speed of light in gravity?
DSeppala
direction, if a distant observer who is far removed from the
gravitational field and is at rest in an inertial reference frame
relative to the gravitational field measures the travel time of light
moving in the z direction within that uniform gravitational field,
does he measure the speed as c as it is in a vacuum? If light is
traveling in the -z direction within this uniform graviational field,
does the external stationary inertial observer measure that speed as
c?
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop, TX
PD
David, how would you imagine measuring the speed of light from far
away?
Tom Roberts
> If there is a uniform gravitational field with the force in the -z
You must specify precisely HOW this distant observer "measures" something far
away. The details matter. Of course if you do that, the question answers itself
(at least within the context of GR). In short, such an observer can get
essentially any answer, including completely nonsensical ones, depending on how
the experiment is set up.
I repeat: you will remain mystified until you sit down and STUDY physics. "20
questions" on the net will lead you nowhere, and you will be doomed to repeat
your silliness and stupidities.
Tom Roberts
Dirk Van de moortel
85843339-0cb8-4a06...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Ok, Luttgens, it's your turn again.
Dirk Vdm
BURT
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> 85843339-0cb8-4a06-ac02-5745a414d...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
The speed of light is a slower C when entering gravity and greater
when leaving.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
Let's set up this a bit more clearly.
A meter stick is placed in the +z orientation, a half silvered mirror
is placed at z = 1 meter, a mirror is placed at z = 0 meter (as
measured locally), and the gravitational field is weak enough that
variations between those two mirror elevations are beneath both
interest and detection. The distant observer fires a laser "down"
onto the apparatus. The entire arrangement has had air removed, so
c_medium = c for the entire path.
What is the time duration between light returning from the "1 meter"
mirror and the "0 meter" mirror?
Does that sound like what you had in mind?
David A. Smith
BURT
The entire path for light is parabolic as it passes by the sun in the
sky. Space curvature creates this path geometry. It is in the aether
and the curve is round.
Mitch Raemsch
DSeppala
I had a very simple experiment in mind. I have a light detector at z
= 1 meter, x = 0 and a light detector at x = 0 and z = -1 meter, and a
light source at x = z = 0. Far away, I have a light source at z = 1
meter and x = -L. This light source is aimed such that the emitted
light will hit the detector at x = 0, z = 1 meter. And I have another
light source at z = -1 meter, x = -L such that it follows a similar
path to hit the detector at z = -1.
If I simultaneously send a light pulse from each of these
distance sources such that they hit the detectors in the gravitational
field at z = 1 meter and z = -1 meter simultaneously (Their paths are
identical just offset), is it possible to emit light from the light
source in the gravitational field that is at x = 0, and z = 0, and
have it arrive at the top detector simultaneously with the arrival of
the distant light pulse, and also have the emitted light arrive at the
bottom detector simultaneoulsy with the arrival of the distant pulse
of light? If the arrivals are simultaneous at both the top and bottom
detectors, then gravity doesn't affect the speed. If I can't time the
pulse from the source at x = 0, z= 0 to arrive simultaneously with the
distant pulses, then the speed of light varies with g.
Thanks,
David
dlzc
On Nov 20, 4:32 pm, DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
...
> I had a very simple experiment in mind.
OK.
> I have a light detector at z = 1 meter,
> x = 0 and a light detector at x = 0 and
> z = -1 meter, and a light source at
> x = z = 0. Far away, I have a light
> source at z = 1 meter and x = -L. This
> light source is aimed such that the emitted
> light will hit the detector at x = 0,
> z = 1 meter. And I have another light
> source at z = -1 meter, x = -L such that it
> follows a similar path to hit the detector
> at z = -1.
This is good. Now why don't you describe the simple experiment? One
that will reveal c at a distant location...
> If I simultaneously
One that does not involve a synchronization procedure that bollixes up
any result you will understand?
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4a637125-09dc-4b15...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dear DSeppala:
OK.
> If I simultaneously
David A. Smith
=============================================
This is bad. The OP described a simple experiment and it was too
complicated for Smiffy's tiny brain.
BURT
The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum was Einstein's
principle.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[snip]
Years and years of shit like this and you still can't think for yourself.
Why don't you listen when we tell you to find a new hobby?
DSeppala
I'm not measuring the speed of light in my experiment but simply
trying to determine if the speed of light in the direction of the
force of a uniform gravitational field is different than the speed in
the direction opposite to the force. This experiment doesn't require
assumptions about length measurements, nor assupmtions about
synchronizing clocks in the uniform gravitational field. It simply
uses two clocks that are synchronized in an inertial reference frame
far removed from the gravitational field.
David
YBM
As usual, John Parker aka "p xor q does not imply x or q" didn't get the
point.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b0770a1$0$15342$426a...@news.free.fr...
p xor q does not imply q por x either, fuckwit.
As usual, dyslexic "Your Basic Moron" doesn't know his 'p's from his 'x's.
BURT
We the people find you guilty Eric.
harry
According to GRT, the speed of light reduces with reducing
gravitational potential.
See paragraph 22 (from p.196) of http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html
and keep in mind that the locally measured value of c must remain
constant.
Hint: Google for "Shapiro effect".
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:94420bf8-e8c6-407c...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Harald
============================================
Hint: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Hint: Answer the question.
Hint: According to Newtonian Mechanics, you are a fuckin' idiot.
Hint: And keep in mind that you don't even know how stupid
you are.
dlzc
On Nov 20, 9:24 pm, DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 6:45 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 4:32 pm, DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > I had a very simple experiment in mind.
>
> > OK.
>
> > > I have a light detector at z = 1 meter,
> > > x = 0 and a light detector at x = 0 and
> > > z = -1 meter, and a light source at
> > > x = z = 0. Far away, I have a light
> > > source at z = 1 meter and x = -L. This
> > > light source is aimed such that the emitted
> > > light will hit the detector at x = 0,
> > > z = 1 meter. And I have another light
> > > source at z = -1 meter, x = -L such that it
> > > follows a similar path to hit the detector
> > > at z = -1.
>
> > This is good. Now why don't you describe the
> > simple experiment? One that will reveal c at
> > a distant location...
>
> > > If I simultaneously
>
> > One that does not involve a synchronization
> > procedure that bollixes up any result you
> > will understand?
>
> I'm not measuring the speed of light in my
> experiment
That is what you started out with. Look at the thread title.
> but simply trying to determine if the speed
> of light in the direction of the force of a
> uniform gravitational field is different than
> the speed in the direction opposite to the
> force.
Which is why you had mirrors orthogonal to the line of action of
gravity? Doesn't make sense.
> This experiment doesn't require assumptions
> about length measurements,
Yes, it explicitly states positions... same difference.
> nor assupmtions about synchronizing clocks
> in the uniform gravitational field.
It assumes distant clocks can be synchronized. As you have been told
before, we only have light to accomplish this with, so the "best" you
will end up with is an Einstein synchronization procedure.
> It simply uses two clocks that are
> synchronized in an inertial reference frame
> far removed from the gravitational field.
Which yields results that will be unsurprising. In addition, you seem
to forget that Nature will not allow you to determine the one way
speed of light. If you establish distance (even "position") you do
with this a TWLS procedure so OWLS measurements are always going to
return c "locally".
David A. Smith
DSeppala
>
> - Show quoted text -
The experimental setup just measures whether the speed of light is
different going in the direction of the gravitational force than going
in the opposite direction to gravitational force. The experimental
setup doesn't measure the speed of anything. Also, you suggest you
must have to establish distance. The only thing needed is being able
to find the midpoint between two stationary points. For an inertial
frame observer at rest to the gravitational field, he can measure the
distance between two points in the gravitational field simply by
making measurements in his inertial reference frame far removed from
the gravitational field. So in this setup, does light travel slower
going opposite the direction of gravitational force than it does going
in the direction of gravitational force?
Thanks
David
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity aether slows and takes light speed with it. Light speed
becomes a slow light speed metric.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> DSeppala wrote:
> > If there is a uniform gravitational field with the force in the -z
> > direction, if a distant observer [...]
>
> You must specify precisely HOW this distant observer "measures" something far
> away. The details matter. Of course if you do that, the question answers itself
> (at least within the context of GR). In short, such an observer can get
> essentially any answer, including completely nonsensical ones, depending on how
> the experiment is set up.
You are having a double standard. GR is about how an observer should
observe an event in curved spacetime not about how a distant observer
measures parameters in this event. I am very surprised as an
experimental physicist, you would bring up this nonsense to justify
the ever more nonsense of GR. <shrug>
> I repeat: you will remain mystified until you sit down and STUDY physics. "20
> questions" on the net will lead you nowhere, and you will be doomed to repeat
> your silliness and stupidities.
<sigh> What does it matter? All self-styled physicists are already
grossly mystified. Do you want examples?
The Lorentz transform is merely a special case where due to this
special condition, the principle of relativity is satisfied to some
degree. However, in general, it has not hope of satisfying the
principle of relativity. Worshipping Einstein who based SR on the
principle of relativity is just ignorantly stupid. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
Another example is alchemy in differential geometry where self-styled
physicists are grossly confusing the metric as the geometry itself.
Although classical definition of the metric implies the geometry
itself, the mathematics of GR just does not support so. To describe
the invariant geometry independent of observers, the metric must be
unique to each set of coordinate system. Since the field equations at
the point of yielding the solutions must have a set of coordinate
system chosen, it becomes very clear that there are an infinite
solutions that are static, symmetrically spherical, and asymptotically
flat. It is no wonder that Hilbert walked away from all this nonsense
and allowed Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who had
an IQ of no more than 80 to take the sole credit/blame. <shrug>
Hilbert was a very intelligent mathematician/physicist, and his
mistake was to overestimate the intelligence of the self-styled
physicists. <shrug> Oh well, you cannot blame Hilbert for that.
<shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
463ba54b-e19b-443c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
...
> the ever more nonsense of GR. <shrug>
...
> principle of relativity is just ignorantly stupid. <shrug>
...
> an IQ of no more than 80 to take the sole credit/blame. <shrug>
...
> physicists. <shrug> Oh well, you cannot blame Hilbert for that.
> <shrug>
Watch that shoulder.
Dirk Vdm
dlzc
On Nov 21, 10:24 pm, DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> The experimental setup just measures whether
> the speed of light is different going in the
> direction of the gravitational force than
> going in the opposite direction to
> gravitational force.
It does no such thing. As described to you, both here and in other
threads.
> The experimental setup doesn't measure the
> speed of anything. Also, you suggest you
> must have to establish distance.
"Position" as you require in your setup, is both distance and local
geometry. You have a double whammy.
> The only thing needed is being able to find
> the midpoint between two stationary points.
Which requires Einstein synchronization, or one of its close kin.
> For an inertial frame observer at rest to
> the gravitational field, he can measure the
> distance between two points in the
> gravitational field simply by making
> measurements in his inertial reference frame
> far removed from the gravitational field.
By using.... go ahead and say it... light and clocks. So you have two-
way light synchronization, and in no way do you return the one-way
speed of light for any further testing in the apparatus.
> So in this setup, does light travel slower
> going opposite the direction of
> gravitational force than it does going
> in the direction of gravitational force?
In this setup, you may or may not return a TWLS measurement of c times
the time dilation associated with a relative position in a gravity
well.
David A. Smith
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stronger gravity is slower light.
Mitch Raemsch
Unified_Perspective
The essence of relativity is the nature of distant measurement. Since
in your hypothetical problem you have eliminated relative motion
relativity does not really apply. Lorentzian contraction was developed
precisely to deal with some of the effects of distant measurements and
the effects that the speed of light travel time has on our ability to
measure distant events.
In terms of measuring the speed of light along the different vectors
in your problem, yes, relativity predicts that the absolute speed of
the arriving light in both cases will be "c". However, it also
predicts that there will be measurable shifts in the frequency and
amplitude in either case you mention. Most available evidence
indicates that the predictions of general relativity best model the
way in which we actually do observe distant events.
The fact that your hypothetical problem involves making measurements
that do not seem possible to make indicates you might want to refine
the problem. Then you will be dealing with a scenario that closely
mimics the real problems that are encountered in interpreting
scientific observations. Which is why relativity is so useful. It is a
model that makes confusing information sensible. But, only if you
apply yourself to understanding the issues it seems to explain, which
is why I applaud you for presenting your problem to the group.
If you consider 'c' to be a variable with a fixed value you will
continue to struggle. In relativity 'C' is what is called an
asymptote. A limiting value that can always be more closely
approached, but never reached, nor ever exceeded.
Light, especially very high frequency light, especially in a perfect
vacuum most closely approaches 'c' but never exceeds it. Thus it
expresses mathematically or limited ability to observe distant objects
or past events and so it comes up all the time in the mathematics of
relativity. Similarly, the light in your problem will be measured if
it can be measured to approach but never exceed 'c'. That is the
theoretical foundation for relativity.
Dirk Van de moortel
00c3d27d-ec9c-4ac4...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com
You must be painfully new here.
Dirk Vdm
BURT
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Unified_Perspective <agall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 00c3d27d-ec9c-4ac4-934c-7ea1f77f9...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The contant of the speed of light comes dxirectly from Einstein's
principle. It is a constant in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
John Polasek
<agal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 9:31�am, DSeppala <dsepp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> If there is a uniform gravitational field with the force in the -z
>> direction, if a distant observer who is far removed from the
>> gravitational field and is at rest in an inertial reference frame
>> relative to the gravitational field measures the travel time of light
>> moving in the z direction within that uniform gravitational field,
>> does he measure the speed as c as it is in a vacuum? �If light is
>> traveling in the -z direction within this uniform graviational field,
>> does the external stationary inertial observer measure that speed as
>> c?
>> Thanks,
>> David Seppala
>> Bastrop, TX
Light only slows down in a gravitational field caused by a massive
object.
Light does not slow down in the uniform gravitational field such as
you described above-it has to be true gravity.
You are probably extrapolating the Einstein equivalence principle that
a gravitational field can be replaced locally by simple acceleration.
This is just one of the instances when it cannot. A simple kinematic
motion cannot duplicate the fact that the gravitational well is a
weakened region that depletes both the frequency of oscillators and
the velocity of light there.
Answer to your question: yes he does. You really should give some
thought to how you're going to measure it.
John Polasek
BURT
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:56:18 -0800 (PST), Unified_Perspective
>
There is a slow C metric.
Mitch Raemsch