Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 56 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 2 of 13 < 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 >
Topic Options
#38164 - 04/18/11 02:05 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Bill 6, You pick up on the equivalence principle, but you ignore one of the basics on which Einstein based both SR and GR. The measured speed of light is the same in ANY reference frame. It doesn't matter where the light is coming from or what motion the source may have with respect to the reference frame of the observer it still travels at the same speed. Since the speed is constant the only variable left is the frequency. So it is red shifted if it moving away from you, or is coming out of a gravity well.

Remember that one of the problems that Einstein addressed with SR was the failure to detect a change in the speed of light depending on the direction of motion. The Michelson-Morley experiment was expected to find the difference based on the direction of movement of the earth. It failed, and created a significant problem for Newtonian physics. SR, based on the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers took care of the problem.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#38167 - 04/19/11 02:04 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
Bill 6, You pick up on the equivalence principle,

The term 'pick up' implies a surreptitious application. I 'pick up' on the equivalence principle on the basis of its validity and relevance!

Originally Posted By: Bill
but you ignore one of the basics on which Einstein based both SR and GR. The measured speed of light is the same in ANY reference frame.

I previously pointed out that an observer located alongside the black hole adjacent light source (due to the fact that his measuring rods and clocks are physically affected by the gravitational field) will determine constancy for both beams however the far-distant observer will not!

Are you of the opinion that the relevant beams in my diagram (depicting an accelerating light source, ref below) will not travel different distances away from their source in a given period of time as determined by your clock?

<------------•---->


Originally Posted By: Bill
It doesn't matter where the light is coming from or what motion the source may have with respect to the reference frame of the observer it still travels at the same speed.

It is still measured as traveling at the same speed by the local observer but only due to the fact that his measuring rods and clocks are physically affected by their locations in a gravitational field.

Refusing to respond to this point does not invalidate it.

GR tells us, and the Wallops Island experiment confirmed, that clocks which are located at various altitudes will tick over at different rates and, obviously, the same thing applies to clocks that are at different fixed distances from a black hole.

Depending on their point of attachment - radially orientated measuring rods will either be stretched or compressed in length.

A local observer who conveniently chooses to ignore those facts will determine constancy for the respective beams of light.

If you agree that the respective beams will travel different distances away from their accelerating source in a given period of your time as per the above diagram - are you of the opinion that the principle of equivalence does not apply in the situation I depicted; that the respective beams will not travel different distances away from their source in a given period of time as determined by your (far distant observer) clock?

<---------------•----->

I make every effort to directly respond to all salient points introduced by others and would appreciate reciprocality.

You wrote that I "...ignore one of the basics on which Einstein based both SR and GR. The measured speed of light is the same in ANY reference frame." yet you seemingly choose to ignore the fact that Einstein stated in the introduction to GR:-

"...daß das Prinzip von der Konstanz der Vakuum-Lichtgeschwindigkeit eine Modifikation erfahren Muß."

(...that the principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light must be modified.)

There are two ways of modifying that principle - 1) The speed of light is not always constant and 2) the speed of light is not constant and, as Einstein points out in his book 'Relativity', the presence of a gravitational field invalidates special theory.

To the best of extant scientific knowledge - there is no place in the entire universe that is not permeated to some degree by gravity.

The MMX bears no relationship whatsoever to a discussion pertaining to the variable speed of light in a gravitational field ergo reference to same is nothing more than a red herring.

Top
#38168 - 04/19/11 03:09 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I am of the opinion that when Einstein said that light always travels at the same speed he meant just that. You say that the measuring tools are distorted. I say that they are perfectly correct under any conditions. When I measure a length in a reference frame that is moving or in a different gravitational field with respect to the one I am in I am getting correct measurements, even though they are different from the measurements somebody in that reference frame would get. We are both correct in our measurements, it is just that we are looking at them differently. There is no distortion in any of them. You have to accept that things in a GR world are just not what we intuitively think they are because we live in a world that is very little affected by GR.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38172 - 04/20/11 12:55 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
I am of the opinion that when Einstein said that light always travels at the same speed he meant just that.

I am of the opinion that when Einstein said, in 1905, that light always travels at the same speed he meant just that and when, TEN YEARS LATER, he said it doesn't he also meant just that.

I have provided you with reference material to that effect yet you choose to deliberately ignore same.

Originally Posted By: Bill
You say that the measuring tools are distorted. I say that they are perfectly correct under any conditions.

I am obviously wasting my time asking you to respond to my comments or questions as you evidently lack the common courtesy to do so. I have already described the distortion incurred by measuring rods and clocks in a gravitational field but by refusing to respond to my comments you are of the opinion that they never occurred.

Turning your back on a legitimate question is a personal insult indicative of an unworthy opponent.

Originally Posted By: Bill
When I measure a length in a reference frame that is moving or in a different gravitational field with respect to the one I am in I am getting correct measurements, even though they are different from the measurements somebody in that reference frame would get. We are both correct in our measurements, it is just that we are looking at them differently. There is no distortion in any of them. You have to accept that things in a GR world are just not what we intuitively think they are because we live in a world that is very little affected by GR.

Bill Gill

According to SR - if I change my location to that of another, previously synchronous, clock I will find that my clock then lags behind that clock due to the fact that my clock has, whilst I was moving, ticked over at a slower rate than the other clock.

Whilst I am fully entitled to insist, whilst I am moving, that my clock is ticking over at its 'correct' or 'normal' rate I would be contradicting special theory if I were to insist, whilst I am moving, that my clock's rate of operation has not changed from what it was before I started moving.

Oxford dictionary - 'Distorted': changed.

Assuming that they have read and accepted SR - somebody in that clock's reference frame will get the same measurements as I do with respect to my clock's rate of operation not different measurements as you state above.

It appears that 'what I have to accept' is that you will continue to rudely ignore my questions in your authoritarian ad hominem fashion.

Top
#38178 - 04/20/11 02:31 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, I figure you just need a little education. The fact is that nothing changes in any of the scenarios you suggest, except your perception. Your demonstrations assumes that you are working in space. But in spacetime you have to include the time dimension. When you do that you are actually viewing the projection of the object which is moving partly in the time dimension. This means it is tilted with respect to your view and is thus shortened, as you view it. Just as something that you view at a sharp angle to its length is shortened in your view. Think of an arrow which you look at from almost in front. The view you have makes it look very short. The difference in relativity is that the apparent shortening due to the timelike part of its travels is retained when it returns to a more spacelike frame of reference. And if I really understood what relativity means I would write it up and get me a Nobel Prize. Our minds just aren't really built to correctly visualize the effects of relativity.

And of course there are those who will jump on the "it's your fault for not agreeing with me" bandwagon.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38179 - 04/21/11 04:32 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
Well, I figure you just need a little education.

You are obviously incapable of providing same.

Originally Posted By: Bill
The fact is that nothing changes in any of the scenarios you suggest, except your perception.

Arrant nonsense indicative of gross ignorance.

The scenario I suggested where one clock (A) is made to move to another clock's location (B) whereby clock A will be found to have ticked over at a slower rate than clock B was ratified by the Hafele Keating experiment.

In that experiment the rate of operation of clock A (the set of atomic clocks aboard the aircraft) physically changed whilst the clock was in motion compared to when it was at rest ergo your claim that nothing changes is egregious.

In particle acceleration experiments it is claimed that the particle's lifetime physically changes as does that of a muon accelerating toward the planet.

In the Wallops Island experiment the rates of operation of the clocks aboard the rocket physically changed during the flight ergo your claim that nothing changes is farcical.

Originally Posted By: Bill
Your demonstrations assumes that you are working in space. But in spacetime you have to include the time dimension. When you do that you are actually viewing the projection of the object which is moving partly in the time dimension. This means it is tilted with respect to your view and is thus shortened, as you view it.

Asinine and irrelevant nonsense! A blatantly deliberate attempt to obfuscate the discussion.

My depictions have not been in relation to views of an object that is moving through space but specifically to observations of beams of light!

I would normally be prepared to discuss the Terrell rotation concept however you have proven to be incapable of carrying out a meaningful conversation.

Originally Posted By: Bill
And if I really understood what relativity means I would write it up and get me a Nobel Prize.

It seems to me that on the basis of your lack of understanding of what relativity means where it refers to one clock moving relatively to another clock that you have extremely minimal understanding of what relativity means.

Einstein really understood what relativity means and wrote it up in a book called 'Relativity, the Special and General Theory' yet he received no Noble Prize for same but you obviously believe that you would be entitled to do so.

Originally Posted By: Bill
Our minds just aren't really built to correctly visualize the effects of relativity.

On the basis of your obvious inability to comprehend the concept of physical time dilation as presented in STR it seems that your mind may not be capable of correctly visualizing even a simple effect of relativity however this does not give you the right to assume that nobody is capable of exhibiting this ability.

Originally Posted By: Bill
And of course there are those who will jump on the "it's your fault for not agreeing with me" bandwagon.

Well at least I can exclude myself from that group as my criticisms have not been as to whether or not you have agreed with me but to the fact that you rudely refuse to respond to my questions and presentations other than via the application of diversionary, deceitful tactics.

Top
#38183 - 04/21/11 07:21 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, I will give one more reply. You suggested that light travels at different speeds, using a diagram to show it. Your diagram doesn't show anything of the sort. It is the same thing that Michelson-Morley experiment tested for and it was found that it didn't happen. If you measure the speed of light in the frame of reference of the source it will be found to be C. If you measure the speed of light from that source in any other reference frame it will be found to be C. The frequency of the light will be different, but there will be no change in speed. This applies whether the two frames are moving with respect to each other or if they are in locations where the spacetime is warped differently (that is they are in places where the gravitational field is different). Since they are in different reference frames their clocks and other measuring tools will give different results, because of the effects of relativity. The tools will still be completely accurate in their own reference frame, it is just that in comparing them between different reference frames they will appear to be different.

The predictions of relativity, both SR and GR, have been tested to very high accuracy and they have so far been found to be correct. And in none of the tests has there been found any indication that C changes under any conditions. If you can't believe that I suggest that you get a good book on relativity and study up on it.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38185 - 04/21/11 09:11 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Fortunately the OP takes no responsibility for the way in which a thread develops. I'm sorry to see the way this is going, though, and without any of the forum's regular "snipers".

However, to take a positive from it; it's going to make me take another look at the whole idea of relativity. Just when I thought I was getting the hang of it. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38195 - 04/22/11 06:03 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
Well, I will give one more reply. You suggested that light travels at different speeds, using a diagram to show it. Your diagram doesn't show anything of the sort. It is the same thing that Michelson-Morley experiment tested for and it was found that it didn't happen.

This is either a blatant lie, as I suspect it to be, or is indicative of gross ignorance regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In my diagram the light source is ACCELERATING relatively to the observer!

In the MMX the light source is NOT accelerating relatively to the observer!

Are you incapable of seeing the difference between those statements?

The MMX was NOT intended to test the speed of light relatively to an accelerating source but relatively to an assumed aether!

In the MMX all of the equipment including the light source, the mirrors, the interferometer and (assuming that they didn't fidget) any observers were all contained in the same reference frame!

Originally Posted By: Bill
If you measure the speed of light in the frame of reference of the source it will be found to be C. If you measure the speed of light from that source in any other reference frame it will be found to be C.


I have already pointed out that "If you measure the speed of light in the frame of reference of the source it will be found to be C."

However in my diagram I showed that after a certain period of time as determined by the distant observer the tip of the left hand beam (A) is a greater distance from the source (S) than is the tip of the right hand beam (B).

A...............S.....B
<---------------•----->

Are you totally incapable of seeing that, from the point of view of the distant observer, the left hand beam has, in perhaps one second of his time, traveled the distance AS away from the source and in that same period of time the right hand beam has only traveled the shorter distance SB away from the source?

Are you truly incapable of seeing that, from the point of view of the distant observer, the distance AS is greater than the distance SB?

Are you truly incapable of realising that if beam B travels a certain distance in a given period of time whilst beam A travel three times that distance in the same period of time from the point of view of the distant observer that beam A has traveled faster than beam B (from the point of view of the distant observer)?

It should NOT be necessary for me to have to point out that the above diagram IS TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL! It is nothing more than a thought experiment!

Originally Posted By: Bill
The frequency of the light will be different, but there will be no change in speed. This applies whether the two frames are moving with respect to each other or if they are in locations where the spacetime is warped differently (that is they are in places where the gravitational field is different). Since they are in different reference frames their clocks and other measuring tools will give different results, because of the effects of relativity.

(My underline) That's PRECISELY what I've been saying!!In my accelerating-light-source-diagram the distant observer and the light source ARE IN DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES!!!

In my light-source-adjacent-to-a-black-hole-depiction the far distant observer IS IN A DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAME THAN THE LOCAL OBSERVER!!!

Ergo (in your words) "Since they are in different reference frames their clocks and other measuring tools will give different results."

As I pointed out in a previous post...the local observer, being located in a different reference frame to the far distant observer, will, as you suggest, determine different results; that's what I SAID!!!

Originally Posted By: Bill
The tools will still be completely accurate in their own reference frame,

It provides you with considerable solace to be able to repeat my arguments without having the decency to acknowledge that they are mine.

Originally Posted By: Bill
it is just that in comparing them between different reference frames they will appear to be different.

They do not merely appear to be different; they are different as determined by the results of the Hafele-Keating and Wallops Island experiments.

Originally Posted By: Bill
The predictions of relativity, both SR and GR, have been tested to very high accuracy and they have so far been found to be correct. And in none of the tests has there been found any indication that C changes under any conditions.

One of the 'predictions' of GR was Einstein's comment that the law of the constancy of the speed of light required modification. Has this prediction been found to be correct?

One of Einstein's predictions in 'Relativity' was that the SR law of the constancy pf the velocity of light was not valid when gravitational fields were involved. Has that prediction been found to be correct?

Of course I'm wasting my time asking such questions as you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of answering same.

It is a principle tenet of physics that whilst a theory may appear to have been ratified by numerous experiments it only takes one (repeatable) experiment to invalidate any theory.

If somebody were to design an experiment that determined a variable speed of light in a gravitational field they would be classified as a crackpot as 'everyone knows' that the speed of light is constant in the same way that 'everybody knew' that steel-hulled ships would sink and controlled manned flight was impossible.

Originally Posted By: Bill
If you can't believe that I suggest that you get a good book on relativity and study up on it.

I have, during 28 years of research into relativity, accrued some 50 books on relativity and have read perhaps another 20 at libraries.

This, of course, does not include the many articles I have read in peer-reviewed journals and on the internet.

It was the contradictory arguments presented by the similarly academically qualified authors of such work that sparked my interest in the subject.

I have already informed you that according to Professor Banesh Hoffmann as well as Albert Einstein (both of them authors of good books on relativity) the speed of light is affected by gravity yet you have not had the decency to respond to those references.

Hoffmann wrote (117, 'Albert Einstein', Paladin):-

"Where should [Einstein] look next? At gravitation affecting the speed of light, since this already transcended the special theory of relativity in which the speed of light was constant and the same for all observers...Why not let the variable speed of light play the relativistic role...?"

You suggest that I should get a good book on relativity but are apparently of the opinion that Albert Einstein's book 'Relativity, the Special and general Theory' is not suitable reading material.

But of course - the fact that you refused to acknowledge my reference to that book means that as far as you are concerned his opinion does not exist or matter.

My diagram, depicting the varying speed of beams of light relative to a black hole, fully complies with Einstein's comment that a curvature of rays of light can only take place when the speed of light varies depending on its location in a gravitational field (76, 'Relativity', Crown, 1916).

Top
#38196 - 04/22/11 06:31 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Fortunately the OP takes no responsibility for the way in which a thread develops. I'm sorry to see the way this is going, though, and without any of the forum's regular "snipers".

Perhaps, like me, the forum's regular snipers feel that it's only worthwhile contributing if we've got something to contribute.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
However, to take a positive from it; it's going to make me take another look at the whole idea of relativity. Just when I thought I was getting the hang of it. smile

Relativity's 'law' of the constancy and maximum attainable speed of light is a barrier against scientific progress in general and the conquest of space in particular.

Whilst SR 'allows' long distance travel based on its time dilation factor neither industrialists nor politicians are keen to approve the expenditure of trillions of dollars on projects that might take millions of years to generate profits.

We need to take another look at the whole idea of relativity and if my feeble efforts prompt others to do so then I'll be happy.

A major objection to the concept of a variable speed of light in a gravitational field is the fact that it presents a challenge to the basis of the 'big bang' theory - the redshift of distant galaxies.

There we go - another quantum thread shift.

Top
#38198 - 04/22/11 02:07 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Ok, I see. You have unilaterally decided that Einstein is wrong, because you want him to be wrong. Therefore all the research that has shown he is right is also wrong. Since you don't want to be educated I will just stop trying.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38201 - 04/22/11 11:57 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
Ok, I see. You have unilaterally decided that Einstein is wrong, because you want him to be wrong. Therefore all the research that has shown he is right is also wrong. Since you don't want to be educated I will just stop trying.

A typical spoiled brat reaction.

I exposed the fact that you were starting to agree with me so you spit the dummy.

I have never suggested that Einstein was wrong!

I happen to agree with Einstein that special theory is invalidated by gravity.

In accordance with the scientific principle that no theory can be proven, only disproven, the research that has purportedly ratified SR does not prove SR however people such as yourself find no problem in ignoring such principles when it suits them to do so.

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." (Galileo)

I did not respond to this thread on the basis that I wanted to be educated but if I had I would certainly not accept the words of a biased, deceitful person like you.

Top
#38203 - 04/23/11 01:53 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
As I said, Einstein's theories have been extremely well tested, and they have always passed. Now you say that gravity is wrong in his theories. How do you explain all the times that it has been tested successfully?

Originally Posted By: Bill 6
"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." (Galileo)

The devil can quote the scriptures for his own ends.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38204 - 04/23/11 03:12 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill
As I said, Einstein's theories have been extremely well tested, and they have always passed. Now you say that gravity is wrong in his theories. How do you explain all the times that it has been tested successfully?

I made no comment to the effect that 'gravity is wrong' in Einstein's theories.

You previously wrote:-

Originally Posted By: Bill
Since you don't want to be educated I will just stop trying.

On the basis that you obviously lack the courage of your convictions as well as continue to post comments that you falsely attribute to me I herewith terminate our discussion.

Top
#38209 - 04/23/11 10:26 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bill6
I herewith terminate our discussion.


Only in this thread, I hope.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38213 - 04/24/11 03:53 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Only in this thread, I hope.

In any thread wherein a contributor resorts to deception.

Top
#38217 - 04/24/11 02:44 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA

Originally Posted By: Bill 6
In the MMX the light source is NOT accelerating relatively to the observer!

Then the circular rotation of the earth and its approximately circular orbit around the sun don't produce an accelerated motion. And the experiments operation in the earth's gravitational field didn't cause any relativistic changes.

Originally Posted By: Bill 6
Relativity's 'law' of the constancy and maximum attainable speed of light is a barrier against scientific progress in general and the conquest of space in particular.

Well yes, relativity's law of the constancy and maximum attainable speed of light is indeed a barrier against a lot of things that we wish would happen. Unfortunately, no matter how much we would like to find a way around it so far nobody has found such a way. And wishful thinking doesn't count in science. Unfortunately, we can't just wish away the laws of nature, we have to go ahead and live with them. So buck up and accept the facts, instead of railing against people who point them out to you.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#38220 - 04/24/11 10:29 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bill6
Imagine that you are looking at a light source located in your reference frame and some distance away from you. The source emits beams of light in opposite directions which, in a certain period of time as determined by your clock, travel identical distances away from that source:-

<----------•---------->

The source now starts accelerating across your line of vision and again emits beams of light in opposite directions which, in a certain period of time as determined by your clock, travel different distances away from their source:-

<---------------•----->

From your point of view, as a distant observer, the beams are moving at different speeds relative to you due to the fact that their source is accelerating.


Bill6, I know you said you were terminating your discussion in this thread, but I need some help getting my head around this, so I'm hoping you are still there.

I have no problem with the above quote up to the last sentence. You say: "...the beams are moving at different speeds relative to you...".

My interpretation of your second diagram would be that the two light beams are moving at the same speed relative to the observer, but appear to the observer to be moving at different speeds relative to the source. I'm quite prepared to believe I'm missing something, but I need to know what it is.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38222 - 04/25/11 02:27 AM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Bill6, I know you said you were terminating your discussion in this thread...

I have terminated a discussion in this thread not all of my discussions.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My interpretation of your second diagram would be that the two light beams are moving at the same speed relative to the observer, but appear to the observer to be moving at different speeds relative to the source. I'm quite prepared to believe I'm missing something, but I need to know what it is.

Special theory's concept of the constancy of the speed of light applies exclusively to inertial reference frames.

In my depiction the light source is accelerating ergo it is not an inertial reference frame thus SR's law of light speed constancy does not apply.

In accordance with the principle of equivalence - that law is, as Einstein pointed out in relation to gravitational fields, invalidated by acceleration/gravity.

Before the inevitable deceptive response is posted - there has never been an experiment which indicates the constancy of light emitted by an accelerating source.

But, thanks to your enquiry, I now realise that I confused the two observers and where I wrote that the beams emitted by the accelerating light source do not travel at the same speeds relative to the distant observer I should have written relative to the local observer; i.e. a person traveling along with the light source.

This does not, however, alter the fact that where the light source is at a fixed location from a black hole the respective beams travel at different speeds relative to the distant observer.


Top
#38225 - 04/25/11 05:27 PM Re: Light From Distant Galaxies. [Re: Bill 6]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bill6
...I should have written relative to the local observer; i.e. a person traveling along with the light source.


I could be getting there - slowly. smile

Correct me if I am wrongly interpreting you, but you seem to be saying that an emitting source that is accelerating relative to a beam of light will observe that light as travelling at less than "c".
If that is the case, and the source were able to accelerate to the speed of light, would it not observe the light as stationary?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 2 of 13 < 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.