perfectlyinnocent

The statements that you've quoted are outdated. If the standard model
is true, then there is a gedanken experiment that conclusively proves
that the speed of light isn't always c.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert

perfectlyinnocent

The statements that you've quoted are outdated. If the standard model
is true, then there is a gedanken experiment that conclusively proves
that the speed of light isn't always c.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert

tom roberts

In physics, the name "standard model" refers to the standard model of
weak, electromagnetic, and strong interactions, a specific gauge theory
with gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). Your "SxR theory" isn't it, and isn't
standard at all.

In GR, the speed of light is not necessarily c, for any NON-LOCAL
measurement. Your "around the circle" case is merely an instance of
that. <shrug>


Hmmmm. You claim a topology S^3xR, but only discuss SxR. As I have said
before, S^3 is inconsistent with a flat spatial metric; by only
****yzing SxR you hide that ugly fact from yourself.

Your ****ysis of an object approaching r=2m in Schwarzschild spacetime
is wrong because the COORDINATES you use are invalid at r=2m, and limits
in terms of them are not well defined there. It is well known that it
requires only a finite proper time for an object to travel from any
point on an infalling radial geodesic to cross the horizon. But you have
to use other coordinates to discuss this -- look up "Finkelstein
coordinates" and "Kruskal coordinates"; a key feature of coordinates
valid at the horizon is that they are null. Most GR textbooks discuss
this; I'm sure MTW does.

I'm not sure how your "absolute time order" assumption compares to the
local structure of a Lorentzian manifold, which has what could be called
an "absolute time order" for timelike-separated events. I doubt your
assumption can be consistently applied to spacelike-separated events,
precisely because of that local structure.

If you really want to learn and understand physics, you need to STUDY,
and not merely assume that you know everything and that "physicists are
incredibly narrow-minded in their hostility to mathematical reality" --
you display your own flavor of narrow-mindedness and hostility. Unlike
virtually all of the crackpots around here, you appear to have most of
the requisite mathematical skills for studying physics; but you need to
work on the ability to see your own mistakes. Remember that physics is a
SOCIAL activity, and to contribute you need to participate....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

tom roberts

In physics, the name "standard model" refers to the standard model of
weak, electromagnetic, and strong interactions, a specific gauge theory
with gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). Your "SxR theory" isn't it, and isn't
standard at all.

In GR, the speed of light is not necessarily c, for any NON-LOCAL
measurement. Your "around the circle" case is merely an instance of
that. <shrug>


Hmmmm. You claim a topology S^3xR, but only discuss SxR. As I have said
before, S^3 is inconsistent with a flat spatial metric; by only
****yzing SxR you hide that ugly fact from yourself.

Your ****ysis of an object approaching r=2m in Schwarzschild spacetime
is wrong because the COORDINATES you use are invalid at r=2m, and limits
in terms of them are not well defined there. It is well known that it
requires only a finite proper time for an object to travel from any
point on an infalling radial geodesic to cross the horizon. But you have
to use other coordinates to discuss this -- look up "Finkelstein
coordinates" and "Kruskal coordinates"; a key feature of coordinates
valid at the horizon is that they are null. Most GR textbooks discuss
this; I'm sure MTW does.

I'm not sure how your "absolute time order" assumption compares to the
local structure of a Lorentzian manifold, which has what could be called
an "absolute time order" for timelike-separated events. I doubt your
assumption can be consistently applied to spacelike-separated events,
precisely because of that local structure.

If you really want to learn and understand physics, you need to STUDY,
and not merely assume that you know everything and that "physicists are
incredibly narrow-minded in their hostility to mathematical reality" --
you display your own flavor of narrow-mindedness and hostility. Unlike
virtually all of the crackpots around here, you appear to have most of
the requisite mathematical skills for studying physics; but you need to
work on the ability to see your own mistakes. Remember that physics is a
SOCIAL activity, and to contribute you need to participate....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

androclesinengland

[snip as read and understood]

Neat how intuition plays a role here.

It is Clearly Flawed. To see why, take a long serious look at http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Note the use of the term 'assumption', note the use of the earlier term
'intuition'. It is intuitive to believe what we see, even when that flies in
the face of simple logic. If we assume it to be so, then our experiments
support that assumption. If we assume it is not so, then all the logical
difficulties with relativity go away. But then we are faced with
understanding what it is we DO see, not just with our eyes, but with our
minds. A bent stick in water isn't really bent, although that is what we
observe with our eyes. We see it as straight with our minds, and explain the
phenomenon as refraction - that has something to do with light, doesn't it?
So why in the blue blazes do we look at a distant star and ASSUME that what
we see is what is really happening? To find the answer, refer to the website
I have given above.

Androcles

rl gerl

news:<844a1b64.0309141407.55bda37@posting.google.c om>...

Eugene, Patrick's version of the `Light Principle' is complete if we add to
it that the measurement is always correct. That is, it's not the case that
light is measured to be the invariant c but "really" it can sometimes be
something else. Some scientists have used the qualifier `measured' when
discussing the constancy of light's speed but it is always said with the
understanding that the measurements are correctly measuring the phenomena
being measured. Nature is not a liar.

Randy
http://www.rlgerl.com

reany

The only "really" that science can ever touch is only what it can ever measure.

I guess you're saying that Heisenberg and Bohm were given to slips of
the pen, or imprecise thinking. What sources do you give to support
your contention that "it is always said with the understanding that
the measurements are correctly measuring the phenomena being
measured", by which I take it to mean that you mean that the measured
and unmeasured speed of light is the invariant number c?


Does Feynmann use my version of the Light Principle or your version in
his development of QED? I'll give some references below, which I
posted not long ago:

However, I can guarantee you (otherwise the examples
I'm going to show you would be misleading) that every
phenomena about light that has been observed in detail
can be explained by the theory of quantum electrodynamics,
even though I'm going to describe only the simplest and
most common phenomena.
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p38.

Feynman goes onto say that his weird theory allows for light to
actually travel from the source to the detector point by reflecting
off of EVERY part of the mirror (sum of all paths). The reason this is
possible is because this crazy theory still adheres to the Light
Principle as a measurement principle. Light is a quantum phenomena,
not a classical phenomena. And nobody really KNOWS what the hell light
does. We do KNOW how to make measurements of the speed of light, for
one thing, and the light Principle deals directly with that. It's
important to get it sunk in that the measurement of the speed of light
requires an entire experimental setup in which light sneakily betrays
whatever it really does and just comes out at speed c when measured
(again under suitable cir***stances). Feynman refers to Poincare's
claim that light is in a conspiracy against humans to know it
completely and its supposed absolute rest frame (see, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1, p15-5).

Feynman says even more:

You found out that in the last lecture that light
doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find
out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light.
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p89.

Let's throw in one more:

Throughout these lectures I have delighted in showing
you that the price of gaining such an accurate theory
has been at the erosion of our common sense. We must
all accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification
and suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from
all parts of a mirror, light travelling in paths other
than a straight line, photons going faster or slower than
the conventional speed of light, ....
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p119.


Feynman's theory would be IMPOSSIBLE if he were constrained to model
light as always traveling at the speed c in a given reference
frame!!!!!

Patrick

reany

The only "really" that science can ever touch is only what it can ever measure.

I guess you're saying that Heisenberg and Bohm were given to slips of
the pen, or imprecise thinking. What sources do you give to support
your contention that "it is always said with the understanding that
the measurements are correctly measuring the phenomena being
measured", by which I take it to mean that you mean that the measured
and unmeasured speed of light is the invariant number c?


Does Feynmann use my version of the Light Principle or your version in
his development of QED? I'll give some references below, which I
posted not long ago:

However, I can guarantee you (otherwise the examples
I'm going to show you would be misleading) that every
phenomena about light that has been observed in detail
can be explained by the theory of quantum electrodynamics,
even though I'm going to describe only the simplest and
most common phenomena.
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p38.

Feynman goes onto say that his weird theory allows for light to
actually travel from the source to the detector point by reflecting
off of EVERY part of the mirror (sum of all paths). The reason this is
possible is because this crazy theory still adheres to the Light
Principle as a measurement principle. Light is a quantum phenomena,
not a classical phenomena. And nobody really KNOWS what the hell light
does. We do KNOW how to make measurements of the speed of light, for
one thing, and the light Principle deals directly with that. It's
important to get it sunk in that the measurement of the speed of light
requires an entire experimental setup in which light sneakily betrays
whatever it really does and just comes out at speed c when measured
(again under suitable cir***stances). Feynman refers to Poincare's
claim that light is in a conspiracy against humans to know it
completely and its supposed absolute rest frame (see, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1, p15-5).

Feynman says even more:

You found out that in the last lecture that light
doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find
out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light.
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p89.

Let's throw in one more:

Throughout these lectures I have delighted in showing
you that the price of gaining such an accurate theory
has been at the erosion of our common sense. We must
all accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification
and suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from
all parts of a mirror, light travelling in paths other
than a straight line, photons going faster or slower than
the conventional speed of light, ....
--- Feynman, QED, Princeton Science Library, p119.


Feynman's theory would be IMPOSSIBLE if he were constrained to model
light as always traveling at the speed c in a given reference
frame!!!!!

Patrick

perfectlyinnocent

Hi Jem,

Please f****ve my hasty protest of Patrick Reany's incredibly dull and
vacuous statement:

"The reason the Light Principle is a measurement constant...is because
it is the simplest induction that can be made from just making
measurements on the speed of light. In this particular case, the
simplest induction does not require a model of light propagation."

My immediate response was that of self-preservation and to not suc***b
to the overt invitation to tempt brain death. I, of course, wasn't
thinking of SR but was grasping for a more relevant antithesis.

The relative speed of two observers must be defined in a manner
independent of coordinates. Once this is done, the proposed
transformation does indeed contain the required relativistic
principle.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

perfectlyinnocent

I have seen the words "standard model" applied to the usual "big bang"
FRW cosmological model with S^3xR topology. The "standard model" in
its fullest sense is just a big umbrella that covers many separately standard ideas.


In GR, there is not necessarily any such thing as an inertial
reference frame.

The opening post says,

"My version of the Light Principle: The measured speed of light in a
vacuum made within an inertial reference frame is the invariant number
c."

I was commenting on those general spaces where inertial reference
frames exist at every point.


I haven't hidden a thing. And I'd be happy to discuss S^3xR with
anyone capable of acknowledging the more elementary facts of SxR. http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605


My ****ysis is correct and the limits I define are equal in all coordinate systems.


The ability to cross a black hole horizon disappears in every
spacetime that has an absolute time order. You seem unaware that
closed and bounded spacetimes possess a genuflecting property. All
motion must obey the sacrosanct time order.

All coordinate systems agree.

I already understand the idea. But can you fathom "absolute time
order," the "genuflecting property," the "genuflecting principle," etc?


The sophistry of this subterfuge is refuted here: http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

I know virtually nothing. But I have mastered high school algebra and
am confident that you haven't said anything that overthrows the
certainty of elementary math. http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

The bigotry I refer to is easy to do***ent. But you don't want to go there.

Perhaps the persons who think they know more than I do should answer
my easy questions.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605


I help those who know less and ask questions of those who know more.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert