So why does a variable light speed cause it to curve?
Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Wow!!Any concentration of energy or mass will warp/curve space time:
Besides then the fact that this then exhibits gravity, any light that passes through this curved/warped spacetime, simply follows geodesics or the shortest path but obviously will have a longer path to travel due to this curvature.
So from the perspective of an outside FoR receiving this light, it appears that the speed of light is slower, [coordinate speed] when in fact it just has had further to travel.
In essence, the speed of light in a vacuum is always "c"
No. It doesn't fall*. Light doesn't fall. Au contraire, a light beam emitted vertically upwards from the surface of a planet speeds up as it ascends. The more massive you make the planet, the more extreme this is. However when you take it to the limit, the planet is so dense its a black hole, and then light is emitted at a speed of zero. Which means it isn't actually emitted, and can't ascend. That's why the black hole is black.
* A gravitational field is a place where the speed of light is spatially variable. And the speed of light can't be less than zero, so once you're at the event horizon, there's no more gravitational field.
It's a straw man argument. It's like saying angels exist because pin-head particles suffer Brownian motion.
The important point is that the radius of a black hole is not zero, but at the event horizon c is zero. When you flip time and space and apply this to the universe, your early universe is a place where the speed of light is zero. It's flat and homogeneous, there's no motion, and no temperature. So the horizon problem isn't a problem, so inflation is totally superfluous.
It's like a tank. If the left track goes slower than the right track, the tank steers left. Or it's like you're driving your car and you encounter mud on the left-hand side of the road. So your car pulls left. See Ned Wright's deflection and delay article: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light. The figure below shows a bundle of rays passing the Sun at various distances. The rays are always perpendicular to the wavefronts which mark the set of points with constant travel time from the star. In order to bend the light toward the star one needs to delay the wavefront near the star".
Paddoboy, the above is popscience nonsense. See what relativist Ben Crowell said here: "Objects don't move through spacetime. Objects move through space". There's no motion in spacetime. Light doesn't move through spacetime, it moves through space. And it curves because space is inhomogeneous and the speed of light is spatially variable. Not because spacetime is curved. Now go and do your own research, go and read the Einstein digital papers, and when you can't find Einstein saying light curves because it moves through curved spacetime, you'll maybe stop believing in nonsense peddled by quacks.
Oh, note the quote below about the speed of light: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along it path, these time delays should therefore be increased by almost 2 x 10$$^{-4}$$ sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun".
This is nonsense. Falling objects don't slow down. They fall faster and faster because the speed of light is getting lower and lower. IMHO it's worth looking at Friedwardt Winterberg's Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Nonsense. (No need for details, given that the "argument" is nothing but a cheap rant.
I couldn't care less about your completely misguided ideas about how to connect a BH solution with a BB solution. If you want to attack a mainstream claim, you have to look at the math. Which is, in this case, sufficiently simple.
You have been told by many of your problem with misrepresentation and misinterpretations.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Hermann Minkowski:
In actual fact as most have pointed out to you, the only nonsense being peddled is by yourself. Let me reiterate, the speed of light in a vacuum is "c"and constant. When light travels through a gravitational field [curved spacetime] it follows the shortest path called a geodesic and consequently has in effect a longer path to traverse. It is always though moving at "c" despite your erroneous claims to the contrary.
In effect poor old Albert would be turning in his grave at the erroneous conclusions you have arrived at.
And just quickly, and please correct me if I am wrong, but havn't you been warned in the past for your continued pseudoscience rants in the science sections on this forum?
Depending on your frame of reference.
From a remote frame the light is red shifted to infinity and time is dilated, but we never get to see time or light as stopped, just gradually fading from view.
From the local frame, everything proceeds as per normal [ignoring tidal gravity effects] and the EH is crossed with one and only one destination possible....the singularity or the center of the BH.
PS: Farsight....I presume you have dropped your ToE [theory of everything] that you were making a few years ago.
I do not doubt that you have read them, Farsight. What I do doubt is that you have understood them.
Look, recall Einstein's Leiden talk you are so fond of quoting. Recall he said that "empty space" is not really "empty", so it has to be described by the 10 functions $$g_{\mu\nu}$$. I have explained to you in another thread this can only mean he has in mind some 4-space, whose "aether" is this field
Recall also he applies coordinates to each point in his 4-space namely $$x^0,\,x^1,\,x^2,\,x^3$$ and explicitly states that $$x^0=ct $$. In other words all coordinates have the same dimensional properties - hence 4-space, or "space" is a perfectly correct description.
The "inhomogeneity" of this 4-space that Einstein talks about refers to the non-uniformity of the $$g_{\mu\nu}$$ field, which he (Einstein) himself asserted means that the curvature of this 4-space cannot be zero.
I don't know how this does not lead to the conclusion that this 4-space is curved if and only if the $$g_{\mu\nu}$$ field is not constant - i.e. the "aether" of this space is inhomogeous
There is a problem here. If you agree that BH exists, which you are not denying, then gravitational filed cannot be zero at EH. Both Newtonian as well as GR will give you certain non zero value of gravitational field at EH.
It can be argued that at EH the speed of light becomes zero, which is a physical impossibility, so EH can never form and thus no BH....this argument is more plausible than saying that field is zero at EH.
Actually quite circular.Firstly the speed of light always remains at "c" and according to GR, the EH is where the escape velocity equals "c"
In actual fact what it does is confirms the validity of the "river/waterfall"model of BH's and the scenario of a photon emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away, will "appear" to hover there forever, never falling in and never quite getting away......much as a fish swimming upstream at 10 kms/hr against a current of 10kms/hr:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
Firstly the speed of light always remains at "c" and according to GR, the EH is where the escape velocity equals "c"
In actual fact what it does is confirms the validity of the "river/waterfall"model of BH's and the scenario of a photon emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away, will "appear" to hover there forever, never falling in and never quite getting away......much as a fish swimming upstream at 10 kms/hr against a current of 10kms/hr:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
can you please keep this waterfall nonsense away for sometime ? This has become too repetitive without adding any value..
It adds plenty of value and it is a nice analogy.
It will be used to illustrate a specific point, or clear up any possible confusion.
If you don't like it, ignore it.
It adds plenty of value and it is a nice analogy.
It will be used to illustrate a specific point, or clear up any possible confusion.
If you don't like it, ignore it.
It adds nothing, and I will tell you why, once more..
It is based on the premises that the spacetime falls towards r = 0 (whatever that means), now you know any motion of spacetime (whether falling or expanding) is beyond physics' basic tenants...so thats the first problem. Secondly if the spacetime is falling at c at EH, then it must be falling at some speed at nEH also (where nEH is some distance away and outside of EH)...so the claim that at 1.5EH we have a stable photon orbit also gets busted, spacetime is falling at some speed at 1.5EH as well. Any orbital motion around BH becomes dicey if spacetime starts falling towards singularity...
This analogy is not even pseudoscience, it is pure BS.......you can send this post to Prof Hamilton.
I don't need to send any post to Professor Hamilton nor any other reputable expert about your unsupported claims. Your claims are confusing to say the least.....
Let me straighten you out.....
At 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is the photon sphere, the parameter at which light will orbit. [for Schwarzchild BH's]
At this distance the orbit is unstable...give it a boot here and it will head on into the universe escaping.....boot it the other way, and it will spiral into the BH.Light/photons, can indeed escape between the EH and the photon sphere, if it is directed away at a sufficient angle, depending how close it was emitted to the EH....
At the EH, the escape velocity equals "c"
Here [just above the EH]is where if light is directed directly radially away, it will appear to hover just above the EH for the reasons already given and as illustrated with the waterfall/river model.
But I have constantly told you all that before.
Perhaps if you have another hypothesis re BH's or any substitute to take their place, you could start a thread in the alternative section....
In the meantime......
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/gotops.html
and
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html
Hope that helps.
Again parrotised stuff..
If spacetime is falling at EH, then it is falling at 1.5 EH also.......Any arguments ?
So if spacetime is falling at 1.5EH, then how can you have anything there in stable orbit ? You can't.
Maths of stable photon orbit at 1.5EH is good, thus proving that this Hamilton river fall is BS.
You are wrong on few counts..
First of all this waterfall analogy cannot be equated with 1+1 = 2...
1+1 =2 is an axiomatic fact for all, while this waterfall analogy is for kids..and it really amages them, makes them die hard loyalists of mainstream. Job is done.
Secondly I am trying to tell Paddoboy about an inherent issue with this waterfall or spacetime falling....Paddoboy as usual is not touching that, he can't, so he is repeating..thats parrotised stuff....Hope this helps.