![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 28, 5:22*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote in sci.physics.relativity: what the hell does the "speed" of light have to do with how fast gravity propagates throughout the cosmos? Nothing. It's the other way 'round: the local geometry of spacetime determines the local speed of light; the geometry of spacetime is what we call "gravity". * * * * Note this is spaceTIME, not merely space. * * * * Note also I am using the theoretical context of GR. Historically, Einstein based SR on a postulate that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source. While that was natural in the historical context of 1905, today it is by no means the best approach to SR, and some people (like yourself) think it has more relevance than it actually has: none. Bravo Honest Roberts! There was a bold zombie, Laurent Claessens, who claimed that Einstein was wrong when he said: Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." Do you agree with zombie Laurent Claessens, Honest Roberts? Today, one derives SR in two distinct ways: as the local limit of GR, and as a solution to the equations of GR for a universe devoid of content. Because of the former, SR is a useful approximation for many local experiments, and has been extensively tested; because of the latter, SR is not a viable model of the world we inhabit (which is clearly not empty). Bravo Honest Roberts! Perfect camouflage! And yet the crucial question: is special relativity valid far away from the source of gravity, where the gravitational field is zero? In other words, was John Michell right: http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)" If John Michell was right, Honest Roberts, why do your brothers Einsteinians interpret the redshift of light coming from distant massive bodies without even mentioning the reduced speed of light? In your opening post of this thread you asserted that gravity propagates "instantaneously". Such unfounded claims are worthless -- to make them stick you need to come up with a theory in which your claim is true, and which also agrees with ALL of the currently-known experimental results. That's a VERY difficult task, and to date nobody has done so. But if one drops your "instantaneous" claim, then GR, with its propagation of changes in gravitation at local speed c, agrees with as much of the experimental evidence as any other theory, and more than most. Moreover, the few observations which might someday become established as refutations of GR [#] have difficulties of their own, and at present it's easy to consider alternatives other than "GR is wrong". * * * * [#] The major ones a dark matter, dark energy, and the * * * * anomalous accelerations of several spacecraft. One might * * * * add various cosmological problems ("flatness", "horizon", * * * * and the need for "inflation"/"quintessence"/...). You should LEARN something about physics before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts How about you becoming even MORE HONEST, Honest Roberts? Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Do you agree with zombie Laurent Claessens, Honest Roberts?
C'est très bas de ta part de mentionner mon nom sans en donner des références complètes. Je corrige donc ton ingratitude et ton manque flagrant d'honnêteté : http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fef864d66723be Et tant que tu y es, pourquoi suis-je un "zombie" ? Manifestement pas parce que je chante "Divine Einstein" sans me poser de questions, il me semble ? Bonne nuit Laurent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |
15 answers to nonsense being spread by "creation science,""intelligent design," and "Expelled" | Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | April 29th 08 01:29 PM |
This is the most threadbare "faster than light" story I've seen | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 20th 07 01:45 AM |
Was the Speed of Light Much Faster Billions of Years Ago? Is "c" Not Constant? | Double-A | Misc | 10 | December 13th 06 01:30 PM |
"Cheaper, better, faster" - cheap doesn't work | Victor | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | March 12th 06 06:57 AM |