Re: Is c really constant in a strong grav field?


"Koobee Wublee" <kublai@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7YLTe.6016$mH.1791@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <Murat.H.Ozer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1126108823.609632.116600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> SR demands the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is
>> because of the FLAT spacetime employed by SR.
>
> This is not true. One can write down Lorentz Transforms where the
> observing frame and the observed frame have different values of the speed
> of light in vacuum. The Lorentz Transforms you are familiar with is just
> not complete. Below is a complete set.
>
> ** dt' / c' = (dt / c + B dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dx' / c'^2 = (dx / c^2 + B dt / c) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dy' / c'^2 = dy / c^2
> ** dz' / c'^2 = dz / c^2
>
> ** dt / c = (dt' / c' - B dx' / c'^2) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dx / c^2 = (dx' / c'^2 - B dt' / c') / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dy / c^2 = dy' / c'^2
> ** dz / c^2 = dz' / c'^2
>
> All symbols should be self-explanatory. The corresponding spacetime
> equation becomes as follows.
>
> dt^2 / c^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) / c^4 = dt'^2 / c'^2 - (dx'^2 + dy'^2 +
> dz'^2) / c'^4
>
>> However, mathematical
>> consistency in GR demands that the speed of light in curved
>> spacetime be given by
>
> If you have two frames with different values of the speed of light, you
> can write down an utmost generalized Lorentz transform described above.
> The spacetime equation from this transform is not the same as the
> spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric. Therefore, for GR to be
> valid, the speed of light has to be a universal constant.
>
>> v_c = cSqrt(g_00),
>> which reduces to c when g_00 = 0, as in flat spacetime.
>
> Casting GR aside, the equation above does fit into what is observed to the
> first order. However, it does not account for 43" of Mercury's orbital
> advance. In order to fit the observed anomaly to Mercury's orbit, you
> must have the following equation accurate to the 2nd order effect.
>
> v_c ~= c (1 - U - 3 U^2 / 2), to the 2nd order, where
>
> ** U = G M / r^2 / c^2, the first order, the Newtonian limit
> ** U^2 = 2nd order
>
> For reference,
>
> sqrt(g_00) ~= 1 - U - U^2 / 2

With some typos corrected above, these very generalized Lorentz Transforms
actually mathematically prove the existence of the Aether. How? Because
the watered-down version does not have any justification why it is so. With
the generalized concept of how two frames of references with two different
values of the speed of light in vacuum are able to observed each other in
accordance exactly what gravity is.

Since the observed mass is dependent on the local speed of light, the
Chandrasekhar mass in the past was higher if the speed of light has been
increasing ever since the Big Bang. This could easily account for the
observed anomaly in the Type Ia supernovae in the past. There is no need
for the concept of Dark Energy. Dark Energy becomes only a weak alibi for
the faulty theory of general relativity.

Oh, the Big Bang can take a back seat as a Weak Bang. The increasing speed
of light as time increases can easily account for the Hubble redshift. How?
Because you can always write an equation describing Doppler shift with the
speed of ligtht increasing over time. As the universe increases in size,
the Aether is stretched to allow a higher value of the speed of light. The
expansion of the universe does not have to be dicatated by galaxies flying
apart but rather the space or the Aether expanding to allow a higher value
of the speed of light thus the observed redshift of ancient astronomical
objects.

Well, all macroscopic observations fit very nicely to this model except some
of the observations of the particle physics. The universe is a lot more
ellusive yet simpler than what is believed to be.


.

Relevant Pages