Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity field?

"Dirk Van de moortel" bravely wrote to "All" (17 Feb 05 11:28:13)
--- on the heady topic of " Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a
gravity field?"

DVdm From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
DVdm Xref: aeinews
DVdm sci.physics:36289 sci.physics.relativity:21311 sci.space:409
DVdm sci.astro:10375 sci.military:390

DVdm Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
DVdm make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
DVdm that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
DVdm alternative for this one:
DVdm http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
DVdm Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
DVdm then give us your private version, will you?

The speed of light might not have always been the value we observe
now. It might have had a different value in the early universe when
its temperature and density was still extremely high. Some distant
observations have been made which note a tiny change in the fine
structure constant but the findings were of the same scale as the
error. Still hardly proof.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Entropy isn't what it used to be.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
(Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message
om...
Jack Sarfatti wrote in message
et...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


(SKIP)

Albert Einstein wrote (1916):

"In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which
we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think
that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and
with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But
in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".

RVHG

And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing
close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all
celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!

Jim G
c'=c+v

SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.

Dirk Vdm

They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!

Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?

What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????


The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs
(and WHY)

The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.

Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.

Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.

Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing". If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.

This means

....that I must have put another point which Dirk v has failed to answer
before.....

... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.

Jim G
c'=c+v

wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

[snip]


They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!

Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?

What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????

Check your dns, proxy and/or your news reader settings..




The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs (and WHY)

The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.

Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.

Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.

Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing".
If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.

This has been told to you many times before, but since you
seem to be listening now, I will repeat it once mo
The action of observing the time of an event is not measured
as the time that the signal reaches the observer, but as the
average of the times of sending out a signal and receiving the
echo.
I send a signal at my clock time t1. The signal hits a target and
gets reflected. The echo reaches me at my clock time t2.
Then I define the time of the reflection event to be (t1+t2)/2.
Likewise the distance of the reflection event is then defined
as c*(t2-t1)/2.
This way of working assumes that the speed of the signal is
the same in both directions, which is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm.

Dirk Vdm

Dear Asimov:

"Asimov" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel" bravely wrote to "All" (17 Feb 05 11:28:13)
--- on the heady topic of " Does total speed of light in vacuum change
in a
gravity field?"

DVdm From: "Dirk Van de moortel"
DVdm Xref: aeinews
DVdm sci.physics:36289 sci.physics.relativity:21311 sci.space:409
DVdm sci.astro:10375 sci.military:390

DVdm Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
DVdm make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
DVdm that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
DVdm alternative for this one:
DVdm http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
DVdm Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
DVdm then give us your private version, will you?

The speed of light might not have always been the value we observe
now. It might have had a different value in the early universe when
its temperature and density was still extremely high.

This was perhaps as much as one microsecond after the Big Bang. And not
based on observation or measurement, but on "well it is reasonable that it
should have been, because..."

Some distant
observations have been made which note a tiny change in the fine
structure constant but the findings were of the same scale as the
error. Still hardly proof.

Based on the current definition of the meter, there would be no observed
*local* change in c, even in the early Universe. In fact, a *very* large
value of c, would be required to turn what we considered to have been a
large finite Universe... into a singularity.

David A. Smith

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:53 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

[snip]






The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs (and WHY)

The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.

Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.

Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.

Relativity says that you can bend spoons just by looking at them whilst moving
away!


Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing".
If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.

This has been told to you many times before, but since you
seem to be listening now, I will repeat it once mo
The action of observing the time of an event is not measured
as the time that the signal reaches the observer, but as the
average of the times of sending out a signal and receiving the
echo.
I send a signal at my clock time t1. The signal hits a target and
gets reflected. The echo reaches me at my clock time t2.
Then I define the time of the reflection event to be (t1+t2)/2.
Likewise the distance of the reflection event is then defined
as c*(t2-t1)/2.
This way of working assumes that the speed of the signal is
the same in both directions, which is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm.

With source and mirror mutually at rest, that is correct (in flat gravity)
Light speed is c wrt its source and therefore also c wrt the mirror.

In his innocence, Einstein correctly defined a way of establishing absolute
simultaneity and length with his clock synch definition.

This is in accordance with the BaT and as you say " is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm".

Note: no experiment has confirmed this for a moving mirror.

Thankyou Dinky. Does this mean you will be joining us soon? (Actually we prefer
you didn't).


Dirk Vdm



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:17:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:53 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message
This has been told to you many times before, but since you
seem to be listening now, I will repeat it once mo
The action of observing the time of an event is not measured
as the time that the signal reaches the observer, but as the
average of the times of sending out a signal and receiving the
echo.
I send a signal at my clock time t1. The signal hits a target and
gets reflected. The echo reaches me at my clock time t2.
Then I define the time of the reflection event to be (t1+t2)/2.
Likewise the distance of the reflection event is then defined
as c*(t2-t1)/2.
This way of working assumes that the speed of the signal is
the same in both directions, which is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm.

With source and mirror mutually at rest, that is correct (in flat gravity)

"flat gravity" - good one :-)

Naturally if on mirror is vertically above the other, light will take diffeent
times to go up and down.
Light accelerates in a gravity field like anything else...as Pound and Rebka
demonstrated.


Get this straight. You have nothing to mutter about the
"correctness" of this. I have given the *definitions* of measuring
time and distance of an event. Definitions are not open for debate.
Of course they work perfectly for source and mirror mutually
at rest - *even* you seem to understand that. But they work just
as perfectly when source and observer are not at rest with
respect to each other, PROVIDED you keep in mind that the
measured distance c*(t2-t1)/2 you get this way, is the distance,
not at time t1 or t2, but at the calculated time (t1+t2)/2.

That's an aether argument. There is NO aether...didn't you know?

Distance can perfectly satisfactorily be defined as the amount of space lying
between the ends of a rigid (perfect) rod. It never varies.

Light has nothing whatsoever to do with distance.


Light speed is c wrt its source and therefore also c wrt the mirror.

In his innocence, Einstein correctly defined a way of establishing absolute
simultaneity and length with his clock synch definition.

This is in accordance with the BaT and as you say " is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm".

Note: no experiment has confirmed this for a moving mirror.

Of course these experiments have been done. Ignoring them
is like Holocaust negationism.


Name one.

By the way, note: no experiment has confirmed that *you*
die when we drop you from a tower.

Idiot!

Dirk Vdm



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message ...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:17:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

[snip]

Get this straight. You have nothing to mutter about the
"correctness" of this. I have given the *definitions* of measuring
time and distance of an event. Definitions are not open for debate.
Of course they work perfectly for source and mirror mutually
at rest - *even* you seem to understand that. But they work just
as perfectly when source and observer are not at rest with
respect to each other, PROVIDED you keep in mind that the
measured distance c*(t2-t1)/2 you get this way, is the distance,
not at time t1 or t2, but at the calculated time (t1+t2)/2.

That's an aether argument. There is NO aether...didn't you know?

I haven't been using any kind of argument. I am trying
to help you understand how the human population of this
planet defines things in order to get some work done.
That includes engineering work, you know, the kind of
work it takes to design the radar that measures the
speed of your car.
It is amazing how religious fanatics tend to confuse
definitions with arguments.

Dirk Vdm