Pentcho. When gravitational fields are important, !! general relativity is the tool to use. When gravitational fields are !! negligible, the speed of light is measured c for all observers. Let the !! data do the talking. There has not been an observation that contradicts !! a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general !! relativity. and then you blow it of course special relativity was contradicted by observation instead of a global lorentz invariance it was found a local invariance better fit the facts it is as simple as: special relativity predicts the clocks of two observers whose distance apart does not change and whose movement is linear in an inertial frame remain synchronised general relativity predicts that it depends on neighboring masses even if the distances apart remains constant also ( shhhhhhh.... ) general relativity's predictions were called into question by a number of observations including the double slit experiment and the pioneer anomaly of course with a clever combination of epicycles, demons, and phantom matter all theories can claim to have not been falsified... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar > !! Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity > !! [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > of course special relativity was contradicted by observation Not within its' domain of application, stoopid. SR is only "contradicted" in cases where gravitation is important. [...] !! On Jul 25, 5:19 pm, galathaea <galath...@veawb.coop> wrote: !! > In article <1iRpi.22953$Xa3.8512@attbi_s22>, Sam Wormley !! > <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: !! > !! > !! Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special !! > relativity !! > !! !! > !! Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is !! > !! that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and !! > !! some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant !! > !! in special relativity. !! > !! !! > !! In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein !! > !! arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of !! > !! equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a !! > !! freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the !! > !! infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR !! > !! remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity. !! > !! !! > !! Can Special Relativity handle accelerations? !! > !! !! > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html !! > !! !! > !! The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when !! > !! there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as !! > !! generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course !! > !! there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when !! > !! massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many !! > !! applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives !! > !! a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of !! > !! accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics !! > !! did. !! > !! !! > !! The difference between general and special relativity is that in the !! > !! general theory all frames of reference including spinning and !! > !! accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special !! > !! relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames. !! > !! Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In !! > !! general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change !! > !! general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity !! > !! space-time is always flat. !! > !! !! > !! !! > See:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html !! > !! > pretty good so far !! > !! > a recapitulation of the basics of the theory !! > !! > !! I fail to see a conflict, Pentcho. When gravitational fields are !! > important, !! > !! general relativity is the tool to use. When gravitational fields are !! > !! negligible, the speed of light is measured c for all observers. Let the !! > !! data do the talking. There has not been an observation that contradicts !! > !! a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general !! > !! relativity. !! > !! > and then you blow it !! > !! > of course special relativity was contradicted by observation !! > !! !! Not within its' domain of application, stoopid. SR is only !! "contradicted" in cases where gravitation is important. !! !! [...] ...or cases where the description of reality is important you are conflating scientific selection of models of reality with the engineering selection of models for prediction every old theory that provided predictive benefit provides the same predictive benefit today no observation ever cancels out previous abilities to predict for specific types of events this is true of newtonian mechanics today as well as the aristotelian theory of the "rightful places" of the four elements and numerous folk-physics theories throughout history its even true of (shhhh....) lorentz's theory of the aether... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar On 26 , 02:47, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in sci.physics: > Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity > > Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is > that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and > some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant > in special relativity. Fortunately Wormley Nature does not pay any attention to what you call "the predictions of general relativity". This means that, objectively, either the speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential, or it does not vary with the gravitational potential. One of the two assertions is true, the other is false, and Nature has already said which one is true. Clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult know Nature's verdict (the speed of photons DOES VARY with the gravitational potential) but are reluctant to discuss it because, by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, one can infer that, in the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a matter of deduction that can be presented in this way: (c'=c(1+V/c^2)) + (equivalence principle) --> (c'=c+v) Pentcho Valev > In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein > arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general > relativity. [snip idiocy] Go away obsessive loon. > ...the speed of photons varies with the > relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pentcho Valev That's cool, Pentcho--and we have empirical data, Pentcho to show whether you are right or wrong. Sam worse theory is light can slow down and pick up speed. bert >> ...the speed of photons varies with the >> relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a >> matter of deduction that can be presented in this way: >> (c'=c(1+V/c^2)) + (equivalence principle) --> (c'=c+v) > > That's cool, Pentcho Don't be sucked in by an idiot. In his leftmost equation, V is the NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, not any velocity (check the units). His implication does not hold, based on logical deductions from these equations. > and we have empirical data, Pentcho to show > whether you are right or wrong. Yes. He is wrong. That is, his leftmost equation is refuted experimentally, as is his right-hand equation. The implication is thus moot. Tom Roberts > >> ...the speed of photons varies with the > >> relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tom Roberts Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking in no longer etc.). According to the Albert Einstein of our generation, by confirming experimentally the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) Pound and Rebka REFUTED Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) Other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult may think that the validity of f'=f(1+V/c^2) CONFIRMS the validity of c'=c(1+V/c^2) and for that reason those hypnotists may even TEACH Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) but this situation is standard in Einstein zombie world: bellicose zombies should be programmed to know that the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is BOTH true and false and to defend BOTH the truth and the falsehood. The destruction of heretics is what matters. And the implication is MOOT according to the Albert Einstein of our generation: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and you obtain c'=c+v. That is what Tom Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, calls a MOOT implication. Pentcho Valev Pentcho Valev wrote stuff: [snipped] Are you dense, Pentcho? See Shapiro Effect Consider the time delay of signal passing between the earth and Mars due to the curvature of space time by the Sun. Then delta T_max = (4G M/c^3)*[ln(4 r_mars r_earth/r_sun^2) +1 ] http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm BTW, Pentcho -- Gravitational Redshift http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html > Pentcho Valev wrote stuff: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BTW, Pentcho -- Gravitational Redshift > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html Wormley Wormley why should we consider all the definitions that zombies in Einstein criminal cult have found it suitable to give? It would be much better for us to deal with the interpretation of gravitational redshift given in perhaps the best relativity textbook: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the following question: Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c +v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer? Pentcho Valev : > Pentcho Valev wrote stuff: : > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] : : Pentcho Valev Cars come off an assembly line and are driven out of the factory to a holding area, a large parking lot. Inside the plant the cars are one car length apart, crawl along at 1 mph and leave the car plant at a rate of 1 per minute. A quick inspection is then carried out, turning on the lights etc., adding fuel and starting the engine. They are then driven at 20 mph to the holding area. Because speed = car length * frequency and the speed of the cars is 1 mph, 60 cars an hour are produced inside the plant and 1200 cars an hour arrive at the holding area because they are driven 20 times faster outside than they move inside the plant. This is a notable feat indeed, considering that Ford engineer Joe Shapiro was able to measure the distance between cars (that is, the increase in frequency) to within 10% accuracy. Are you dense, Pentcho? See Joe Shapiro effect. Consider the time delay of cars passing between the plant and the holding area due to the curvature of roads along the way. Then 20 mph = car length * frequency. >> Pentcho Valev wrote stuff: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Pentcho Valev You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c, therefore, delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or f_new = f_org (1+gh/c^2) > >> Pentcho Valev wrote stuff: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > f_new = f_org (1+gh/c^2 Bravo Wormley! Pentcho Valev >>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the >>> following question: >>> Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911 >>> equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> observer? >>> Pentcho Valev >> You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency >> shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pentcho Valev Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK? > >>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the > >>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK? Wormley Wormley that is not the end of the story. Now you should combine your equation f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2) and the textbook equation frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) Master Tom Roberts often does so and obtains....yes he obtains Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). Then Master Tom Roberts sticks his head in the sand, exposes other parts of his body and starts shouting, mouth full of sand: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc. Of course, Master Tom Roberts does not expect YOU to do the same. No zombie in Einstein criminal cult is allowed to say anything like "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong!". Zombies are only allowed to destroy heretics, sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions while singing. Pentcho Valev >>>>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the >>>>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Pentcho Valev Lambda_new = Lambda_orig (1-gh/c^2) Were you expecting something else, Pentcho? > >>>>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the > >>>>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Were you expecting something else, Pentcho? No of course. On seeing this last result of yours, Master Tom Roberts will start crying. He will lose any hope. Zombies will destroy Einstein criminal cult in the end. Pentcho Valev >>>>>>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the >>>>>>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Pentcho Valev Quoting from 6.1 An Exact Solution http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm With respect to: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) "However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory". http://xkcd.com/202/ http://xkcd.com/258/ Bug report: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm : > >>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the : > >>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] : : Pentcho Valev > > >>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the > > >>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong! > Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc. What's wrong with that? GR is not the 1911 theory, it was introduced in 1915. Unlike you, we don't think Einstein is some sort of divine figure. He was a working physicist. That means that unlike you, in 4 years he could make progress, and hypotheses could change. Einstein died in 1955. That's 40 years after the GR paper, and 50 after the SR paper. Unlike you, a working physicist could make even more progress in 40 or 50 years than in 4. So there have been other modifications and refinements to SR, GR, their derivations and their interpretations. Actual scientists can make mistakes and realize they've made mistakes. That's how science works. So sorry it goes against your world view. - Randy : > > >>> Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the : > > >>> following question: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] : Unlike you, we don't think Einstein is some sort of : divine figure. He was a working physicist. Liar. He was never a physicist and didn't work. That means : that unlike you, in 4 years he could make progress, : and hypotheses could change. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : Actual scientists can make mistakes and realize they've : made mistakes. Actual fuckheads make mistakes and never realize they've made mistakes. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm : That's how science works. So sorry it : goes against your world view. You lying hypocritical sarcastic sh.t, you are not sorry at all. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.