Speed of light revisited yet still again

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

In the quantum world, it might well seem, as though you are arguing this question with me. However, time being what it is, your actual argument is with history, so pretend that it never happened. The fabric of time, will be bent not by your neural disbelief.

Einstein published his general theory of relativity in 1916. In a subsequent paper, he tried to use general relativity to set up a static universe. However, general relativity itself, along with special relativity is completely accepted by the scientific community and taught to physics students in colleges all over the world.

Your statement was "Relativity has already been proven wrong." I have provided several quotations indicating that relativity is the currently accepted theory. Here is yet another:

"General relativity is the prevailing, modern theory of gravity."
Found at: http://www.insidescience.org/content/celebrating-einstein-through-100-years-general-relativity/958

I have asked you repeatedly in post after post to provide any link at all stating that relativity is no longer accepted by the scientific community. Your strategy appears to be to ignore the request. Were you correct, it would be all over the Internet and take no more than a minute to find one link.

You have been shown to be wrong, but just won't admit it. I will ask you yet again, provide one link which states that scientists now consider relativity to be incorrect.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

dalehileman wrote:
….. if we assume that somehow we're underestimating the speed of light, that it's not c but many times c....

Quote:

And those countless measurements made for over a century that agree with each other?….Provide a link which states that the scientific community regards relativity as a disproven theory or admit that you're wrong.

Bran I don't dispute its speed as c by conventional means of measurement. I merely put forth an alternate way of looking at time-at-a-distance

If sufficiently patient you're invited herewith to review the OP as well as numerous other earlier threads upon the subject I've posted or participated in over the past 17 years

dalehileman wrote:
…. if Polly leaves her home planet Mars at light speed...

Quote:

Can't happen.

Of course not. However countless mental experiments are daily performed with the rocketeer launching almost instantly to velocity c

Would require quite a jerk
Forgive pun

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Space is not expanding, the galaxies are moving apart, increasing the areas of space between the galaxies. Your analogy is just like saying that the highway was expanding, if two cars drove away from each other on that highway. It's nonsense.

I have provided three links which state that space is expanding. Here is yet another:

"Thus, the universe is not expanding "outwards" into pre-existing space; space itself is expanding, defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe. "
Found at: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_expanding.html

You can't just ignore reference after reference without providing any evidence of your own. Now, cite your source.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

...dalehileman wrote:
…. if Polly leaves her home planet Mars at light speed...

Quote:
Can't happen.
Of course not. However countless mental experiments are daily performed with the rocketeer launching almost instantly to velocity c...

There is no value whatever to speculating what would happen within existing theory if something prohibited by the theory occurred.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

There is no value whatever to speculating what would happen within existing theory if something prohibited by the theory occurred.

Okay then Bran, instead she took off from one of its moons, passing a few seconds later in our dir at (nearly) c

There is in fact great value in the admittedly ridiculous assumption, and that is vastly simplifying a discussion involving c. It's so much easier asserting, "Marty takes off at c with her watch reading noon and arriving here an instant later, she notes, still reading 12:00"

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

Space is not expanding, the galaxies are moving apart, increasing the areas of space between the galaxies

I'm really impressed by the depth of this controversy as the diff is something about which I'd long wondered. That is, if I measure the velocity of a distant object how the expansion figures in. Do keep it up

However I'm still open to a discussion of my suggestion in the OP that the speed of light might be considered much, much higher than c with a slightly different way of looking at time-at-a-distance

.....with Marty insisting we too should consider it still noon back home

That hers is by no means a denial of relativity, merely another way of interpreting it, a "relative relativity"

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

I appreciate Ros' and your explanations, but don't think I'll ever be quite ready for them.

Bingo Ros, it's baffling. In my vast ignorance I wonder for instance how the apparent diff in c shows up in observation of a distant galaxy--or if indeed it does

I wonder of my own crazy version of things might somnehow resolve the controversy

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
There is no value whatever to speculating what would happen within existing theory if something prohibited by the theory occurred.

Okay then Bran, instead she took off from one of its moons, passing a few seconds later in our dir at (nearly) c

There is in fact great value in the admittedly ridiculous assumption, and that is vastly simplifying a discussion involving c...."

Not to anybody with the tiniest actual knowledge of physics.

dalehileman wrote:

It's so much easier asserting, "Marty takes off at c with her watch reading noon and arriving here an instant later, she notes, still reading 12:00"

There is no variant of relativity theory in which objects move from A to B and their internal clocks measure zero duration. I guess you really just don't like reading competent expositions of science. If you could tolerate them, you would have made at least a little progress in the year you've been posting here about relativity.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

There is no variant of relativity theory in which objects move from A to B and their internal clocks measure zero duration

Bran again there must be a typo 'cause this doesn't make sense. Einstein says if Marty leaves at noon her time, she arrives here a very short time later with her watch still reading 12:00 (or whatever goes for noon there)

Quote:

I guess you really just don't like reading..

Everything I've read so far (except of course around here) says that to her the trip is almost instantaneous while to us her watch is standing still with her lips still parted just as at takeoff

[Edited to hasten to assure of course that to us she looks that way for at least 3 minutes]

2 Replies

Since this Marty person (do you really have to have cute little names for these people?) cannot travel at the speed of light, but at some lower speed, when she travels from somewhere to somewhere else, some amount of time will elapse. Her watch will show some time passing. It may need extra digits for milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, etc. It may be "small", but it won't be "zero".

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

Since this Marty person (do you really have top have cute little names for these people?)

I apologize most profusely

Quote:

cannot travel at the speed of light, but at some lower speed,

Somehow Marty you've skipped over some of the earlier postings. It's common practice to contemplate such goings-on at (or near) c

Quote:

…. nanoseconds, etc. It may be "small", but it won't be "zero".

Edited to concede Aha, Con now I think I see what you're saying. Perhaps I was remiss….

…but again in my own defense I don't believe I said anywhere her watch to be quite that accurate….

…so if a misunderstanding, I hope we can easily resolve

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Bingo Ros, it's baffling.

I wish these ideas were simple and intuitive Dale, but they are not. And the more I try to simplify them and come up with analogies which are intuitive, the less accurate the answer becomes.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon, seriously, if you provided a million links that all said that space was expanding, it could not be proven true, by a million people who have never been there, or examined evidence from there. Where is there, well son there is 250 to 300 trillion miles from here, and for any person to say that space is expanding, as matter enters it, would take some sort of evidence, which no matter how many links you provide, it is known by all coherent logical people, that no human can provide this evidence, at this time.

So your links, are nonsense, unlike mine which recounted history.

At least now you know that Hubbel, proved a major part of relativity wrong, and that the parts that were not proven wrong, also have not been proven, correct, which is why they exist as theory and not fact.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3MuMPLoQZN4/mqdefault.jpg

Amen.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Not to anybody with the tiniest actual knowledge of physics.

Brandon, you had no clue that Hubbel forced Einstein to change the theory of relativity, so please spare us the lecture. The fact is that less than 1 percent of PHD level physicist, can grasp the true nature of relativity. You of course are in the 1 percent, aren't we lucky......

0 Replies

DNA Dumb drive wrote:

you had no clue that Hubbel forced Einstein to change the theory of relativity

If you cannot spell Hubble properly, how can you pretend to know his works?

1 Reply

@timur,

Well son, it works, because you knew the meaning.

Next.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

If it is sufficient to you, continue to post your crap, old man...

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
There is no variant of relativity theory in which objects move from A to B and their internal clocks measure zero duration
Bran again there must be a typo 'cause this doesn't make sense. Einstein says if Marty leaves at noon her time, she arrives here a very short time later with her watch still reading 12:00 (or whatever goes for noon there)...

False.

1 Reply

@timur,

The riddler is still the riddler, is still the riddler, and you are still the stumped stump.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Crapster logic and knowledge is hardly my thing..

0 Replies

Speed of light revisited yet still again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know