I’m hoping he’ll read it too, and then appreciate that special relativity ought not to be the target here.
Agreed. There’s a rather simple way to extend this to gravity too. For the life of me I don’t know why Einstein didn’t nail it. Take a look at iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014 sometime, and do read that Leyden Address.
He didn’t reject c varying with gravitational potential. He repeated it year after year. See the GR section of this article which says the modern interpretation rejects it, not Einstein.
So take note of the other interpretation.
He’s right. Apply wave/particle duality, and it’s obvious. Everything is made of waves.
There is no difference, and the CMBR dipole anisotropy is the evidence for the preferred frame.
Don’t bother me with garbage like chicanery and fairies. The paper is sound.
No problem. It’s an SR paper. And in a place where gravitational potential is lower the energy density is higher. In a place where the energy density is higher, the light goes slower. It’s as simple as that.
A) The actual science is the modern interpretation, so it doesn’t matter what Einstein thought. B) He did reject the variable speed of light. You always like to produce his 1911 speculative piece, but you have no other reference for Einstein ever entertaining a variable speed of light.
No, the anisotropy is evidence of a difference between a frame co-moving with the average of the solar system movements and a frame co-moving with the average of the CMBR. There is no one CMBR frame, there is only a frame that we can identify with the average. Additionally, we have no physical means of measurement that identifies any frame as special. All we have is one means that measures the difference between one average and another average.
It is only sound insofar as it is able to recapture the basics of SR, basics known for 100 years. It is not sound to use sonar as an analogy, since we do not have any physical means of measurement that violates SR, while we do have many that violate Close’s sonar.
If it’s no problem, then let’s see you model anything in physics with your theory. You have had what, six years to do this?
Dismiss Einstein if you wish, I’d rather pay attention to what he actually said. And the “actual science” isn’t in the modern interpretation, it’s in the evidence like Shapiro and the GPS clock adjustment. Clocks go slower in a region of low gravitational potential, and some of those clocks are light clocks.
You’re in denial, and mathematical demands will not distract from the evidence or from what Einstein said. Here it is again:
OK, these phenomena are modelled by the “modern interpretation” of GR. Please provide a model of these phenomena without the “modern interpretation” of GR. You have had years to do this.
The mathematical details are all the details. The constancy of the speed of light is a statement about the speed of light in a free-falling coordinate system. Your quote mining does nothing to hide that you haven’t addressed the facts of the mathematics.
No. See Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime for the mathematics. And note that the mathematics isn’t the facts. The scientific evidence is the facts. Things like the GPS clock adjustment. A light clock goes slower near the surface of the earth, because the light goes slower, and that’s it. Einstein said it, and the Shapiro delay is proof positive. The coordinate time diverges because we define the second using the motion of light. The wikipedia article even includes the Einstein quote. The word in the translation is velocity, but the word in the original German is geschwindigkeit. That means speed, and it’s crystal clear it really did mean speed because Einstein talked about one of the postulates of special relativity. He previously talked about c on this matter, and c is not a vector quantity. See the NIST caesium fountain clock and the definition of the second:
“Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero), and with appropriate corrections for gravitational time dilation.”
Lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron spin-flips within caesium atoms. Electrons are literally made from light in pair production, and the hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena, as are the emitted microwaves. Microwaves are light in the wider sense. There’s a peak “frequency” in the emitted light, which is found and measured by the detector, but get this: the “frequency” is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and the second isn’t defined yet. So what the detectors essentially do, is count incoming microwave peaks. When they get to 9,192,631,770 that’s a second. Hence the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. And did you catch the gravitational time dilation? If you were to take this clock and place it in a region of low gravitational potential, it would be like pressing a slow-motion button. All electromagnetic and other processes then occur at a reduced rate, including the hyperfine transition and the motion of the resultant light towards the detector. However regardless of this, when the detectors get to 9,192,631,770, that’s a second. Only this 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as previously, because the second is bigger, because the light goes slower. The patent evidence is as obvious as the nose in front of your face, and you would have to be suffering from something resembling a religious conviction to dismiss both it and Einstein.
I have seen and read it. It accounts for a single phenomena and there is no evidence that it is consistent with the remainder of GR. It is published in an obscure journal of dubious editorial standards and I doubt that you have ever actually read that paper. If you disagree, use that paper to calculate the perihelion advance of Mercury or the rotation curve of any galaxy.
But these facts are useless unless we can describe them in a way useful to physics. GR describes events that we observe or predict by using the specifics of a spacetime manifold–this is entirely mathematical. If you have some other way to do this, then please provide the details. Please describe in detail that we can asses either the perihelion advance of Mercury or the rotation curve of any galaxy.
So far, you have a lot of talk, but no game. Let’s see your theory do anything.
You know I’ve read the paper, I’ve quoted sections to you. Here’s another:
In this Letter, we emphasize the strong similarities between the light propagation in a curved spacetime and that in a medium with graded refractive index. These similarities suggest that an inhomogeneous vacuum may be the physical reality of the curved spacetime. We provide a general method to derive exactly the corresponding graded refractive index of the vacuum in a static spherically symmetrical gravitational field both for outside and inside the gravitational matter system, and point out that the refractive index profile is simply a unified exponential function of the gravitational potential for a weak gravitational field. We show that even the long puzzling central image missing problem in gravitational lensing[34] can now be solved clearly with the use of the obtained refractive index profile.
But you dismiss it, along with Einstein, and the scientific evidence. You’re in denial PhysBang. All you can do is attempt to erect a smokescreen of mathematical demands and call it “your theory”. Don’t you get it yet? It isn’t my theory. It’s Einstein’s.
When speaking of the consistency of the speed of light, shouldn’t you be distinguishing whether you mean with gravity fields or without? Einstein later realized that gravity affects the speed of light. But when speaking of SR, it is assumed that there is a uniform gravity field (as in “none”) merely for the sake of discussion.
What I am seeing in the Paradox thread is that I am the “Atheist” arguing the logic in the “Bible” with the “Christians” PhysBang and Carleas defending the faith while the “Jews”, Maddy and Churro are still using the Torah.
The primary issue is merely the interpretation of their “Bible”, very much as Farsight pointed out. And although Farsight is hardly alone in his plea that interpretation is “the issue”, I still see logical error in every current perspective.
The Paradox merely displays the issue of relativity of simultaneity by presenting a case wherein we would know which frame of reference didn’t see correctly. But rather than logic being used to defend the faith, the defense thus far has been, “but our scriptures say…”, even when that isn’t what they meant by what they said (the exact scenario of religious people who argue over doctrine - and with the same lack of progress).
If the Torah had included a dictionary from the beginning, the entire world would be very different and there probably would be no separation between Christian and Jew. And a commonly heard phrase among the Arabs would be “Mohamed who?!?”.
Sorry. Yes, when speaking of SR we assume no gravity, and people talk of a constant speed of light. There is however an oddity to this however related to Einstein’s clock synchronisation. Imagine you’re in the middle of a “motionless” mirrored box which serves as your frame of reference. (You can’t be sure it’s truly motionless, but you know what I mean). You send a pulse to the front of the box, it bounces back, and you mark the time of its return. You assume that the speed of light is the same both out and back. Now repeat this in a fast-moving box.
And what are the presumed results?
In my world, the speed of light is not an observed constant. But I can explain why it has appeared so.
Not mathematically or logically so anyone can understand it. Explaining how something out of kilter with reality works is really explaining nothing except the root of your misconceptions.