Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 214
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: The original "frozen star" black hole interpretation is correct after all

  1. #101  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by duffield
    A curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. Physicist tried to tell you this
    The fact that you and "physicist" agree on nonsense doesn't mean that it is correct. Quite the opposite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    The fact that you and "physicist" agree on nonsense doesn't mean that it is correct. Quite the opposite.
    And they do not agree: Farsight studiously ignores the details of the physics that make the coordinate speed of light (a vector notion in the Schwarzchild metric) a correct means of describing and predicting events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Sorry, I seem to have missed quite a few posts here. I'll try to catch up:

    I say the mathematics does provide a physical description, which is that the clock stops. I also say that what isn't a physical description is that this stopped clock carries on ticking in the frame of a stopped observer.
    Can you walk us through the mathematics and show us where one is correct and the other is not? Where is the error? Why does the Schwarzschild time coordinate faithfully predict the behavior of light clocks without the need for any other considerations?
    No I can't. But I can point to contradictions as to what happens to the infalling observer. He's either motionless at the event horizon or he isn't.
    How do you justify comparing the motion in one system of coordinates to the motion of another system of coordinates without any form of translation?
    It isn't my special VSL theory, and you know about Schwarzschild coordinates. It was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position. All I'm saying is that there's two GR interpretations and the one that people think is wrong is the one that's right.
    No, you were saying that GR works as a theory where the scalar speed of light is all one needs to describe and predict events. Now, when questioned, you claim that you are doing something else. Let's assume that your first, grand claim was the correct one, even if you have no reason other than your own dogmatism to support it. So far, ever GR example has had a vector speed of light: let's see your alternative. Or your one true path.
    I've said already: the black hole grows like a hailstone. A water molecule doesn't pass through the surface of the hailstone. But it gets buried by other water molecules. The surface passes through it.
    So let's see the details.
    It is true. We really can see optical clocks go slower when they're lower. See this David Wineland interview and note this:

    "But nowadays the precision of the clocks is such that we have to worry, when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at. And this is an extremely small effect that we haven't had to worry about before."
    Except that he doesn't mean "see", he means "infer". Because that is how the world works.

    Why do you accept the inference that clocks can run slower but not that time for all physical events can run slower?

    It isn't my theory, it's one of two GR interpretations.
    You seem to be the only person pushing a VSL GR theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Can you walk us through the mathematics and show us where one is correct and the other is not? Where is the error? Why does the Schwarzschild time coordinate faithfully predict the behavior of light clocks without the need for any other considerations?
    We've been through this. The expression for gravitational time dilation has an undefined result at r=r0:



    This is treated as a mere coordinate artefact that can be readily overcome, but the underlying physics is that the clock has stopped. And changing your coordinate system won't make it start ticking again.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    How do you justify comparing the motion in one system of coordinates to the motion of another system of coordinates without any form of translation?
    I don't. The clock isn't moving, end of story.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    No, you were saying that GR works as a theory where the scalar speed of light is all one needs to describe and predict events. Now, when questioned, you claim that you are doing something else. Let's assume that your first, grand claim was the correct one, even if you have no reason other than your own dogmatism to support it. So far, ever GR example has had a vector speed of light: let's see your alternative. Or your one true path.
    Huh? Einstein said a curvature of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. He said the SR postulate of the constant speed of light didn't apply for gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    Why do you accept the inference that clocks can run slower but not that time for all physical events can run slower?
    Because clocks clock up some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you a cumulative result that you call the time. That's what clocks do. When a clock goes slower it's because that motion is going slower, not because of something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    This is treated as a mere coordinate artefact that can be readily overcome, but the underlying physics is that the clock has stopped.
    On what basis do you make this claim? Specifically, that it is not a mere coordinate artefact? Outline how you distinguish between coordinate artefacts and underlying physics.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Physbang
    And they do not agree: Farsight studiously ignores the details of the physics that make the coordinate speed of light (a vector notion in the Schwarzchild metric) a correct means of describing and predicting events.
    I was talking about the new member "Physicist" (aka Peter M. Brown). He and Farsight agree on the fringe ideas when it comes to "varying speed of light".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    I was talking about the new member "Physicist" (aka Peter M. Brown). He and Farsight agree on the fringe ideas when it comes to "varying speed of light".
    No, they do not. You need to pay more attention and be a little less a priori critical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    We've been through this. The expression for gravitational time dilation has an undefined result at r=r0:



    This is treated as a mere coordinate artefact that can be readily overcome, but the underlying physics is that the clock has stopped. And changing your coordinate system won't make it start ticking again.
    Say you and only you because you assume that "t" governs all clocks directly without considering the physics that govern clocks.

    I don't. The clock isn't moving, end of story.
    Something that is never, ever observed, only held, by you, dogmatically.
    Huh? Einstein said a curvature of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. He said the SR postulate of the constant speed of light didn't apply for gravity.
    Yet he did not produce a scalar VSL of the kind that you advocate. Unless you can show us the secret, hidden GR that Einstein really did and hid from everyone but you.

    Please produce the evidence for your conspiracy theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Physbang
    No, they do not.

    Sometimes they don't , quite often they do
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Sometimes they don't , quite often they do
    The important difference is in the details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Physbang
    The important difference is in the details.
    What difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    btr
    btr is offline
    Senior Member btr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Circumnavigating the photon sphere.
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I don't know, btr. This is something like isotropic coordinates, but what does it matter? The fate of the test particle is whatever it is. You can't change its fate by switching to some other coordinate system.
    Don't worry about what it's called; just see if you can figure out the physics starting purely with the metric. Or at least, think about how you would do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    The fate of a "particle' always seems to be in the eye of the beholder. It almost seems to be as if the "particle" is like a solution to an equation without all the required boundary conditions. Apply all the conditions and there is a real solution, whether or not the boundary condition is in the future or not. Perhaps GR and QM have more in common than we recognise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Saying that the local observer continues to see his clock ticking normally contradicts what the distant observer sees. Whatever happens happens. Two different versions of what happened is a paradox.
    But it's not two different versions. It's one version (the local version) that is more complete than the other version (the distant version). For example, if I the local observer go behind a curtain, then I have a better view of my situation than the distant observer who can't see me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    The observer accelerates through space. And if you keep on accelerating him such that he's going at c and is subject to infinite time dilation, he doesn't see everything happening as normal "in his frame". He doesn't see his clock ticking normally. He doesn't see anything. Not ever.
    A constantly accelerated observer is a stationary observer. That is, the constantly accelerated observer doesn't experience any change. This is one of the symmetries of Minkowskian spacetime.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Clocks actually do slow down.
    The principle of relativity demands that clocks do not change rate and that the local speed of light is invariant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It depends on gravitational potential
    In what way does gravitational potential affect a clock so as to produce a slowing down effect? Note that there are many different types of clocks operating by different mechanism, all of which you claim are affected the same way by gravitational potential.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    On what basis do you make this claim? Specifically, that it is not a mere coordinate artefact?
    On the basis that the light can't get out. We've spoken about that vertical light beam. It doesn't curve round, it doesn't fall back, it doesn't slow down. Instead it speeds up. And we know that a gravitational field isn't some Chicken-Little place where space is falling inwards. It alters the motion of light and matter through space, it doesn't suck space in. So the waterfall analogy is badly misleading. So why doesn't the light get out from a place where the "coordinate" speed of light is said to be zero? Because that's a place where the speed of light is zero. And it's the motion of light that defines our seconds and our metres which we use in our rods and clocks which we use to define our coordinate system. So when light doesn't move, we have no coordinate system. As per this image, blue demarcates all permissible coordinate systems. Any coordinate system that strays into the black area is not physical. Like I said, you can't make a stopped clock tick by adopting a new coordinate system. Think about it this way: the infalling observer's heart has stopped, and adopting Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates will not make it beat.


    See Falling into a Black Hole sucks! – Starts With A Bang

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Outline how you distinguish between coordinate artefacts and underlying physics.
    A stopped heart is something real. A coordinate system is something abstract. You can't change what actually happens in reality by using some different abstract thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Farsight you seem to be equating the event horizon for someone far away from a black hole with the event horizon for someone actually at that place. They are not the same thing. The event horizon is observer dependent, like a rainbow.
    Apparent horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by btr View Post
    Don't worry about what it's called; just see if you can figure out the physics starting purely with the metric. Or at least, think about how you would do so.
    I'm afraid I can't, btr. l'll repeat the expression and your questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by btr

    where is some constant. You can see that as the metric becomes the Minkowskian metric (in polar coordinates), and there appears to be some kind of singularity at the spatial origin . My questions are (a) how do we find out over what range of the coordinates the solution is physically applicable, and (b) how do we determine the fate of a test particle heading radially towards or away from the origin in this spacetime?
    Let's see now, we've got a spacetime interval s, time t, spherical surface r which is a distance from the origin, polar angle ɸ, azimuthal angle θ, and as you said k is some constant. The Euclidean metric for a sphere is and in deriving the Schwarzschild solution the spacetime is asymptotically flat. If I ignore the r² term for an radially inward particle because dɸ and dθ are zero, my interval squared is t elapsed squared less distance-change r squared less... and I'm struggling. If I go for a photon where ds is zero then I can say it's flat when t = r and r is very large because I discounted the k² term. But sorry, I can't "see" that term, and I have to go now. But for now I'll volunteer this:

    How do you find out over what range of the coordinates the solution is physically applicable?

    You can't. The nub of this thread is that Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates aren't physically valid, and the maths can't tell you that.

    How do we determine the fate of a test particle heading radially towards the origin?

    You drop it and watch what happens. When you see a gamma-ray burst, you know it never made it. I need to talk about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    The fate of a "particle' always seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
    The fate of the particle is what it is. If it depends on "the eye of the beholder", then there's something badly wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    It almost seems to be as if the "particle" is like a solution to an equation without all the required boundary conditions. Apply all the conditions and there is a real solution, whether or not the boundary condition is in the future or not.
    Yes there's a real solution. There are no contradictions, and no paradoxes. In the elephant and the event horizon the elephant allegedly "must be in more than one place at the same time". Well it can't be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Perhaps GR and QM have more in common than we recognise?
    Naw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Farsight you seem to be equating the event horizon for someone far away from a black hole with the event horizon for someone actually at that place. They are not the same thing. The event horizon is observer dependent, like a rainbow. Apparent horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Don't worry about it, Jilan. See this from the Wikipedia article:

    "In the simple picture of stellar collapse leading to formation of a black hole, an event horizon forms before an apparent horizon.[2] As the black hole settles down, the two horizons approach each other, and asymptotically become the same surface".

    The bottom line is that the light can't get out. If I'm a long way from the black hole it looks black. If you're closer it still looks black.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    No, the event horizon is smaller if I am closer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    But it's not two different versions. It's one version (the local version) that is more complete than the other version (the distant version).
    There's no other way for me to say this, so I'll spit it out: It's a fantasy, KJW. One that occurs in a neverneverland beyond the end of time. The distant observer sees the infalling observer grind to a halt. His clock stops, he stops, everything stops. That's what the frozen-star interpretation is all about. And yet there's allegedly this point singularity at our future infinity, only the infalling observer is alleged to reach it in finite proper time. Even though he hasn't reached it yet, and never ever will. He is said to go to the end of time and back, and to be in two places at once.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    For example, if I the local observer go behind a curtain, then I have a better view of my situation than the distant observer who can't see me.
    There is no curtain. Light doesn't slow down or fall back or curve round. It doesn't get out because it's stopped. And your light clock is stopped. And electrochemical signals in your brain are stopped. And light is stopped. Everything is stopped, everything is frozen.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    A constantly accelerated observer is a stationary observer. That is, the constantly accelerated observer doesn't experience any change. This is one of the symmetries of Minkowskian spacetime.
    A constantly accelerated observer isn't stationary! He's moving faster and faster and KE=½mv².

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    The principle of relativity demands that clocks do not change rate and that the local speed of light is invariant.
    Well clocks do change rate and Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. He overturned his SR postulate, which was that the speed of light is constant.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    In what way does gravitational potential affect a clock so as to produce a slowing down effect?
    It's a measure of the state of space. A concentration of energy tied up as the matter of a star "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties. See Einstein's Leyden Address where he said this:

    "According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty..."

    Think of the "coordinate" speed of light as the speed of light c = √(1/ε0μ0). This is reduced a little by the central energy-pressure, so optical clocks go slower when they're lower. And atomic clocks, which are microwave clocks. And piezo-electric clocks. And mechanical clocks, because of the "same essence" wave nature of matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Note that there are many different types of clocks operating by different mechanism, all of which you claim are affected the same way by gravitational potential.
    A grandfather clock is different to most other clocks. It ticks slower when the force of gravity is lower. Its rate depends on the gradient in potential rather than potential itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    A constantly accelerated observer isn't stationary! He's moving faster and faster and KE=½mv²
    If I am accelerating I am still stationary in my own reference frame. It is equivalent to me standing still on the surface of the earth. I am also stationary. Kinetic energy is only a relative concept-it is user dependent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    No, the event horizon is smaller if I am closer.
    That's what they say. But if the black hole is black, light doesn't get out. You being closer doesn't make it get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    If I am accelerating I am still stationary in my own reference frame.
    Your reference frame isn't something that actually exists. I could point up to a streak in the sky and say there goes Jilan accelerating in his spaceship. But I can't point to a reference frame. It's an abstract thing. It's little more than "your state of motion". And it is constantly changing. So you are not stationary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    It is equivalent to me standing still on the surface of the earth. I am also stationary.
    It's "equivalent" in the sense of the principle of equivalence, but the situation is not identical, as I explained to KJW. In one situation you are accelerating in homogeneous space and you feel a force on your feet. In the other situation you are not accelerating in inhomogeneous space and you feel a force on your feet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Kinetic energy is only a relative concept-it is user dependent.
    It isn't just a relative concept. Yes motion is relative and relativity isn't about absolutes, but it takes genuine work to make something go faster. You have to give it energy. The fact that you don't notice it once you're going faster too doesn't mean it's gone away. It's similar to when you lift a brick. You do work on it and expend energy on it. The fact that you don't notice it when I lift you up too doesn't mean it's gone away. And nor does it go away when we drop that brick into a black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    That's what they say. But if the black hole is black, light doesn't get out. You being closer doesn't make it get out.

    .
    Is that what other people say, are you sure? Oh I am so relieved, it didn't read that anywhere I just worked out it must be the case else the whole of relativity makes no sense. There is nothing magical about the event horizon, if I am a small distance dx on side of it and you are a small distance dx the other side, we should be able to see each other just fine. That will be the case all the way in to our mutual doom.

    Your reference frame isn't something that actually exists. I could point up to a streak in the sky and say there goes Jilan accelerating in his spaceship. But I can't point to a reference frame. It's an abstract thing. It's little more than "your state of motion". And it is constantly changing. So you are not stationary.
    I am stationary in my own reference frame.

    With regard to the concept of kinetic energy. Consider us again falling into a black hole, what would cause either of us to think our energy had changed? Our relative energy wouldn't have done if we fell together. It's only an outside observer that would conclude that we were moving faster and our potential energy had fallen to compensate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    if I am a small distance dx on side of it and you are a small distance dx the other side, we should be able to see each other just fine.
    False. No light from within the EH can escape. If you take upon correcting Duffield you should get your facts straight.

    Consider us again falling into a black hole, what would cause either of us to think our energy had changed? Our relative energy wouldn't have done if we fell together. It's only an outside observer that would conclude that we were moving faster and our potential energy had fallen to compensate.
    This word salad is something Farsight would post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    False. No light from within the EH can escape. If you take upon correcting Duffield you should get your facts straight.
    The speed of light is always c in the local frame of reference. Here is what Wiki says about it.
    A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them. In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line). Attempting to make an object near the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude increases unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets.

    For the case of a horizon perceived by a uniformly accelerating observer in empty space, the horizon seems to remain a fixed distance from the observer no matter how its surroundings move. Varying the observer's acceleration may cause the horizon to appear to move over time, or may prevent an event horizon from existing, depending on the acceleration function chosen. The observer never touches the horizon and never passes a location where it appeared to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    The speed of light is always c in the local frame of reference. Here is what Wiki says about it.
    Yes, so? Nothing to do with the errors and word salad you just posted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    A constantly accelerated observer isn't stationary!
    Fail!

    A constantly accelerated observer has trajectory (note that "constantly accelerated" means in the constantly accelerated observer's own frame of reference). It is straightforward to show that this trajectory is invariant to Lorentz boosts, proving the symmetry that ensures the observer is stationary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Well clocks do change rate
    I've already told you that the principle of relativity says they don't. You've already acknowledged that if I'm with the clock, I don't see the clock change rate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    See Einstein's Leyden Address where he said this:

    "According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty..."
    Why are you quoting this? You've already elsewhere rejected spacetime, the metric, and pretty much the entirety of general relativity.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Is that what other people say, are you sure? Oh I am so relieved, it didn't read that anywhere I just worked out it must be the case else the whole of relativity makes no sense. There is nothing magical about the event horizon, if I am a small distance dx on side of it and you are a small distance dx the other side, we should be able to see each other just fine. That will be the case all the way in to our mutual doom.
    If we made it to the event horizon it would take all of eternity for you to see me and for me to see you. Suppose we fell into a black hole a billion years ago. Have we fallen through the event horizon yet? No. Have we seen each other yet? No. And we never ever will. Besides, we'd be toast long before we got to the event horizon. Like I said, I need to tell you about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I am stationary in my own reference frame.
    And you're always in your own reference frame. So you're always stationary? No you are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    With regard to the concept of kinetic energy. Consider us again falling into a black hole, what would cause either of us to think our energy had changed? Our relative energy wouldn't have done if we fell together. It's only an outside observer that would conclude that we were moving faster and our potential energy had fallen to compensate.
    That's what actually happens. Only it can't keep on happening without repercussions. Like I said, I need to tell you about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Like I said, I need to tell you about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall.
    Duffield,

    Friedwardt Winterberg is a relativity denier, a crank, just like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Fail! A constantly accelerated observer has trajectory (note that "constantly accelerated" means in the constantly accelerated observer's own frame of reference). It is straightforward to show that this trajectory is invariant to Lorentz boosts, proving the symmetry that ensures the observer is stationary.
    It isn't a fail. A constantly accelerated observer isn't stationary! How can you possibly assert that somebody who is moving faster and faster or round and round is stationary!?

    Will somebody else please assist KJW with this please?

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I've already told you that the principle of relativity says they don't. You've already acknowledged that if I'm with the clock, I don't see the clock change rate.
    Because you change rate too. But you know this because all the distant pulsars appear to have increased in rate. You know that sometimes things don't appear to have changed when they have, and appear to have changed when they haven't. Because you know that you change too.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Why are you quoting this? You've already elsewhere rejected spacetime, the metric, and pretty much the entirety of general relativity.
    I don't reject these things in the slightest. I reject the way some people confuse spacetime with space, the way some people confuse the metric with space, and the way some people peddle an ersatz version of general relativity that contradicts what Einstein said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Would any of the moderators/administrators shoot down the Farsight drone? Please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    A constantly accelerated observer isn't stationary! How can you possibly assert that somebody who is moving faster and faster or round and round is stationary!?
    What KJW is referring to is not the classical mechanics notion of "stationary", but rather the GR concept of the same name. As such it refers to the fact that the space-time under consideration has a time-like Killing vector associated with it, so it is a matter of symmetries. Have a look here :

    Stationary spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Why are you quoting this? You've already elsewhere rejected spacetime, the metric, and pretty much the entirety of general relativity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I don't reject these things in the slightest. I reject the way some people confuse spacetime with space,
    ???
    In general relativity, 3-space is a set of hypersurface slicings of space-time.
    the way some people confuse the metric with space,
    ???
    and the way some people peddle an ersatz version of general relativity that contradicts what Einstein said.
    What made Einstein a prophet of absolute, final truth? This is science, not theology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    btr
    btr is offline
    Senior Member btr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Circumnavigating the photon sphere.
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    ...But for now I'll volunteer this:

    How do you find out over what range of the coordinates the solution is physically applicable?

    You can't. The nub of this thread is that Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates aren't physically valid, and the maths can't tell you that.
    But surely there must be some objective way to determine the answer, otherwise we're just left with individual opinions (which would be a very clear signal that the theory is incomplete). Here's a couple of suggestions for you to ponder: perhaps we can figure out the paths of test particles in this solution, and the effects of tidal forces on small bundles of particles. If we find that the tidal forces become infinite, or that test particle paths come to a halt, we've found some kind of singularity at which spacetime effectively ends. Do you think that would be a reasonable start? If not, are there any other objective methods you can think of that we can apply to a freshly-discovered solution to extract some actual physics from it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    How do we determine the fate of a test particle heading radially towards the origin?

    You drop it and watch what happens. When you see a gamma-ray burst, you know it never made it. I need to talk about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall.
    Excellent, we can indeed do that. Let's do it for a radially infalling photon first, as that is a bit easier than the massive case. Remember that for a photon, will be zero along the geodesic (and the angular variables are obviously constant, in this scenario). It might help to expand the term, divide throughout by and tidy things up a little. You should get a quadratic equation for , the radial component of the coordinate velocity. Does that sound do-able?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by btr View Post
    But surely there must be some objective way to determine the answer, otherwise we're just left with individual opinions (which would be a very clear signal that the theory is incomplete).
    I think there is, and that the contradictions / paradoxes demonstrate that there are issues with the interpretation rather than the theory per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    Here's a couple of suggestions for you to ponder: perhaps we can figure out the paths of test particles in this solution, and the effects of tidal forces on small bundles of particles. If we find that the tidal forces become infinite, or that test particle paths come to a halt, we've found some kind of singularity at which spacetime effectively ends. Do you think that would be a reasonable start?
    No. I think Einstein made a big mistake because he didn't lose the dust. Bundles of particles is the wrong approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    If not, are there any other objective methods you can think of that we can apply to a freshly-discovered solution to extract some actual physics from it?
    Yes, you focus on why the light can't get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    Excellent, we can indeed do that. Let's do it for a radially infalling photon first, as that is a bit easier than the massive case. Remember that for a photon, will be zero along the geodesic (and the angular variables are obviously constant, in this scenario). It might help to expand the term, divide throughout by and tidy things up a little. You should get a quadratic equation for , the radial component of the coordinate velocity. Does that sound do-able?
    A radial photon is OK, but being zero doesn't tell you that the light goes slower and slower as it approaches the event horizon. So I'm thinking this isn't a good start. By the by, perhaps you missed the relevance of what I was saying about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. Gamma ray bursters are out there because the infalling matter gets annihilated. I came at it from a different direction to him, but I'm confident that he's right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    A radial photon is OK, but being zero doesn't tell you that the light goes slower and slower as it approaches the event horizon.
    Actually, it does. You have been shown this countless times already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I am stationary in my own reference frame.
    And you're always in your own reference frame. So you're always stationary? No you are not.
    There appears to be some confusion. Being at rest in one's own frame of reference does not imply that one is stationary. Being stationary simply means that one's reality does not change with time. Constant acceleration is stationary but non-constant acceleration is not stationary as the force experienced varies with time. The stationary property of the constantly accelerated frame of reference is manifest in the time-independence of the Rindler coordinate system.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Will somebody else please assist KJW with this please?
    Thank you Markus Hanke.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Because you change rate too. But you know this because all the distant pulsars appear to have increased in rate. You know that sometimes things don't appear to have changed when they have, and appear to have changed when they haven't. Because you know that you change too.
    This goes against the principle of relativity. Did it ever occur to you that different times have elapsed at the different locations?


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I reject the way some people confuse spacetime with space
    I've mentioned spacetime a number of times and you have on at least one occasion replied: "Spacetime is a static mathematical model. There is no spacetime in the room.". On this particular occasion, there was no confusion on my part between spacetime and space.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    the way some people confuse the metric with space
    Because of what you said about who is and who isn't accelerating, I can only conclude that you completely ignore the metric. Also, in this post, you said: "What's the metric? It's an abstract thing related to what you measure.". It's quite incongruent to regard "what you measure" as "an abstract thing". Physics is about measuring reality, so "what you measure" is about as real as it gets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    the way some people peddle an ersatz version of general relativity that contradicts what Einstein said.
    The viewpoint you put forward is far removed from general relativity. It cannot even qualify as an alternative interpretation as you reject the most basic aspects of general relativity such as the equivalence principle.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    btr
    btr is offline
    Senior Member btr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Circumnavigating the photon sphere.
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I think there is, and that the contradictions / paradoxes demonstrate that there are issues with the interpretation rather than the theory per se.

    No. I think Einstein made a big mistake because he didn't lose the dust. Bundles of particles is the wrong approach.

    Yes, you focus on why the light can't get out.

    A radial photon is OK, but being zero doesn't tell you that the light goes slower and slower as it approaches the event horizon. So I'm thinking this isn't a good start.

    By the by, perhaps you missed the relevance of what I was saying about Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. Gamma ray bursters are out there because the infalling matter gets annihilated. I came at it from a different direction to him, but I'm confident that he's right.
    The problem is that when it comes to the particular metric I posted above, we still need to establish whether the light can or can't get out of some region or other. As yet, we don't know anything; we don't know whether it represents some attractive source (or some repulsive source), or whether the singularity at is real or a mathematical artefact, whether there's even anything interesting going on at all, and so on.

    Remember, the rules of the game are that we play the roles of researchers who have just discovered this solution, but don't know about things like Schwarzschild or black holes (we live in some sci-fi "alternative time-line" of physics, say). If there is something interesting in our metric we'll have to discover it and prove its properties ourselves, rather than say things like "in such-and-such a respect it's a bit like Kerr/Schwarzschild/whatever" and leave it at that.

    If you don't think that my suggestions of looking at test particles and tidal forces will be useful, that's OK; in that case just tell me what (specifically) we should do next, to make some real progress on this particular puzzle. I'd imagine we'd want to look at how matter moves in this space-time and how signals propagate, but I can't think of an easy way to do that which doesn't involve what I said before.


    -----------

    Edited to add: I'm going to be out of the country a fair bit over the next couple of weeks, so I may be even slower than usual in responding to posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    This goes against the principle of relativity. Did it ever occur to you that different times have elapsed at the different locations?
    Yes, this is precisely what I had had tried to point out to Farsight earlier - that there is no such thing as global time, hence such a notion as global coordinate speed is physically meaningless.
    My comment was basically dismissed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    How can you possibly assert that somebody who is moving faster and faster or round and round is stationary!?
    It should be noted that stationary property of a constantly accelerated observer is manifest in that observer's own frame of reference. Also, it should be noted that all inertial observers are equivalent, irrespective of relative velocity. In other words, there is no absolute velocity. By considering inertial observers at instantaneous rest relative to the constantly accelerated observer at each time in the constantly accelerated observer's frame of reference, in spite of the acceleration, the constantly accelerated observer never observes that the velocity is anything distinguishable from zero.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes, this is precisely what I had had tried to point out to Farsight earlier - that there is no such thing as global time, hence such a notion as global coordinate speed is physically meaningless.
    My comment was basically dismissed.
    There is one other point which I have found difficult to express: The notion of a rate of time or a rate of clock that can change is really quite meaningless without some reference to compare to. Farsight accepts that there will be no change compared to a local clock because the local clock changes in the same way, so considers the change to be compared to a non-local clock. But a clock that is not local is not an acceptable reference to compare to because it is not local and therefore different on that basis.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    There is one other point which I have found difficult to express: The notion of a rate of time or a rate of clock that can change is really quite meaningless without some reference to compare to. Farsight accepts that there will be no change compared to a local clock because the local clock changes in the same way, so considers the change to be compared to a non-local clock. But a clock that is not local is not an acceptable reference to compare to because it is not local and therefore different on that basis.
    Precisely, I agree. There is no such thing as "rate of clock", or "flow of time"; these are physically meaningless concepts. All we can do is try and compare world lines between events, and even that is difficult unless the two events are the same ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What KJW is referring to is not the classical mechanics notion of "stationary", but rather the GR concept of the same name. As such it refers to the fact that the space-time under consideration has a time-like Killing vector associated with it, so it is a matter of symmetries. Have a look here: Stationary spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I don't think that's what he was referring to Markus. And see this bit?

    "Thus, the geometry of a stationary spacetime does not change in time. In the special case the spacetime is said to be static. By definition, every static spacetime is stationary..."

    Spacetime is static. It's the block-universe. A model that depicts all times at once.

    By the by, note the mention of the twist vector. An electron's electromagnetic field looks like it's a static standing field, but it's there because a dynamical bispinor is there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    Precisely, I agree. There is no such thing as "rate of clock", or "flow of time"; these are physically meaningless concepts. All we can do is try and compare world lines between events, and even that is difficult unless the two events are the same ones.
    No, that isn't all you can do. World lines are abstract things. Look at the real things that are there and do not be distracted by abstraction. Focus instead focus on what a clock does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    Yes, this is precisely what I had had tried to point out to Farsight earlier - that there is no such thing as global time, hence such a notion as global coordinate speed is physically meaningless. My comment was basically dismissed.
    I didn't dismiss it. I said you don't need global time to see that an optical clock goes slower when it's lower. And you surely know that the same applies to a parallel-mirror light clock, and that there is no actual time flowing inside a clock. It's just something moving in some regular cyclical fashion. So when a clock goes slower the thing moving inside it is going slower.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    There appears to be some confusion. Being at rest in one's own frame of reference does not imply that one is stationary. Being stationary simply means that one's reality does not change with time. Constant acceleration is stationary but non-constant acceleration is not stationary as the force experienced varies with time. The stationary property of the constantly accelerated frame of reference is manifest in the time-independence of the Rindler coordinate system.
    I'm sorry KJW, but it looks as if your argument has suffered a reductio ad absurdum. Please clarify if you're referring to a "stationary spacetime" as per Markus's post.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    This goes against the principle of relativity. Did it ever occur to you that different times have elapsed at the different locations?
    It absolutely isn't against the principle of relativity. You really do change when you descend. Those distant pulsars didn't change, but they look like they're going faster because you changed. Yes, I know about different times elapsing at different locations.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    I've mentioned spacetime a number of times and you have on at least one occasion replied: "Spacetime is a static mathematical model. There is no spacetime in the room.". On this particular occasion, there was no confusion on my part between spacetime and space.
    No problem. I was referring to other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Because of what you said about who is and who isn't accelerating, I can only conclude that you completely ignore the metric. Also, in this post, you said: "What's the metric? It's an abstract thing related to what you measure.". It's quite incongruent to regard "what you measure" as "an abstract thing". Physics is about measuring reality, so "what you measure" is about as real as it gets.
    It absolutely isn't. There is nothing more crucial than this. When you accelerate towards a photon, you measure an increased frequency. But the photon didn't change, you did. It's the same when you descend.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    The viewpoint you put forward is far removed from general relativity. It cannot even qualify as an alternative interpretation as you reject the most basic aspects of general relativity such as the equivalence principle.
    I refute that with the viewpoint you put forward is far removed from general relativity. It was Einstein who said the principle of equivalence applied to an infinitesimal region. You have airbrushed that away. Have a read of Einstein's Gravitational Field by Peter M Brown. He talks about the differences between the "modern interpretation" of general relativity and the "Einstein interpretation". I'm with the latter. Einstein said the speed of light varies with position, modern teaching has said it doesn't for decades. IMHO that's going to change. And when it does, the black hole interpretation will change. Back to the frozen-star interpretation that Kevin Brown mentioned but did not prefer. In future, I think he will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Have a read of Einstein's Gravitational Field by Peter M Brown.
    You need to stop referencing crank papers written by fringers like Peter M. Brown, Duffield.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by btr View Post
    The problem is that when it comes to the particular metric I posted above, we still need to establish whether the light can or can't get out of some region or other. As yet, we don't know anything; we don't know whether it represents some attractive source (or some repulsive source), or whether the singularity at is real or a mathematical artefact, whether there's even anything interesting going on at all, and so on.
    I'm sorry, btr, I'm not enthusing with this. It reminds me of the shape of the universe where two out of three "solutions" were always going to be wrong, and I've known for years that the "flat" solution is the one that's right.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr View Post
    Remember, the rules of the game are that we play the roles of researchers who have just discovered this solution, but don't know about things like Schwarzschild or black holes (we live in some sci-fi "alternative time-line" of physics, say). If there is something interesting in our metric we'll have to discover it and prove its properties ourselves, rather than say things like "in such-and-such a respect it's a bit like Kerr/Schwarzschild/whatever" and leave it at that.
    I guess I have more of a physics leaning than some. When you talk of research and discovery and properties, I'm not really thinking about a mathematical solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    If you don't think that my suggestions of looking at test particles and tidal forces will be useful, that's OK; in that case just tell me what (specifically) we should do next, to make some real progress on this particular puzzle. I'd imagine we'd want to look at how matter moves in this space-time
    We look at how light moves through space. Note that nothing moves in spacetime. It's a static thing. We plot lines in it to represent motion through space over time, and we use a variant of Pythagoras's theorem to plot a spacetime interval. But saying the spacetime interval is zero for light isn't going to get us anywhere. We need a different approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    and how signals propagate, but I can't think of an easy way to do that which doesn't involve what I said before.
    It's easy when you appreciate that a clock doesn't actually measure the flow of time, and that when a clock goes slower it's because the thing inside it goes slower. So you understand that the speed of light varies with position, just like Einstein said. Then you imagine shining your laser beam straight up, and noticing that it doesn't curve round, or slow down, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out of a black hole? Because the speed of light is zero. Ergo the Schwarzschild r=rs singularity isn't just a coordinate artefact, the original frozen-star interpretation is right, and the metric ends. When light doesn't move you can't measure space or time. You have a "void in the fabric of space and time" as per the gravastar. Something that is much more of a hole than the archetypal point-singularity black hole. Like this, where the metric is blue, and the void is black:


    See Falling into a Black Hole sucks! – Starts With A Bang

    Quote Originally Posted by btr
    Edited to add: I'm going to be out of the country a fair bit over the next couple of weeks, so I may be even slower than usual in responding to posts.
    Noted. Nice talking to you btr, have a good trip.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    It should be noted that stationary property of a constantly accelerated observer is manifest in that observer's own frame of reference.
    This is a tautology. It's nothing more than "I am stationary with respect to myself". It isn't manifest, it's meaningless. Markus, please assist. KJW will believe it coming from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Also, it should be noted that all inertial observers are equivalent, irrespective of relative velocity. In other words, there is no absolute velocity.
    That's the general idea of relativity - motion is relative. But the principle of equivalence doesn't mean two situations are exactly the same, the CMB lets us plot our velocity relative to the universe which is as absolute as it gets, and people talk about Unruh radiation and breaking Lorentz invariance. So we can't be sure that absolutely all inertial observers will be absolutely equivalent.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    By considering inertial observers at instantaneous rest relative to the constantly accelerated observer at each time in the constantly accelerated observer's frame of reference, in spite of the acceleration, the constantly accelerated observer never observes that the velocity is anything distinguishable from zero.
    Again it's that tautology. When we're talking SR, a frame of reference is little more than a state of motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    There is one other point which I have found difficult to express: The notion of a rate of time or a rate of clock that can change is really quite meaningless without some reference to compare to. Farsight accepts that there will be no change compared to a local clock because the local clock changes in the same way, so considers the change to be compared to a non-local clock. But a clock that is not local is not an acceptable reference to compare to because it is not local and therefore different on that basis.
    We just have two NIST optical clocks, one 30cm lower than the other. See this: "if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at". They are optical clocks. They lower clock goes slower because light goes slower when it's lower. The same would be true of the idealised parallel-mirror light-clock.


    Image credit: Brian McPherson

    Like I said the depiction is exaggerated, the mirrors should be tilted back a little, and the light pulses should curve a little. But the two light pulses aren’t going at the same speed. If they were, the clocks would stay synchronised. They'd run at the same rate, only they don't. The rate varies because the speed of light varies. Within 30cm. Within 3cm. Within 3mm. Within 3microns. Within any non-infinitesimal region. If it didn't your pencil wouldn't fall down. And what's your parallel-mirror light clock doing when it's down at the event horizon? This:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post


    But the two light pulses aren’t going at the same speed. If they were, the clocks would stay synchronised.
    You've said this on more than one occasion. You think that it is self-evident and that no one will challenge it. But I'm going to challenge it:

    Prove that the two light pulses are not going at the same speed and that they are not synchronised.
    lpetrich likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What KJW is referring to is not the classical mechanics notion of "stationary", but rather the GR concept of the same name. As such it refers to the fact that the space-time under consideration has a time-like Killing vector associated with it, so it is a matter of symmetries. Have a look here: Stationary spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I don't think that's what he was referring to Markus.
    Yes, I was referring to this. Why do you think I wasn't?


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    There appears to be some confusion. Being at rest in one's own frame of reference does not imply that one is stationary. Being stationary simply means that one's reality does not change with time. Constant acceleration is stationary but non-constant acceleration is not stationary as the force experienced varies with time. The stationary property of the constantly accelerated frame of reference is manifest in the time-independence of the Rindler coordinate system.
    I'm sorry KJW, but it looks as if your argument has suffered a reductio ad absurdum. Please clarify if you're referring to a "stationary spacetime" as per Markus's post.
    Yes, I am referring to "stationary spacetime" as per Markus's post.


    It should be noted that the terms "stationary" and "static" have meanings that are different to what you have been assuming.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    You've said this on more than one occasion. You think that it is self-evident and that no one will challenge it. But I'm going to challenge it:
    Prove that the two light pulses are not going at the same speed and that they are not synchronised.
    So far as I am concerned the GIF is meaningless because it fails to account for the tidal effects of gravity - I shall give the benefit of the doubt and presume this is either by accident or ignorance, rather than wilful intent. In the bottom picture the two bars should be closer together since



    or else you don't compare the same geodesics, rendering the whole thing meaningless. Yes, as you decrease r, time dilation increases with respect to some far-away reference clock, but you also need to account for the fact that angular distances are compressed as per the above terms of the Riemann tensor - making the local speed of light once again exactly c. As for the time dilation itself as you vary r, it goes as



    Plugging this into the geodesic deviation equation should it make it immediately clear that the dilation factor is not infinite at the event horizon, but only at r=0. Same goes for angular distance between inward geodesics - it is not zero at the event horizon, only at r=0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    It should be remembered in this context that gravity is defined as geodesic deviation, hence one cannot simply choose to ignore the associated effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So far as I am concerned the GIF is meaningless because it fails to account for the tidal effects of gravity
    Although not perfect, the GIF is ok for representing an upwardly accelerated frame of reference.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You've said this on more than one occasion. You think that it is self-evident and that no one will challenge it. But I'm going to challenge it:

    Prove that the two light pulses are not going at the same speed and that they are not synchronised.
    We start with our two identical clocks adjacent to one another at the same elevation. We synchronise them and then we let them operate for a week. At the end of the week we take our two clock readings, which are the same. The clocks have remained synchronised. We note that each clock reading is a count of how many times a light-pulse was reflected between two mirrors a metre apart, which we carefully measured. So we conclude that the light travelled at the same speed in each clock. Now we repeat the experiment but with one clock 30cm lower than the other. At the end of a week we find that the lower clock reading is lower than that of the upper clock. We carefully measure the mirror separations again and find that they're still 1 metre apart. We know that the light arcs upwards a little and that the mirrors are tilted back a little, but we also know that the tidal force is not detectable, so the arcs and tilts are the same for both clocks. So the light paths are the same size and shape. So the light in the lower clock must have been going slower. QED.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Yes, I was referring to this. Why do you think I wasn't?
    Because you said that stationary property of a constantly accelerated observer is manifest in that observer's own frame of reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    It should be noted that the terms "stationary" and "static" have meanings that are different to what you have been assuming.
    Not an issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffield
    So the light paths are the same size and shape.
    Nope, they are not, Farsight. Therein lies your error, an error that you have been trumpeting for years.


    So the light in the lower clock must have been going slower.
    Wrong again, Farsight. Spreading horsemanure is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So far as I am concerned the GIF is meaningless because it fails to account for the tidal effects of gravity - I shall give the benefit of the doubt and presume this is either by accident or ignorance, rather than wilful intent.
    The GIF could show the mirrors tilted back a little and the light-pulses arcing upwards a little, but this is very slight. Showing an obvious tilt and arc wouldn't be particularly realistic. The difference between the two tilts and arcs would be even slighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    In the bottom picture the two bars should be closer together since



    or else you don't compare the same geodesics, rendering the whole thing meaningless. Yes, as you decrease r, time dilation increases with respect to some far-away reference clock, but you also need to account for the fact that angular distances are compressed as per the above terms of the Riemann tensor - making the local speed of light once again exactly c.
    I dispute this. There is no measureable tidal force. A pencil falls at 9.8m/s² from any location in the room. And unlike the tidal force, this is readily detectable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    As for the time dilation itself as you vary r, it goes as



    Plugging this into the geodesic deviation equation should it make it immediately clear that the dilation factor is not infinite at the event horizon, but only at r=0.
    I dispute that too. The vertical light beam doesn't get out. If time dilation is not infinite at the event horizon, it would get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    Same goes for angular distance between inward geodesics - it is not zero at the event horizon, only at r=0.
    Discard the angular distance between inward geodesics by considering the gravitational field of a gedanken rod or plane. Or as I said in the gravity OP, "zoom in" to avoid the issue of the Earth being spherical:


    Image credit: NASA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Not an issue.
    Really? Do you really think that you shouldn't actually learn what the terms mean before you use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You've said this on more than one occasion. You think that it is self-evident and that no one will challenge it. But I'm going to challenge it:

    Prove that the two light pulses are not going at the same speed and that they are not synchronised.
    We start with our two identical clocks adjacent to one another at the same elevation. We synchronise them and then we let them operate for a week. At the end of the week we take our two clock readings, which are the same. The clocks have remained synchronised. We note that each clock reading is a count of how many times a light-pulse was reflected between two mirrors a metre apart, which we carefully measured. So we conclude that the light travelled at the same speed in each clock. Now we repeat the experiment but with one clock 30cm lower than the other. At the end of a week we find that the lower clock reading is lower than that of the upper clock. We carefully measure the mirror separations again and find that they're still 1 metre apart. We know that the light arcs upwards a little and that the mirrors are tilted back a little, but we also know that the tidal force is not detectable, so the arcs and tilts are the same for both clocks. So the light paths are the same size and shape. So the light in the lower clock must have been going slower. QED.
    Not so fast with the "QED", Farsight! In the above, you said: "At the end of a week we find that the lower clock reading is lower than that of the upper clock". But, what clock is indicating "the end of a week"?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Not so fast with the "QED", Farsight! In the above, you said: "At the end of a week we find that the lower clock reading is lower than that of the upper clock". But, what clock is indicating "the end of a week"?
    The NIST caesium clock plus others, see Master Clock on Wikipedia:

    "A master clock is a precision clock that provides timing signals to synchronise slave clocks as part of a clock network. Networks of electric clocks connected by wires to a precision master pendulum clock began to be used in institutions like factories, offices, and schools around 1900. Today many radio clocks are synchronised by radio signals or internet connections to a worldwide time system called Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) which is governed by master atomic clocks in many countries..."

    Just keep looking at the GIF, keep on reminding yourself that tidal force is irrelevant and that clocks don't literally measure the flow of time. Remind yourself that clocks "clock up" some kind of motion, and when a clock goes slower it's because the motion goes slower. After a while you appreciate that this is true of optical clocks too. And that the parallel-mirror light-clock is merely an idealised simplified version of an optical clock. After a while you will wonder why you ever thought the speed of light was constant.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Not so fast with the "QED", Farsight! In the above, you said: "At the end of a week we find that the lower clock reading is lower than that of the upper clock". But, what clock is indicating "the end of a week"?
    The NIST caesium clock plus others, see Master Clock on Wikipedia:

    "A master clock is a precision clock that provides timing signals to synchronise slave clocks as part of a clock network. Networks of electric clocks connected by wires to a precision master pendulum clock began to be used in institutions like factories, offices, and schools around 1900. Today many radio clocks are synchronised by radio signals or internet connections to a worldwide time system called Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) which is governed by master atomic clocks in many countries..."
    The "master clock" is not at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF, and therefore does not indicate time at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF. Why is the "master clock" a truer indicator of time at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF than the clocks represented in the GIF themselves? You have assumed that the time at both locations of the clocks represented in the GIF are the same and used this assumption to conclude that the two clocks are running at different rates. By denying you this assumption and allowing the time to be different at different locations (the absence of a universal time in general relativity) your proof is invalidated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    keep on reminding yourself that tidal force is irrelevant
    I never suggested that tidal force is relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    that clocks don't literally measure the flow of time.
    What does this even mean? The ticks of a clock mark distance intervals in the temporal direction in much the same way as the markings on a ruler mark distance intervals in a spatial direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Remind yourself that clocks "clock up" some kind of motion, and when a clock goes slower it's because the motion goes slower. After a while you appreciate that this is true of optical clocks too. And that the parallel-mirror light-clock is merely an idealised simplified version of an optical clock. After a while you will wonder why you ever thought the speed of light was constant.
    Do you really think this is some sort of revelation? I see it as a somewhat obvious misunderstanding of general relativity.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The "master clock" is not at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF, and therefore does not indicate time at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF. Why is the "master clock" a truer indicator of time at the locations of the clocks represented in the GIF than the clocks represented in the GIF themselves? You have assumed that the time at both locations of the clocks represented in the GIF are the same and used this assumption to conclude that the two clocks are running at different rates. By denying you this assumption and allowing the time to be different at different locations (the absence of a universal time in general relativity) your proof is invalidated.
    My proof is not invalidated. The "master clock" is an established timekeeping convention, it is used to synchronise other clocks. And "the time" at any location is given by the clock reading at that location. It is nothing more than a count of parallel-mirror reflections, which depends upon the speed of light at that location.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    What does this even mean? The ticks of a clock mark distance intervals in the temporal direction in much the same way as the markings on a ruler mark distance intervals in a spatial direction.
    There is no temporal direction! You need to read time travel is a fantasy. That's the first of these threads, and it's crucial. The ticks of a clock occur because something has moved through space. That's all. The time "dimension" is a dimension of measure, not a measure that offers freedom of motion. I can hop forward a metre but you can't hop forward a second. The temporal "direction" is just a figure of speech. A mathematical abstraction. Spacetime models it with world lines and light cones, but these things are abstractions too. Ours is a world of space and motion. Which is why Einstein gave the equations of motion. Don't ever forget that.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Do you really think this is some sort of revelation? I see it as a somewhat obvious misunderstanding of general relativity.
    Don't. Because it's in line with Einstein and the hard scientific evidence. And I'm not just some "my theory" guy. I'm just ahead of the game, that's all. Again see A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein, arXiv, the Einstein quotes, and Don Koks:

    "Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... 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 [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    And I'm not just some "my theory" guy. I'm just ahead of the game, that's all.
    SO you should be able to provide us with a description of a black hole using (not-just-)your theory that demonstrates the secret, unwritten parts of GR. Please do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    There are no secret unwritten parts of GR, just some re-interpretation/misinterpretation that just doesn't square with what Einstein said. But here's a thread talking about Friedwardt Winterberg's Firewall. He wrote a paper in 2001 describing the black hole as a gamma-ray-burster. I hope that gives you some of what you're looking for.

    What's interesting is that we could test for this in a particle accelerator. Winterberg doesn't think we can, but I think there is a way. You accelerate an electron in a downward direction. Of course that means Lorentz Invariance has its limits, but I don't see that as an issue, just as I don't have an issue with the Principle of Equivalence applying to an infinitesimal region. By the by, we don't have a cosmology section, so I put the new thread in High Energy and Particle Physics. Drop an electron into a black hole from an "infinite" distance, and it's allegedly falling at the speed of light when it crosses the event horizon. Only the coordinate speed of light is said to be zero at the event horizon. Something doesn't add up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    There are no secret unwritten parts of GR, just some re-interpretation/misinterpretation that just doesn't square with what Einstein said. But here's a thread talking about Friedwardt Winterberg's Firewall. He wrote a paper in 2001 describing the black hole as a gamma-ray-burster. I hope that gives you some of what you're looking for.
    Well, no, you can't just grab any crackpot paper and assume that it matches your own position just because you too are against the entire community of physics. Even here you provided a link to a discussion with no attempt to provide the physics details that you were asked for.

    You have admitted that you cannot point to a single part of the actual mathematical operation of GR as written by Einstein that matches any part of your interpretation. This means that your interpretation is, at best, some sort of unwritten meaning of GR that Einstein was unable to articulate except in some vague way that made him sound like he was taking shortcuts for an audience or was simply making a small mistake in language.

    So far, you seem to be doing everything you can to characterize your theory as dogmatic metaphysics rather than physics. Until you show it at work in the physics, it will remain so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Well, no, you can't just grab any crackpot paper...
    It isn't a crackpot paper. It's referenced in the AMPS paper and elsewhere. See this post. Don't go into dismissal and denial about something that overturns some facile conviction you've held for decades. Science progresses.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    You have admitted that you cannot point to a single part of the actual mathematical operation of GR as written by Einstein that matches any part of your interpretation...
    I haven't said that. But I have repeatedly said that what you've been taught contradicts what Einstein said: the speed of light varies with position along with the patent evidence that back him up. Remember what thread you're on along with Einstein's sentiment, and why the vertical light beam can't get out. Think it through for yourself. You'll soon work out that Einstein would be on my side about the nature of black holes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I haven't said that.
    Actually, you've said it repeatedly. When asked where one can find your VSL in GR, you reply that you can't show it. When asked for a description of a black hole with your interpretation, you say that you can't do it.

    You are a man of contradictions: you make explicit claims and then when asked about them later you say the opposite.

    If you do now have a way to point to your interpretation at work in the mathematics of GR, now would be the time to do so.

    But I have repeatedly said that what you've been taught contradicts what Einstein said: the speed of light varies with position along with the patent evidence that back him up.
    So far, no evidence. You have a couple of quotations and, as you admitted, nowhere in the mathematics of GR that Einstein wrote that supports your interpretation. This is why it is a "secret" interpretation.

    Remember what thread you're on along with Einstein's sentiment, and why the vertical light beam can't get out. Think it through for yourself. You'll soon work out that Einstein would be on my side about the nature of black holes.
    Whenever I do this, it looks to me like you are not only wrong, but so very wrong that I wonder about your faculties of reasoning. Perhaps if you were to walk us through some actual details you would appear differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    My proof is not invalidated.
    Your proof is invalidated because you have used one clock to indicate the time at two different locations. Therefore, at one or both locations, the clock used to indicate the time is not a clock that is at the location.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    The "master clock" is an established timekeeping convention, it is used to synchronise other clocks.
    The "master clock" is not indicating the time at the locations where you claim the speed of light is different. Ultimately, the "master clock" is only indicating time at its own specific location, and the accurate synchronisation of other clocks needs to take this into account. In other words, the existence of a "master clock" for civil time does not validate your notion of a universal time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    And "the time" at any location is given by the clock reading at that location. It is nothing more than a count of parallel-mirror reflections, which depends upon the speed of light at that location.
    If you use the clock at the location to indicate time at that location, then the speed of light will be the same at all locations. You claim this is because the all clocks are equally affected by the change in the speed of light. But you can't demonstrate the change in the speed of light by only using the clocks at their own location to indicate time. Instead you have to use clocks at some other location and these clocks are not indicating time at the correct location. It's as if you are trying to measure my height by measuring the height of my twin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    There is no temporal direction!
    Yes there is. It is the direction of the vector tangent to the worldline in spacetime of an object at rest in the given frame of reference. I know you regard all this as mathematical abstraction, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Do you really think this is some sort of revelation? I see it as a somewhat obvious misunderstanding of general relativity.
    Don't. Because it's in line with Einstein and the hard scientific evidence.
    It's not even logical. Nor does it align with the notion of the spacetime metric.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    And I'm not just some "my theory" guy. I'm just ahead of the game, that's all.
    I was thinking long and hard what best to respond to this statement; in the end I decided not to respond at all. At least it has answered my previous question, which you had thus far avoided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    I was thinking long and hard what best to respond to this statement; in the end I decided not to respond at all. At least it has answered my previous question, which you had thus far avoided.
    What previous question? Surely you're not still trying to say all this is some personal opinion of mine? I didn't invent the frozen-star interpretation. I'm not the first person who's spoken about VSL. And it's you who has avoided the question of why the light doesn't get out of the black hole. Hagara asked about it in this thread, you gave a non-answer, then a reference to a gif, and when I pointed out that it shows the photon going slower, you didn't respond.


    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Your proof is invalidated because you have used one clock to indicate the time at two different locations. Therefore, at one or both locations, the clock used to indicate the time is not a clock that is at the location.
    It isn't invalidated. The NIST optical clocks are separated by a vertical distance of 30cm. That's smaller than one clock. We don't say the time on one clock is invalid because the clock isn't infinitesimal in size.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    The "master clock" is not indicating the time at the locations where you claim the speed of light is different. Ultimately, the "master clock" is only indicating time at its own specific location, and the accurate synchronisation of other clocks needs to take this into account. In other words, the existence of a "master clock" for civil time does not validate your notion of a universal time.
    We use master clocks and we have a time standard. It's a fact of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    If you use the clock at the location to indicate time at that location, then the speed of light will be the same at all locations. You claim this is because the all clocks are equally affected by the change in the speed of light.
    We're talking about optical clocks. They don't have time flowing in them. They have light moving in them. And they aren't all equally affected.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    But you can't demonstrate the change in the speed of light by only using the clocks at their own location to indicate time. Instead you have to use clocks at some other location and these clocks are not indicating time at the correct location. It's as if you are trying to measure my height by measuring the height of my twin.
    No it isn't. The lower clock goes slower than the higher clock is. And they're optical clocks. That's it. The thing you call the time is just some count of light waves. In the gedanken parallel-mirror light clock it's a count of reflections.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    Yes there is. It is the direction of the vector tangent to the worldline in spacetime of an object at rest in the given frame of reference. I know you regard all this as mathematical abstraction, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    It doesn't exist. If it did, you could point in that direction. And you can't. Because it is just abstraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    It's not even logical. Nor does it align with the notion of the spacetime metric.
    It is and it does. The spacetime metric is just an abstract thing associated with your measurements. For example you place your clocks at equatorial locations, then wait a while, then take the clock readings and plot them out like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    No it isn't. The lower clock goes slower than the higher clock is. And they're optical clocks. That's it. The thing you call the time is just some count of light waves. In the gedanken parallel-mirror light clock it's a count of reflections.
    Could you please explain how one can count the reflections in these clocks and compare them without time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    You start both clocks, and you watch as the count displayed on the lower clock lags the count displayed on the upper clock.

    Look at the gif below; you count reflections in the lower clock whilst your friend counts reflections in the upper clock. You each shout out your counts, and keep doing it.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Stop feeding the Farsight troll. Please move his threads into Trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    You start both clocks, and you watch as the count displayed on the lower clock lags the count displayed on the upper clock.

    Look at the gif below; you count reflections in the lower clock whilst your friend counts reflections in the upper clock. You each shout out your counts, and keep doing it.

    There is clearly a problem here: you are using time to describe this. You are asking us to compare, over your singular standard of time, two clocks.

    How does one count without time? I know that there are two states that a mirror can be in: not reflecting a photon and reflecting a photon. How am I to compare these two states to each other? How am I to compare these states at four different mirrors separated by distances? How am I to organize the different states? How is it that there are more than eight different states, two for each mirror?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    You start both clocks, and you watch as the count displayed on the lower clock lags the count displayed on the upper clock.

    Look at the gif below; you count reflections in the lower clock whilst your friend counts reflections in the upper clock. You each shout out your counts, and keep doing it.

    Me: "Hey, higher friend, when I listen to your shouts it seems like your clock is going faster than mine! Your seconds are too short!"

    Friend: "Hey, lower friend, when I listen to your shouts it seems like it is your clock that is wrong, it is running slower than mine! Your seconds are too long!"

    Me: "But I used my light clock and a ruler to measure the speed of light at this lower altitude to be 299,782,458 metres per second, so my clock is correct. I also have an atomic clock here, and it confirms my clock is correct. What do you measure the speed of light to be, using your ruler and clock?"

    Friend: "I measure the speed of light at this higher altitude to be 299,782,458 metres per second too, and I also have an atomic clock here, so my clock is also correct."

    Me: "But that means I should calculate the speed of light to be different where you are, compared to the speed of light right here. I cannot measure that speed directly, but I have to assume it is different, according to my calculations."

    Friend: "Well, that's gravitational time-dilation for ya. You cannot measure the speed of light up here, from down there - you can only try to calculate it. Calculate all you like, but I can tell you empirically that up here, the speed of light is directly measured to be the same as you measure it down there."
    Jilan and Gerry Nightingale like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Speedfreek: the point you missed is that one of the NIST optical clocks is a mere 30cm above the other. The same would be true of parallel-mirror light clocks, and there's no time flowing in them, it's just light moving. It isn't a question of one being "down here" and the other one "up there". They're both in the room you're in. In front of your face. One's a foot above the other. Now let's look at what your friend said again:

    "Well, that's gravitational time-dilation for ya. You cannot measure the speed of light up here, from down there - you can only try to calculate it. Calculate all you like, but I can tell you empirically that up here, the speed of light is directly measured to be the same as you measure it down there."

    Measure the speed of light at chin level. Then measure the speed of light at eye level. At both places you measure it to be 299,782,458 m/s. Why? Because you define your second as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Look carefully at the definition. The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of radiation. Radiation is light. To define your second you count 9192631770 microwaves coming at you. So if this light is coming at you slower, your second is bigger. Then you use it to measure the speed of light. Duh! See [0705.4507] Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories" where Magueijo and Moffat talked about the tautology:

    "Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

    NB: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458th of a second. If the light goes slower the second is bigger, and the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out leaving the metre unchanged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    There is clearly a problem here: you are using time to describe this. You are asking us to compare, over your singular standard of time, two clocks.
    There is no problem, and no singular standard of time. Just the simple fact that the lower clock is going slower.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    How does one count without time?
    You just count the events. The thing you call "the time" is just some count of events. A clock counts some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows some kind of cumulative display called "the time".

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    I know that there are two states that a mirror can be in: not reflecting a photon and reflecting a photon. How am I to compare these two states to each other? How am I to compare these states at four different mirrors separated by distances? How am I to organize the different states? How is it that there are more than eight different states, two for each mirror?
    Oh stop carping. You said yourself that the speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region. You know it isn't constant in the room you're in and why the Baez article says this:

    "Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... 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 [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

    Take this to the limit and ask yourself why doesn't the vertical light beam get out of a black hole? A vertical light beam on Earth doesn't slow down, it doesn't curve round, and it doesn't fall back. Nor does it do this on a more massive body. And it doesn't get out of a black hole because at the event horizon the "coordinate" speed of light is zero. The light is stopped. Ergo the original "frozen star" black hole interpretation is correct after all. QED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    You just count the events. The thing you call "the time" is just some count of events. A clock counts some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows some kind of cumulative display called "the time".
    How many events does one count? How do we know that the counts of one clock are different from the count at another clock? How does one count at all?
    Oh stop carping.
    I know that you do not like discussing the physical details of a physical scenario, but you really need to demonstrate why some are important and others are not.

    You said yourself that the speed of light is constant in an infinitesimal region.
    Indeed. And you used that statement to lie to your readers.

    You know it isn't constant in the room you're in
    What I do not know is how your interpretation justifies this claim. So far, we have you presenting a fantasy story and yelling and whinging that it is true. I need more than your whinging, I need you to produce an actual description of physical events. So far, your history of admitting that you never read any of the mathematics of GR and your mathematical mistakes lead one to conclude that you need to start at simple descriptions before you get anywhere near describing a black hole.

    So, back to the questions that you dodged: I know that there are two states that a mirror can be in: not reflecting a photon and reflecting a photon. How am I to compare these two states to each other? How am I to compare these states at four different mirrors separated by distances? How am I to organize the different states? How is it that there are more than eight different states, two for each mirror?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Seeing as Farsight is claiming that the modern interpretation of General Relativity is mistaken, and thus the "mainstream" view is incorrect and General Relativity is being taught wrongly, I am moving all the threads where Farsight makes this claim to "Personal Theories and Alternative Hypotheses", as that is what his claims are - an alternative to the "mainstream" view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Excellent, thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: every post you have made on this "thread".

    You cannot "win", Farsight...and soon you likely be silenced...as well as myself.

    You cannot prevail with an entrenched "3 Monkeys" of see/hear/speak no evil "meme' mind-set. Can it be you aren't aware of this?

    It won't make ANY difference no matter what you write, or how you explain your thinking...YOU will always be "wrong".

    (I've been banned from 2! "forums" for doing exactly what you are doing on this Topic...challenging the "respect my authority" dogma. You have zero chance in this regard.)

    .....

    I strongly disagree with your VSL arguments (you told to answer on the appropriate thread) so went there..."thread closed". How much more "proof" do you need?

    You said you wanted to encounter a "fire-wall?" I think you're gonna' get your wish! (me too)

    You are being "tag-teamed" and don't see it! I had this happen to me...a troll "set me up" (allowed!) with calling me an "a-hole" on my own thread!!! I complained, and was further

    trolled right off the site! (this is what is happening to you right now!)

    .....

    I can't see how you, me, or anyone else can "post" anything that deviates from the "mainstream" of so-called theory without being "held accountable for making false claims" and "promoting

    useless spam"...there is NO way to escape these constraints! Don't you see this?

    .....

    I don't agree at all w/ your "light clock" examples. I believe this is a "positive/false" observational error.

    (Unfortunately, I don't dare explain the "why"...it does not conform, even on the "trash pile" forum) I like being able to respond to Jilan and perhaps others.

    .....

    Why not just "conform" for awhile? Save a response for something you really want to say to someone "new" who has information you've been waiting for!


    Cheerio! (no...I'm not English. It's just something nice to say)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    My quintessential scientific paper got deleted cause it was too depressing.

    It wasn't even good enough for Trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    (I've been banned from 2! "forums" for doing exactly what you are doing on this Topic...challenging the "respect my authority" dogma. You have zero chance in this regard.)
    You realize that in one of the threads here, Farsight literally said "Trust me above anybody else" and that on other forums he calls himself a "physics expert"? He is the one promoting "respect my authority" dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Seeing as Farsight is claiming that the modern interpretation of General Relativity is mistaken, and thus the "mainstream" view is incorrect and General Relativity is being taught wrongly, I am moving all the threads where Farsight makes this claim to "Personal Theories and Alternative Hypotheses", as that is what his claims are - an alternative to the "mainstream" view.
    I'm disappointed that you and others have permitted some appalling abuse directed against me, and after being unable to address the argument you're now slinging my threads into some "personal theories" trashcan. It's like slinging what Einstein said into a trashcan, and what Don Koks said, and what Magueijo and Moffat said. That's not moderation, it's dogma and censorship and crying heretic. It's everything that science is not.

    Markus: I'm disappointed in you too. I thought we had a sincere discussion going there for a while.

    Your comments noted Gerry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Farsight, you have admitted many times that your ideas are not those of mainstream physics. Why are you upset that people recognize what you have been telling them?

    If you really want your ideas to become mainstream physics, then, please, show us how to do physics with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    They aren't my ideas. As I said, I didn't invent the frozen-star interpretation. And as you know I refuse to discuss as such under the stigma of a "personal theories" trashcan, so that's the end of this conversation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Ah, the predictable response of someone who wants to be lauded for their intellect without doing any work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    My quintessential scientific paper got deleted cause it was too depressing.

    It wasn't even good enough for Trash.
    It was actually a post about how children make hilarious spelling mistakes and end up inadvertently using swear words. How did you possibly think it was appropriate to post it in a science forum under the guise of a scientific paper?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: Your #183 post.

    See the responses you are getting? "Do the math...and "we" won't agree on that either" because "it disagrees with what is accepted!!!" Your number-crunching could be perfection

    itself...and replies would still be "well, so what...it just proves you know some math?"

    .....

    I notice there is another poster on this "site" who represents himself as either an "undergrad advisor" or at least a holder of a "pro-forma" position at Princeton...this is one of the trolls

    who is allowed to post virtually anything he wishes under the guise of being an "expert in physics theory, due to his years of experience and research" when the facts are that he has

    NO RECORD anywhere at Princeton, never mind the "physics faculty"! He not even on the "Physics Newsletter" list! (I checked very carefully) (Jilan knows him for the "poseur" that he is)

    ....

    How can you or I or anyone else "fight the good fight" or debate w/ people who in fact are an internet FICTION of "bona fides" of credibility? And if you dare to counter them (I did at another

    site) they run screaming to the "mods" to "right the injustice done to them by this "know-nothing!" and you wind up shut OUT.

    Now the "site" is "purged" of "undesirables"...alles ist und ordnung! Like you. Or me. (I have yet to write a word of my "stuff" on this site...and I guarantee it would "knock your socks off")

    .....

    Try to be more of a "true scientist", Farsight...like Werner Heisenberg. There is a prime example of "what and how" to think...study him closely. Especially the periods of 1933 on.

    Also Philipp Lenard, he too was a "true scientist". Read what he said of Einstein and his "Jew semantics" from 1933 on.

    I think both of them would do well here...in fact, I believe they would be lauded for their "immense contributions to physics theory".

    .....

    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I'm disappointed that you and others have permitted some appalling abuse directed against me, and after being unable to address the argument you're now slinging my threads into some "personal theories" trashcan. It's like slinging what Einstein said into a trashcan, and what Don Koks said, and what Magueijo and Moffat said. That's not moderation, it's dogma and censorship and crying heretic. It's everything that science is not.

    Markus: I'm disappointed in you too. I thought we had a sincere discussion going there for a while.

    Your comments noted Gerry.
    It is not a "trash can", we have a specific forum for trash and this isn't it.

    This is the part of the forum where unproven theories and alternatives to the "mainstream" consensus view belong. Seeing as the physics community moved on from the original "frozen star" interpretation of the black hole over 80 years ago (you can blame Arthur Eddington and Georges Lemaitre for showing that the Schwarzschild radius represents a coordinate singularity and is thus not a physical singularity like the one at r=0), this is indeed the forum for that interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your #120 post.

    "Everything stops..."? (with regard to the "frozen Star" model)

    I cannot see how this would be so. The idea that an atom would be reduced to a "quiescent" state of function!

    The direct implication is "no electron orbit" and complete entropy...in this event, there would no longer be a coherent mass! No "Star", frozen or otherwise. Gravity will never allow this

    to occur, and in this event of matter/gravity interaction, there is still kinesis, as well as action and reaction, and the possibility of radiant factors to become manifest.

    .....

    Sorry, but I just don't see how a "frozen" scenario could actually occur...a total state of entropy? This cannot be, at least not in this Universe.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I'm disappointed that you and others have permitted some appalling abuse directed against me, and after being unable to address the argument you're now slinging my threads into some "personal theories" trashcan.
    You have been unwilling to accept that the theories that you advocate are not mainstream.
    It's like slinging what Einstein said into a trashcan, and what Don Koks said, and what Magueijo and Moffat said.
    Argument by scriptural exegesis. In science, one does not assess the validity of theories by book-banging. One assesses theories without treating any of their inventors as inspired prophets of revealed truth. Doing so is a method worthy of this particular forum here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    It was actually a post about how children make hilarious spelling mistakes and end up inadvertently using swear words. How did you possibly think it was appropriate to post it in a science forum under the guise of a scientific paper?
    I thought it could be a humorous diversion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    If you follow the crowd you will only get as far as the crowd. Do not stop posting Farsight, your posts will still be as interesting no matter what forum that are in.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Gerry, I think the frozen aspect is from the outside observers reckoning. Inside all is progressing as normal. QM fluctuations alone would mean that nothing could be frozen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    I thought it could be a humorous diversion.
    LOL, It was funny and appreciated. Friday night under General Discussions may have made less waves though?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Maybe SpeedFreek fails to realize that my post was sarcastic and meant to innuendo that the previous, by Gerry, was depressing...

    Am I that much of a hateable person?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    No...I don't "hate" you!

    (only my Mother would be in this category of HATE...also God, if any, for forcing me to exist as "me")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #194 post.

    You're correct of course...but I don't think this was "Farsight's" contention, that this "frozen" condition applies only to surface values of molecular function. (this is a Star-sized mass, after all)

    I thought he was writing in terms of relativistic conditions of ALL of the Star's atoms being "inert" and this is something I don't understand at all!<(like females)

    .....

    In fact, after doing some reading-up on the "Frozen Star" concept...I still don't understand it! The mechanics of "how" are escaping me.


    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Farsight,
    I thought that curving of a light-beam - such as occurs with gravitational lensing, first predicted by Soldner in 1803 based on Newtonian principles -
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    See above. I think you're still missing the crucial point that local to you, in the room you're in, there's a gradient in the speed of light that causes the lower NIST optical clock to go slower, and causes your pencil to fall down. If there was no gradient in the speed of light there would be no gravitational field. A curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. Physicist tried to tell you this. You need to take it on board instead of saying it's meaningless, then apply it to black holes and think hard about why the light doesn't get out.
    would be explained by considering 'group velocities' as with a waveguide, some 'parts' of the lightbeam traveling faster, others slower than the standard 'c' light-speed.

    Hence I cannot see that it would make the NIST optical clock go slower - but perhaps I misunderstand the nature of the clock (though I don't accept SR hence there is no possible debate between me & the SR-lovers on this issue).


    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In general reply to Farsight, re: your c contentions.

    Hello and Cheers!

    I think you have made (as well as others) a serious effort to compare the meanings of "frame" values...and found disturbing results! Herein lies the conundrum (yes, Albert thought on

    this also) that seems to declare c as a constant is not a true condition, in that observations of two or more FoR's will reveal what SEEM to be differences regarding c.

    ......

    In the "light clock" comparisons, light-speed is being altered by gravity (one clock is "deeper" into the gravity-well, therefor the influence is greater) and seems to prove that the "c" value

    is lesser than the upper clock! After all, numbers cannot lie! Here is the problem with the comparison values. (at least as I see it)

    .....

    (1) The conditions of ANY two frames will always display differences between each other, no matter which aspect of a frame you care to examine...each frame is always "true to itself" in

    every respect. (this is the heart of Relativity, and there is no escaping it, not even with "special" QM conditions that seem to dictate otherwise)

    (2) In applying "fixed" time values to any two or more frames, there will ALWAYS be differences. (I thought A.E. made this clear, but others seem to ignore it to further an agenda of

    of "he was wrong, and the maths prove it!") As you must surely realize, a formal "time" can only demonstrate the "truth of itself"...it cannot dictate the reality of conditions of radiant energy.

    "We" are the ones who observe and assign values and meanings to the arbitrary functions of a "clock"...the clock is a measuring tool, nothing else. The "clock" does not lie, but it cannot

    tell the truth either, and it seems you have forgotten this, Farsight.

    ......

    "Every "frame of condition" is true to itself" and this includes "tick-rates" and "measuring sticks".


    (Thanks for reading!) and keep posting!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •