The Speed of Light is Not Constant

Can you provide us with one citation from a non-crackpot?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Easy... http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-...f?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9


next

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(o/k) Hestenes is very respectable, Dirac was in fact one of the first line of respectable physicists who discovered zitter terms between mass and energy linked by a frequency term meaning that it has an internal electron clock \(\psi(\tau)\).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Dirac spinor and Dirac's belt hint at this. There are models such as this which describe the electron as a self-trapped photon which displaces its own path into a closed path.

I'd say this is the essence of Einstein's E=mc² paper. A radiating body loses mass. Note the mention of the electron. In electron-positron annihilation two radiating bodies lose mass. All of it! I think Light is Heavy is a good read. Note the 't Hooft here isn't the Nobel 't Hooft.

Not where the electron is. The curvature there is curved space, not curved spacetime.

I would urge you to re-examine this. The photon might "experience no time", but it moves. Imagine you were moving at the speed of light. You experience no time, but other things move, and I can move an asteroid into your path. BLAM. Events still happen. And "your frame" is little more than your state of motion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi!


If it experiences no time, what is it moving in respect to? If it moves in respect to the inertial observer, then the time measured is taken from the inertial frame of reference, not the photons. I guess the real question remains, what is the preferred frame, one inertial frame or one that has no frame at all?

I would waver for the latter since it will never experience a change outside looking at the universe. But I agree, the speed of light is not constant only if our frame of reference is special in some kind of way, outside of special relativity which was an obvious theory anyway.

 

Hi Manifold, have we met before?

You me, the Earth, the Sun, everything.

If you must pick a preferred frame, it would have to be the CMB rest frame. See CMBR dipole anisotropy. It gives you the reference frame of the universe. And think about how you "measure time" anyway: with a light clock. Using a photon, that's moving. The motion of light defines your time and your distance.

I think it's important to appreciate that a frame of reference is an abstract thing. In a way, we derive it from the motion of light. Look at the definition of the second and the metre.

 

That depends on whether the universe is superdeterministic or not ie. (following a cosmological Pilot Wave). This would act as the god-observer for cosmological and sub-system analogies.

 

Farsight ought to learn Latin, Maths and the first law of holes

It doesn't matter how "respectable" the author of your citation is when he doesn't ''show[] matter is just a form of trapped light.''

Because since Newton, all physical theories have been expressed in math so that they would be precise, communicable and testable descriptions of the behavior of actual phenomena.

A Catholic bishop would possibly still speak in Latin, the historical language of educated men. (Newton's Principia Mathematica was originally published in Latin.) I have long assumed that 1) you were old enough to be taught Latin as part of standard education and 2) that CoE bishops performed services exclusively in English. Thanks for correcting me on those points. But in fairness, I'm pretty sure you meant to write "invocation", as I don't think any Christian denomination acknowledges spell-casting bishops.

In any case, neither Latin nor the mathematics of special and general relativity are languages you are fluent it. That's great to know, but really doesn't help your argument that you understand Einstein's physical theories better than textbooks when Einstein introduced his theories in this language (also, German).

My previous [post=3218946]comments[/post] about your analogies with control of physical territory apply; and you only demonstrated that you don't understand differential geometry, the language of General Relativity as [post=3220207]my previous post[/post], linked to "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation," demonstrated.

Post [post=3220040]#888[/post] is the justification for Cartesian coordinates in analytic geometry in flat metrical spaces when said spaces (the Euclidean plane, Minkowski space, etc.) have no natural coordinate system. From the type of bilinear form described by \(\eta\) (positive definitive in the case of Euclidean geometry, indefinite for Minkowski), one can directly justify a family of continuous transformations of coordinates that describe the same geometric quantities (length and angle in Euclidean geometry, invariant interval and dot-product of four-vectors in Minkowski). Thus if \(\mathcal{M}\) is the flat manifold where we do geometry and \(\Sigma, \, \Sigma'\) are two admissible coordinate systems related by this family of continuously parameterized transformations, then this math is saying \(\Sigma\) and \(\Sigma'\) are geometrically equivalent descriptions of the same geometry. (Or that the diagram of one-to-one relationships between \(\mathcal{M}, \, \Sigma \; \textrm{and} \; \Sigma'\) commutes.)

But it's not a dump in that it was a thoughtless cut-and-paste. I worked it out long hand for your edification in light of lpetrich's challenge in post [post=3219121]#855[/post]. My post, goes hand-in-glove with lpetrich's parametrization of the Lorentz transform as \( \tiny \begin{pmatrix} \cosh \, u & \quad \quad & \sinh \, u \\ \sinh \, u & & \cosh \, u \end{pmatrix}\) in post [post=3219957]#882[/post].

Specifically, \(A = \tiny \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \quad \quad & u \\ -u & & 0 \end{pmatrix}\) is a parametrized anti-symmetric matrix, and \( \eta = \tiny \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \quad \quad & 0 \\ 0 & & -1 \end{pmatrix}\) is an admissible bilinear form while \(e^{\tiny \eta A} = \tiny \begin{pmatrix} \cosh \, u & \quad \quad & \sinh \, u \\ \sinh \, u & & \cosh \, u \end{pmatrix}\) is homogeneous transform that preserves the bilinear form between ordered pairs of coordinate differences.

How can you tell such whoppers when any audience that understands your words understands the topic demonstrably better than you?

 

do you understand this,

" 10^10^123

physics breaks down at
10^10^90 "

 

This is a very important point that Newton tried to get across in the rewrites of the Principia. Newton was explicit in using a methodology where he would endorse the theory that best captured the mathematical regularities found in the data regardless of whether or not it fit with any particular hypothesis or not. This is important, because while the scientific community at the time was very much against action at a distance, action at a distance was all the regularity that Newton could find and all that could accurately describe gravity. Under this methodology, the very well meaning and conceptually seductive hypothesis that only contact could cause action was not enough to overthrow the mathematical regularities Newton established.

So too Farsight's perhaps plausible idea that light slows down (which then causes the phenomena associated with gravity) cannot be considered even an alternative to contemporary science until it can come close to describing physical systems with as much accuracy as Newtonian mechanics and as GR.

 

So your answer is, "No, I would rather try to deceive you and others by providing a citation that says nothing of the sort."

Good for you to identify your character.

 

Farsight, most of what you post is not worth responding to or has been addressed by someone else in a far better manner than I would... However your own words demonstrate the issue of your personal interpretation...

Your Einstein quote followed by your reinterpretation.

Einstein,

Farsight,

Einstein says velocity and you read speed.

Again you insert your own issues into the discussion. I never said anything about why a pencil falls down. Personally it is my belief, that the underlying mechanism(s) of inertia and gravitation, are likely to be discovered as emergent within the context of QM. Even accepting that they are best described macroscopically within the context of SR and GR.

A bunch of guesswork that has nothing to do with the two NIST optical clocks... It is the specific frequency of each clock that controls its clock rate. If they lose synchronization, the frequency of one or the other, varies with location. The variation is vary small, but since it is their frequencies that control their clock rates, one or the other varies or there is magic involved.

It may be the case that an observer associate with each clock will see the frequency as constant and unchanged by location. The fact that they lose synchronization only demonstrates that those are local observations, which have little to do with the remote conditions that that affects their synchronization.

You really do seem to be hung up on the whole idea of the flow of time.

 

I feel like I should again ask: "How is anyone to launch a rocket with your theories? Could you please answer that one question instead of dodging every question?"

 

You understand textbook knowledge, not the actual understanding of why these symmetries appear in nature... as I said, my matrices prove why they symmetric properties. How that shows you understand something ''demonstrably better'' is without my reach, but what you have shown is there are some complicated math out there, but you haven't proven a thing to me outside of what I already know.

 

More like a propaganda, Hestenes is well-renowned in his field, he is the one who demonstrated geometric Dirac Algebra using a special rotation in the imaginary field, he has shown several methods in his paper, which I gave you, described several situations in which his math suits the predicted model, from the confirmed channeling experiments.

 

do you understand this,
" 10^10^123
physics breaks down at
10^10^90 "

 

No, because you haven't specified what the numbers are... for instance, why is [something] 10^10^123 when physics breaks down in 10^10^90.


Try not be vague.

 

Where in that paper is the claim that matter "is just a form of trapped light"?

 

It mentions it as a second axiom: The electron is really a point charge moving at the speed of light. This can so far only be modeled with sincere understanding of the subject, as a topological charge manifestation of trapped light.


Dirac again, was the first to propose that the electron was just light with a frequency which modeled a zitter motion, Schrodinger did an amazing amount of work on it too.

 

exactly.
you should already know.
and yet you continue to spew about somethings.

 

Spew out what?

You're the one who has written down some numbers and expect everyone to know exactly what you are talking about. Detail is a fine thing, you need to specify for the audience what your numbers mean.