1. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
No, because you can hold your hands up a metre apart, and you can see the space between them. You can see the distance between them, and you can see that it's the same distance between the two ends of the metre rule. You can also waggle your hands and see them moving. So space and motion are empirical. But you can't see time flowing through those optical clocks.
So you say that space and time are empirical:we can measure or "see" them both: in the distance between your hands and the rate at which you waggle them.

But then you argue that clocks don't measure time because you can't see "time flowing through it". No one says you can see "time flowing". However, in the same way you can "see time" in the frequency at which you waggle your hands, you can "see time" in a clock by the frequency at which the escapement moves, or the caesium atoms radiate or the light bounces.

I don't think that basing a theory on a metaphor, that is also a straw man, is a very compelling argument.
Last edited by Strange; 2019-Jan-28 at 11:22 AM.

2. Your argument that clocks don't run slower because time slows, but because the speed of light changes is just a choice of coordinates. You can keep one thing invariant and allow others to change. A similar argument can be made for the expansion of the universe: things aren't moving apart, they just appear to be because because our "rulers" are getting shorter.

That doesn't make one interpretation more "true" or "real" than the other. Unless it produces different results. Does your model produce different results? If not, how do we verify or falsify it?

3. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Ken G
Go back and read what I said. If you won't read what I say, there's definitely no point in continuing.

4. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by profloater
I accept all the evidence, I accept also the maths, but maths is not any measure of cause and effect, it’s a model.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by profloater
I do not know if the whole explanation is that light slows down, but that is not cause and effect...
It is cause and effect. Waves curve when they move through some place where there's a gradient in wave speed.

Originally Posted by profloater
...any more than saying gravity is why the apple falls
I think it's fair enough to say the apple falls down because of gravity. Sure, it doesn't describe the mechanism by which the apple accelerates downwards, but I don't think many people would object to it.

Originally Posted by profloater
Gravity is a work in progress for physics. By illustrating that you are not challenging the mainstream. If i ignore the cosmos i can work with gravity using Newton, but he fails to give a cause for the effect, only rather easy to use Maths.
Don't forget that Newton said this: "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?" It's just about the same as what Einstein said, and what I've said in this thread.

5. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
Yes, that's my point. Because the story you are telling us is all about the mathematics. Light goes slower in a gravity field only in a particular set of coordinates. In another set of coordinates, it's travelling at c. You're making a category error by claiming you're talking about what really happens.
I'm not making a category error, Grant. All observers see the lower clock going slower. It really is going slower.

6. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Shaula
But two observers in motion won't agree on the distance between my hands, even if they have their own rulers to compare with.
Agreed. But they will both agree that there's a space between your hands.

Originally Posted by Shaula
My main point is that the statement that you can't see time flowing in a clock there fore you can't say a clock measures time effectively rules out most methods of measurement. An optical clock compares a calibrated system to another to give a measure of time. So does a ruler.
Only it isn't actually measuring "the passage of time". There is no literal thing called time flowing through it. It's giving you a cumulative measure of some kind of regular cyclical motion. So when the clock goes slower, you should know it's because the motion is going slower, not time. For an optical clock, that motion is the motion of light. So if you see the lower clock going slower, you should expect to see light curving downwards. Because like Einstein said, "the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

Originally Posted by Shaula
Your argument seems to boil down to you claiming one degree of freedom is special, without any strong justification.
The justification is that the constant speed of light contradicts Einstein, as well as the hard scientific evidence. The constant speed of light isn't justified at all, because people use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the local motion of light. Then they say the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s for both clocks in the gif in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Shaula
But anyway, the key question is - does your interpretation lead to different predictions to the more popular one?
Yes it does, but not for anything like the deflection of light by the Sun.

Originally Posted by Shaula
If the answer is yes then there is a chance it is interesting and new. If the answer is no then it doesn't matter. Pick whatever interpretation makes you happy. Science is about the model, the predictions, the tests. If your interpretation does lead to new predictions can you please present them here?
When you fall towards a black hole it’s because the speed of light is reducing. You fall towards the event horizon, faster and faster. All the while the speed of light is getting slower and slower. Falling bodies don’t stop accelerating, and they don’t slow down. So there has to be some crossover point where you would end up going faster than the local speed of light. Your velocity v would exceed the “coordinate” speed of light c at that location. Can you fall faster than the local speed of light? No. So what happens? A gamma ray burst. See the 2013 AMPS paper an apologia for firewalls. Tucked away in the conclusion is footnote 31, containing a reference 87 to Friedwardt Winterberg’s 2001 paper gamma ray bursters and Lorentzian relativity. Winterberg said "if the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters". There's other things too, but I think that's a good one to start with.
Last edited by The Physics Detective; 2019-Jan-28 at 12:44 PM.

7. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
Yes it does, but not for anything like the deflection of light by the Sun.

• What are these differences?
• What is the magnitude of the difference? (Please show your working)
• How does this compare with experimental/observational data?

Can you fall faster than the local speed of light? No. So what happens? A gamma ray burst.
Any testable predictions, rather than guesswork?

8. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
Well, there's this:I see a sequence of non sequiturs. Please explain why you think an electron is "light going around and around".
It starts with Schrödinger’s 1926 paper Quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. See page 18. That’s where he said "let us think of a wave group… which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length". He was talking about the electron. Also see Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper What is spin? Ohanian says Pauli pontificated that spin is an essentially quantum-mechanical property, and that the lack of a concrete picture was a satisfactory state of affairs. He also quotes from Pauli’s 1955 essay Exclusion Principle, Lorentz Group and Reflection of Space-time and Charge: "After a brief period of spiritual and human confusion caused by a provisional restriction to ‘Anschaulichkeit’, a general agreement was reached following the substitution of abstract mathematical symbols, as for instance psi, for concrete pictures. Especially the concrete picture of rotation has been replaced by mathematical characteristics of the representations of rotations in three-dimensional space". Ohanian goes on to say "the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy". For something more recent see Gordon decomposition of Dirac current: a new interpretation by Suresh C Tiwari. He says this: "wherever matter-radiation interaction is involved, eg the Newton-Lorentz equation or Dirac equation, factoring out e from electromagnetic quantities one always ends up with the combination e²/c that curiously has the dimension of angular momentum". He also says he put forward a conjecture that electric charge is a manifestation of mechanical rotation.

There's also hard scientific evidence in the Einstein-de Haas effect, and in the motion of an electron in a magnetic field. Spin angular momentum is real angular momentum. The electron really is a "spinor". This isn't mainstream yet, but I think it will be.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison
On the face of it, it seems this idea that matter is confined light should make predictions at variance with GR.
I don't see how. The deflection of matter is half the deflection of light, because only the horizontal element curves downwards. That fits with confined light idea.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison
In GR, slow-moving objects sample primarily the time curvature to determine their acceleration under gravity, whereas relativistic objects increasingly sample space curvature, too...
What space curvature? Einstein said a gravitational field is a place where space is "neither homogeneous not isotropic". Not curved.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison
...producing a velocity-dependent additional acceleration, with the observed deflection of light (2x Newtonian) as a limit.
Draw a circle of light to represent an electron: O. Now turn it sideways: |. Now move it fast: /\/\/\/\. You can treat it as something like the parallel-mirror light clock in the Simple inference of velocity time dilation on the Wikipedia time dilation article. Take it to the limit, and at c you draw it like this _____. The deflection is now 2 x Newtonian.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison
If objects fall simply because matter is "light going around and around", then all objects are maximally relativistic all the time, aren't they?
No, because only the horizontal element gets deflected. That's half the total.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison
So why doesn't the Newtonian approximation correctly predict the Einsteinian gravitational deflection of light?
Because it's correct for matter falling straight down.

9. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
This is why if you google on Einstein elastic space, there’s plenty of hits. This is also why I think general relativity is related to continuum mechanics. This is why we have the stress-energy-momentum tensor, which "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime":

Public domain image by Maschen, based on an image by Bamse see Wikipedia

The shear stress term on the right tells you we’re dealing with something that could be modelled like some kind of elastic solid. The energy-pressure diagonal tells you it's an elastic solid subject to pressure.
Isn't this confusing "cause and effect" (which you are so hung up on)? Surely, the stress-energy tensor is summarising the things which affect space, not the nature of space. So it isn't saying that space is an elastic solid or that space is compressible. Those are the properties of the "stuff" that causes gravity by causing the curvature of spacetime (as described by the Ricci tensor).

Einstein didn’t talk about spacetime curvature. Instead he talked about space that was neither homogeneous nor isotropic.
I wonder why it is people who argue against relativity that quote Einstein extensively. ("I'm not against relativity, I'm just saying that it has been misinterpreted")

10. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Giorgio[/quote
It is very difficult to disprove your ATM since it is totally devoid of any mathematical formalism.
That's right. It's based on historic papers, and more importantly, on hard scientific evidence. Mathematical formalism is no substitute for that.

Originally Posted by Giorgio[/quote
A few points:

1. Light clocks tick slower due to the fact that "coordinate" light speed is variable (proper light speed is constant). KenG already pointed out the difference between the two, I could easily post the mathematical formalism that shows why light clocks' periods are dependent on gravitational potential. As an aside, all clocks' periods are dependent of the gravitational potential as explained by GR and tested by many experiments. GOS is living proof of this fact.
Apart from pendulum clocks. They run faster where the force of gravity is greater. The proper light speed is only constant because we use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the local speed of light. It's a tautology, as pointed out by John Moffat and João Magueijo in Comments on “Note on varying speed of light theories". They said this:

"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".

It's not only a tautology, it's an error of colossal proportions.

Originally Posted by Giorgio
2. You completely misunderstand two GR effects:

-light bending by the gravitational bodies

-Shapiro delay

Both these effects affect light VELOCITY, not light speed. Light speed is constant.
No I do not misunderstand two GR effects. See what Einstein said: "As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable". And see what Shapiro said: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2x10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun".

Originally Posted by Giorgio
Light bending by gravitational bodies, contrary to your ATM is not a refraction effect.
It is according to Einstein. See this. We don't call it gravitational lensing for nothing.

Originally Posted by Giorgio
If it were, the different wavelength components of white light would be bent by different angles, which they aren't.
That's a non-sequitur. The splitting of light in a prism is wavelength dependent because of an interaction between photons and the glass. There is no such interaction for photons moving through space.

Originally Posted by Giorgio
Now an exercise for you:

Q1. Using your ATM provide the mathematical prediction of the outcome of the Shapiro experiment.
Q2. Using your ATM provide the mathematical prediction of the advancement of the Mercury perihelion

No. I flatly refuse. It would take too much of my time, and it would prove nothing. Please read Shapiro's 1964 paper Fourth Test of General Relativity. Here is a screen shot giving the abstract. Note where it says this: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2x10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun".

11. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Ken G
That actually isn't how things work here, we are free to pick whatever part of the OP we wish and simply ask about that element. As for my part, I've already done that
You haven't picked the OP apart.

Originally Posted by Ken G
I'm convinced you will never answer any questions I pose to you that require you to demonstrate with any concrete examples that anyone needs to take your perspective or else they will get some testable answer wrong involving gravity. Now that I am satisfied that you cannot give any examples of any predictions that anyone would get wrong if they don't share your opinions, I have satisfied myself that you are not doing physics.
See my posts. I'm doing physics.

Originally Posted by Ken G
As such, there is no more to say. Not everything you are saying is wrong, but everything is just your opinion, and you tend to quote mine without understanding the context of the quotes you are using. In particular, the difference between a perspective someone is taking to help them understand GR, versus a truth that is required to take or else some answer comes out wrong. Until you can see that difference, I see no point in the discussion. You say physics isn't just shutting up and calculating, but you never actually calculate anything, so that's rather a wide gulf, wouldn't you say?
Yes, there is a wide gulf

Originally Posted by Ken G
For example, even after a long exchange, I still can't tell whether or not you now recognize that the equivalence principle can in fact be used, and quite easily so, to get the bending of a horizontal laser beam across a room. If your picture of gravity leads you to imagine that the equivalence principle gets that answer wrong, then it is I who am giving you an example of a testable conclusion that you are getting wrong, rather than the other way around.
The light beam doesn't curve downwards because your room is accelerating upwards. So why does it curve downwards? You are happy to ascribe no cause to this effect. I am not.

12. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
I'm not making a category error, Grant. All observers see the lower clock going slower. It really is going slower.

The Physics Detective

Please stop including pictures and animations that do nothing to further the point you are making in that post. Nothing is added to this post with this gif, except eating bandwidth.

13. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Strange
So you say that space and time are empirical:we can measure or "see" them both: in the distance between your hands and the rate at which you waggle them.
I said space and motion are empirical. See post #23. You can see your hand moving. You can see motion. But you can't see time.

Originally Posted by Strange
But then you argue that clocks don't measure time because you can't see "time flowing through it". No one says you can see "time flowing". However, in the same way you can "see time" in the frequency at which you waggle your hands, you can "see time" in a clock by the frequency at which the escapement moves, or the caesium atoms radiate or the light bounces.
You aren't really "seeing time". You're seeing something moving. A mechanical clock features some mechanism moving. It's called a movement. When the movement goes slower, the clock goes slower. If I showed you a mechanical clock going slow and told you it was because time was going slow inside the clock, you'd think I was foolish. But if I showed you two optical clocks and said the lower clock's going slower because time's going slower inside it, you'd think that was fine. It isn't. When the movement goes slower, the clock goes slower. And in this case, it's the movement of light.

Originally Posted by Strange
I don't think that basing a theory on a metaphor, that is also a straw man, is a very compelling argument.
There's no metaphor or straw man. You're objecting to the empirical evidence because you believe in something for which there is no evidence. You believe that the lower clock goes slower because time goes slower, even though go can't see this thing called time going anywhere. See A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It's quite heavy going philosophy at times, but there's some good stuff in there.

Originally Posted by Strange
Your argument that clocks don't run slower because time slows, but because the speed of light changes is just a choice of coordinates.
Einstein said what he said, and it isn't just a choice of coordinates. Coordinates are abstract things. They have no real existence. Optical clocks do, and so does light. I can show you these real empirical things, just as I can show you space and motion. I can also show you the lower clock going slower than the upper clock. But you can't show me time.

Originally Posted by Strange
You can keep one thing invariant and allow others to change. A similar argument can be made for the expansion of the universe: things aren't moving apart, they just appear to be because because our "rulers" are getting shorter.
Only the universe really is expanding. Nobody says it's OK to say we're getting shorter. One explanation is right, and the other is wrong.

Originally Posted by Strange
That doesn't make one interpretation more "true" or "real" than the other. Unless it produces different results. Does your model produce different results? If not, how do we verify or falsify it?
It gives different results when it comes to black holes. It tells you why you get gamma ray bursters. See what I said in post #36.

14. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Strange
• What are these differences?
• What is the magnitude of the difference? (Please show your working)
• How does this compare with experimental/observational data?
The differences are in essence this: just about everything you've read about black holes is wrong. As for the magnitude, I can't give any workings. I'm not proposing some alternative to Einstein's general relativity here. I'm describing how gravity works, using references to evidence and papers, and quotes from Einstein and others to persuade you that I'm right.

Originally Posted by Strange
Any testable predictions, rather than guesswork?
I think gamma ray bursts are testable. That's what kicked off the Golden Age of general relativity in the 1960s. Sagittarius A* is the site of black hole at the heart of our galaxy. People have been watching it for decades. See papers like Closest Star Seen Orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole at the Centre of the Milky Way or An Update on Monitoring Stellar Orbits in the Galactic Center. If a star falls in we're going to see a gamma ray burst, and the reason why is quite clear. It's because a gravitational field is a place in space where the speed of light is spatially variable. A body falling into a black hole from a great distance is said to be travelling at the speed of light when it crosses the event horizon. But that's a place where the speed of light is zero. Or the "coordinate" speed of light if you prefer. Either way you've got a problem.

Einstein wrote a relevant paper in 1939. It was On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses. He said "g44 = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2". As far as I know he didn't connect with Oppenheimer and Snyder. And as far as I know he missed the trick. He didn't think black holes could form, and he somehow thought falling bodies slow down.
Last edited by The Physics Detective; 2019-Jan-28 at 02:37 PM.

15. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Strange
Isn't this confusing "cause and effect" (which you are so hung up on)? Surely, the stress-energy tensor is summarising the things which affect space, not the nature of space.
Note where it says "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime".

Originally Posted by Strange
So it isn't saying that space is an elastic solid or that space is compressible.

Originally Posted by Strange
Those are the properties of the "stuff" that causes gravity by causing the curvature of spacetime (as described by the Ricci tensor).
It's energy that causes gravity. See this where Einstein said "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". That energy is "stuff", in that it isn't nothing, but it isn't matter.

Originally Posted by Strange
I wonder why it is people who argue against relativity that quote Einstein extensively. ("I'm not against relativity, I'm just saying that it has been misinterpreted")
I'm not arguing against relativity. I'm arguing for it.

16. Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
50
Originally Posted by Swift
The Physics Detective

Please stop including pictures and animations that do nothing to further the point you are making in that post. Nothing is added to this post with this gif, except eating bandwidth.
Please can you point me to your rules that say I shouldn't include pictures or animations? I think they're a great help in making my case. And surely this discussion is worth a bit of bandwidth?

The parallel-mirror gif is an important picture. Yes, it's idealized, as is the parallel-mirror light clock. But we all know that a parallel-mirror light clock will go slower when it's lower. That picture is intended to make the reader appreciate that both pulses are said to be moving at 299,792,458 m/s, and to take more notice of what Einstein said: "the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".

PS: do you mind if I fix the two deleted pictures in my OP, to insert the thumbnails?

All: OK, I've got to go now. I'll catch up with you this evening.

17. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
I said space and motion are empirical. See post #23. You can see your hand moving. You can see motion. But you can't see time.
The temporal separation between your hand being in one position and another is just as "visible" as the distance travelled (or, alternatively, neither are visible).

There's no metaphor or straw man.
Time "flowing" is a metaphor.

And it is a straw man because nothing in GR talks about time flowing.

Coordinates are abstract things. They have no real existence.
True of all measurements. But we can choose to measure things using an Earth-centred polar coordinate system (handy for long-distance navigation) or a local Euclidean system (handy for local navigation). Like all coordinate systems, you can convert between them.

It doesn't seem reasonable to say that one abstract thing is more "real" than another.

Optical clocks do, and so does light. I can show you these real empirical things, just as I can show you space and motion. I can also show you the lower clock going slower than the upper clock. But you can't show me time.
I can show you time running slower for one clock than another.

If the change in speed of a clock is caused by some mechanical effect of the clock itself, how come two different observers will see the same clock running at different speeds? How come observer A will see B's clock running slow and B will see A's clock running slow?

Only the universe really is expanding. Nobody says it's OK to say we're getting shorter. One explanation is right, and the other is wrong.
How would you prove that, scientifically. In other words, what measurements would you make to distinguish the two possibilities?

It gives different results when it comes to black holes. It tells you why you get gamma ray bursters.
Does it? How do you rule out other possibilities? You have a hypothesis, it needs further testing.

18. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
The differences are in essence this: just about everything you've read about black holes is wrong. As for the magnitude, I can't give any workings.
So you are not doing science.

I'm not proposing some alternative to Einstein's general relativity here. I'm describing how gravity works, using references to evidence and papers, and quotes from Einstein and others to persuade you that I'm right.
Quotes from Einstein, but no science.

I think gamma ray bursts are testable.
Then you need to come up with some quantitative predictions that show how the data from gamma ray bursts would be different in your hypothesis than others. Can you do that?

19. Closed pending moderator discussion.

20. Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
Please can you point me to your rules that say I shouldn't include pictures or animations? I think they're a great help in making my case. And surely this discussion is worth a bit of bandwidth?
Do not respond to or argue with moderation in-thread, unless asked to by the moderator (rule 17). If you wish to discuss a moderator action you can PM that moderator, another moderator or administrator, Report the moderator's post, or, if you wish a public discussion, start a thread in Feedback.

Originally Posted by The Physics Detective
<snip>

No. I flatly refuse. It would take too much of my time, and it would prove nothing. Please read Shapiro's 1964 paper Fourth Test of General Relativity. Here is a screen shot giving the abstract. Note where it says this: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2x10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun".
No, that is not an option. You were told to read the rules and the rules for ATM state you must answer relevant questions put to you. You can respond with "I don't know" or something similar. If you think a question is inappropriate, you can Report the post and ask a moderator to rule on it, but you can't just refuse because you don't want to take the time.

These infractions will give you some time off. Take that time to work on an answer to the question. Meanwhile, the thread stays closed. If you wish it reopened upon your return, Report this post (black triangle with the ! in the lower left corner.

21. As the proponent has turned out to be a sockpuppet this thread will remain closed.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•