Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post Reply
Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Farsight » Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:57 pm

hackenslash wrote:...As for what everything is measured against, it is measured against the only reliable constant of the universe, namely the speed of light. This is the only constant, and the reason for this is given throughout this thread. That is the only frame of reference that everything moves relative to...
I'm sorry hackenslash, but it isn't constant. We only measure it locally to be constant. Here's something I wrote previously with some Einstein reference re relativity. There's scientific evidence too.
Farsight wrote:People say the speed of light is constant, and Einstein said it. But it isn't true. Yes, Einstein started with this as a postulate in 1905, but in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where we can see his ideas evolving. He gives the expression c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²), which is c varying with gravitational potential. Then in 1912 he said it again when he wrote "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential". He repeated this in 1913 when he said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".

Image
Wikipedia commons public domain image, Solvay 1911 crop uploaded by Fastfission

This wasn’t just some early thought that he later discarded, because there it is again in 1915 when he says "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned." That’s on page 259 of Doc 21, sorry, I’m not sure what the original paper is called. He says it again in late 1915, on page 150 of Doc 30, within The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified.". He really spells it out in section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory where he says this:

"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)".

People tend to see the word velocity in the translations without seeing the context and without noticing that he’s repeatedly referring to “the principle”. They just don’t see the significance of “laid in the dust”, and they skip over his reference to "one of the two fundamental assumptions". They just don’t and won’t see that he's talking about the SR postulate, which is the constant speed of light. Some will even huff and puff and cry “out of context” and “cherry picking” to dismiss what Einstein actually said. They refuse to accept that Einstein didn't speak English in 1916, and that what he actually said was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. I’ve got the original German version. A German friend and an Austrian friend translated it for me. It translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word “velocity” in the 1920 Methuen translation was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”, not the vector quantity that combines speed and direction. He was saying the speed varies with position, hence the reference to the postulate, and hence it causes curvilinear motion. It causes the light to follow a curved path. like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road.

User avatar
newolder
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by newolder » Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:07 pm

If 99% of mass isn't down to the Higgs mechanism, that means I'm 99% right.
:lol:
Any non-zero% Higgs means you are 100% wrong.
“This data is not Monte Carlo.”, …, “This collision is not a simulation.” - LHC-b guy, 30th March 2010.

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Farsight » Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:16 pm

mistermack wrote:I realised as I wrote it that I'd get kicked for saying that about a frame not needing space, but I let it stay to see what was wrong with it.
A reference frame isn't something that actually exists. You can't point up to the night sky and point one out. It's just an abstract thing associated with you measurement and your motion. You aren't actually "in" a reference frame, you're in some state of motion, and that affects the measurements you make.
mistermack wrote:If you imagine a universe made of solid copper, and energy and matter was just composed of eddying electricity, it's feasible that there could be beings who only experience other electrical currents, and had no way of detecting the solid copper matrix. They would move through it as if it wasn't there. That's just a mind picture I've used for years, there could be thousands of others.
I've got something similar, where the universe is made of ghostly compressed rubber. It's expanding like a stress-ball expands when you unclench your fist. A photon of light is a pressure-pulse rippling through it. You can employ pair production to make these waves go round and round in circles, whereupon we call them electrons etc. A gravitational field is a pressure gradient which makes light veer towards a planet. Something like an electron is light going round and round, and for the orthogonal part of its path it's veering towards the planet, so it falls down. Here's an analogy that I hope helps:

Imagine a swimming pool. Every morning you swim from one end to the other in a straight line. In the dead of night I truck in a load of gelatine powder and tip it all down the left hand side. This starts diffusing across the breadth of the pool, imparting a viscosity gradient from left to right. The next morning when you go for your swim, something's not right, and you find that you're veering to the left. If you could see your wake, you'd notice it was curved. That's your curved spacetime, because the pool is like the space round a planet, the viscosity gradient is like Einstein's non-constant gμν, and you're a photon. As to how the gradient attracts matter, consider a single electron. We can make an electron along with a positron from light, via pair production. Since the electron also has spin, think of it as light trapped in a circular path. So if you're swimming round and round in circles, whenever you're swimming up or down the pool you're veering left. Hence you find yourself working over to the left. That's why things fall down.
Last edited by Farsight on Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Farsight » Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:22 pm

newolder wrote:Any non-zero% Higgs means you are 100% wrong.
LOL, talk about clutching at straws. Let's just reiterate: the Higgs mechanism is thought to be responsible for only 1% of proton mass. That's in A Xeptospcae Odyssey bt CERN scientist Gian Francesco Giudice. And it rathers puts a new gloss on all that "Mystery of Mass" stuff we've all been hearing about.

User avatar
newolder
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by newolder » Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:59 pm

Farsight wrote:Let's just reiterate: the Higgs mechanism is thought to be responsible for only 1% of proton mass.
and your 'model' does not include this contribution at all (unless you point to a reference in your work that says otherwise). So, if the contribution is real, your model fails. So it goes. :pop:
“This data is not Monte Carlo.”, …, “This collision is not a simulation.” - LHC-b guy, 30th March 2010.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:11 pm

Farsight wrote:
mistermack wrote:I realised as I wrote it that I'd get kicked for saying that about a frame not needing space, but I let it stay to see what was wrong with it.
A reference frame isn't something that actually exists. You can't point up to the night sky and point one out. It's just an abstract thing associated with you measurement and your motion. You aren't actually "in" a reference frame, you're in some state of motion, and that affects the measurements you make.
mistermack wrote:If you imagine a universe made of solid copper, and energy and matter was just composed of eddying electricity, it's feasible that there could be beings who only experience other electrical currents, and had no way of detecting the solid copper matrix. They would move through it as if it wasn't there. That's just a mind picture I've used for years, there could be thousands of others.
I've got something similar, where the universe is made of ghostly compressed rubber. It's expanding like a stress-ball expands when you unclench your fist. A photon of light is a pressure-pulse rippling through it. You can employ pair production to make these waves go round and round in circles, whereupon we call them electrons etc. A gravitational field is a pressure gradient which makes light veer towards a planet. Something like an electron is light going round and round, and for the orthogonal part of its path it's veering towards the planet, so it falls down. Here's an analogy that I hope helps:

Imagine a swimming pool. Every morning you swim from one end to the other in a straight line. In the dead of night I truck in a load of gelatine powder and tip it all down the left hand side. This starts diffusing across the breadth of the pool, imparting a viscosity gradient from left to right. The next morning when you go for your swim, something's not right, and you find that you're veering to the left. If you could see your wake, you'd notice it was curved. That's your curved spacetime, because the pool is like the space round a planet, the viscosity gradient is like Einstein's non-constant gμν, and you're a photon. As to how the gradient attracts matter, consider a single electron. We can make an electron along with a positron from light, via pair production. Since the electron also has spin, think of it as light trapped in a circular path. So if you're swimming round and round in circles, whenever you're swimming up or down the pool you're veering left. Hence you find yourself working over to the left. That's why things fall down.
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by mistermack » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:27 pm

Colubridae, that's a rather sad habit you've picked up there, it does you no credit.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:10 pm

mistermack wrote:Colubridae, that's a rather sad habit you've picked up there, it does you no credit.

Laughing at things I find funny… Surely that’s a good habit.

Farsight has been flogging his ‘time doesn't exist it's only motion’ all over the internet like a plague....

But why no publication?

That last question is the all important one.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by hackenslash » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:22 pm

Twiglet wrote:Thanks hackenslash. Please don't feel obliged. Just point me in the direction of the new stuff, if you can be arsed. Don't baby me with the explanations, I don't need that stuff, but if I need to get my shit together and catch up, and you can save me a few minutes go ahead :)
If you google 'second superstring revolution' you'll be swamped with material. :tup:
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Twiglet » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:29 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Twiglet wrote:Thanks hackenslash. Please don't feel obliged. Just point me in the direction of the new stuff, if you can be arsed. Don't baby me with the explanations, I don't need that stuff, but if I need to get my shit together and catch up, and you can save me a few minutes go ahead :)
If you google 'second superstring revolution' you'll be swamped with material. :tup:
Cheers to you & colbridea :tup:

and farsight.... undergraduate physicists develop pet theories like trainee doctors develop incurable illnesses. You're not the first to come up with a massless universe, and you surely won't be the last.

If you want some *real* entertainment using real science to back up fantasy theories, I recommend the "intelligent design" mob. They have better cookies, daughters with purity rings, and you can pretty much rest assured that none of them understand relativity, quantum physics or mechanics either :cheers:

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by mistermack » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:38 pm

Colubridae, I know what laughing is, and it's not sitting at a screen, copying and pasting huge chunks of text, and adding a silly man at the end.
Real laughter is an involuntary reaction, an emotion that bubbles up inside.
If I was in a real debate face to face with someone, and they made me laugh, I would first apologise, and secondly explain what made me laugh.
Just putting a laughing man after a load of text is just saying, I have contempt for what you wrote, I want everyone to know that, but I don't think I need to say what's wrong with it. That's why I think it's a bad habit.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:19 am

mistermack wrote:Colubridae, I know what laughing is, and it's not sitting at a screen, copying and pasting huge chunks of text, and adding a silly man at the end.
Real laughter is an involuntary reaction, an emotion that bubbles up inside.
If I was in a real debate face to face with someone, and they made me laugh, I would first apologise, and secondly explain what made me laugh.
Just putting a laughing man after a load of text is just saying, I have contempt for what you wrote, I want everyone to know that, but I don't think I need to say what's wrong with it. That's why I think it's a bad habit.
Ok This is going to be fun.

Let’s play the game as with jd357

Why do you think I found hyperopia’s post very funny?

Bearing in mind that I am fairly sure it is possible for light to follow a curved path. I am sure of this at least because of eddington’s famous observation of starlight during an eclipse.
Also the hubble evidence of gravitational lensing. (I once attended an astronomy lecture on gravitational lensing – the lecturer had a specialy shaped glass lens which reproduced the gravitational lensing perfectly – The glass lens was the shape of a champagne glass stem without the bowl.)
(Also please understand my physics is way below everyone else’s)

So why do I find it hysterical….?

Here’s a clue “how would you steer a magic carpet round a tight curve?”
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by mistermack » Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:57 pm

colubridae wrote: Ok This is going to be fun.

Let’s play the game as with jd357

Why do you think I found hyperopia’s post very funny?

Bearing in mind that I am fairly sure it is possible for light to follow a curved path. I am sure of this at least because of eddington’s famous observation of starlight during an eclipse.
Also the hubble evidence of gravitational lensing. (I once attended an astronomy lecture on gravitational lensing – the lecturer had a specialy shaped glass lens which reproduced the gravitational lensing perfectly – The glass lens was the shape of a champagne glass stem without the bowl.)
(Also please understand my physics is way below everyone else’s)

So why do I find it hysterical….?

Here’s a clue “how would you steer a magic carpet round a tight curve?”
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:19 pm

mistermack wrote:
colubridae wrote: Ok This is going to be fun.

Let’s play the game as with jd357

Why do you think I found hyperopia’s post very funny?

Bearing in mind that I am fairly sure it is possible for light to follow a curved path. I am sure of this at least because of eddington’s famous observation of starlight during an eclipse.
Also the hubble evidence of gravitational lensing. (I once attended an astronomy lecture on gravitational lensing – the lecturer had a specialy shaped glass lens which reproduced the gravitational lensing perfectly – The glass lens was the shape of a champagne glass stem without the bowl.)
(Also please understand my physics is way below everyone else’s)

So why do I find it hysterical….?

Here’s a clue “how would you steer a magic carpet round a tight curve?”
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:

There you are you see. You found the funny side...

It's not difficult when you look for it...
Have fun you, crazy kid.

:hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by hackenslash » Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:46 pm

Light doesn't follow a curved path. It follows a geodesic, which is a straight line through curved space.

I realise that the above post was meant to be humorous, but I thought it important to interject with that point, for those who are already having trouble with the topic.
Dogma is the death of the intellect

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests