Re: Einstein's idea is right

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:12:36 -0700, Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 6, 7:39 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Chris wrote:

Einstein's idea was about light coming down from a lamp on a cliff as the
light came down it gains energy from the gravitational pull so that its
energy increases, Light cannot change velocity so the frequency rises [...]

Hmmm. The problem with this description is that the key attributes,
energy, speed, and frequency, are ALL coordinate dependent. This is GR,
which is explicitly coordinate independent, and you are fooling yourself
by making conclusions from coordinate-dependent quantities.

Hmmm. GR does not have a good explanation on gravitational red shift
anyway. You are just fooling yourself if you think it does.

Open a textbook sometime. Then read it.

Normally I wouldn't have to say the second part, much less the first,
but you are a special person who needs special considerations.


To illustrate, there are two different coordinate systems that violate
one or more of your claims:

Common to both: as this is on earth, the fields are quite weak and I can
use Euclidean spatial coordinates. So the only difference is in the time
coordinate.

A. Time coordinate is a standard clock on top of the cliff, extended
to other locations by light signals that transfer the tick rate
of the master clock to the slaves (which just count ticks of
the signals sent from the master).

In these coordinates the speed of light is not constant, it is c at the
top, it is faster than c when measured at the bottom or when measured
going down, and is slower than c when measured going up; the round-trip
speed of light measured top->bottom->top is slower than c. The frequency
of the light is constant, as is its energy.

To an observer, nothing can be measured moving faster than his
observed speed of light in vacuum. This is a very fundamental
principle. So, what you are saying is violating the laws of physics.

Also, since energy as correctly identified by you as observer
dependent is proportional to the speed squared, you are just fooling
yourself if you think each frame would always measure exactly the same
value of the speed of light in vacuum where the speed of light at each
frame is not necessarily the same as you have stated.

Oh look - you *still* think E = mc^2 is valid in all situations. How
quaint and stupid.


B. Time coordinate is determined by an array of standard clocks
that cover the region of interest; as these clocks will drift
apart, they are re-synchronized immediately before any measurement.

In these coordinates the speed of light is constant, the frequency of
the light is higher at the bottom, as is its energy. The problem here is
that these coordinates do not remain valid for very long, or if one
insists on using them for a long time, the speed of light does crazy
things (can become infinitely fast going down or even arrive before it
left, can become arbitrarily slow going up).

The problem here is that you are not applying the same physical law of
time dilation to gravity and SR. In gravity, the gravitational time
dilation is fudged without much mathematical backing to indicate red
shift. In SR, also with time dilation, transverse Doppler shift is
blue not red.

More incoherent babbling about a subject you do not understand. There
is no "physical law" to apply other than the relevant physical theory.


The basic mistake you make is in ascribing properties to light which are
NOT intrinsic properties of light. Neither speed, frequency, nor energy
are intrinsic to a light beam, they are RELATIONSHIPS between the light
beam and some specific coordinate system or measurement apparatus.

The obvious mistake you have made is not to apply the same law of
physics to all the situations. You have to decide which law of
physics you wish light to obey and stay with it. If not, you are just
preaching a religion. <shrug>

Ah, the usual prattle about science being a religion. I was wondering
how long that would take. Now how long for you to whine about Einstein
worshipping?


GR is quite complicated, and it is EXTREMELY difficult to make a simple
sound bite that is valid. It is impossible to do so using coordinate
dependent quantities.

GR is actually exceedingly simple. It is only bound by the Einstein
field equations in which they have a solution for any universe of your
imagination. The rest of crap is merely conjectures without any
mathematical bases. <shrug>

Oh no! A physical theory has as many solutions as you do physical
circumstances! Stop the presses!

*gasp*

Did you know F = ma has an infinite number of solutions because there
are infinite varities of "F" ?

Did you know that -i\hbar * d\psi/dt = -\hbar^2/2m * psi + V(r,t)*psi
has an INFINITE number of solutions depending on what you put in for
the potential function?

Or are you still hung up on not being able to mentally comprehend that
a coordinate transformation merely changes the form of the metric
components and does not actually change any of the physics?

I really don't know where your criticisms come from anyway because you
are unable to even handle simple index placement on a definition of a
tensor without screwing that up.


For $99,999, I will find a solution to the Einstein field equations
that fits the laws of a universe in your dream.

Why not go back to the threads you have ran away from?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8d37ba4ee6856fcc?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0feb123cafcca830?dmode=source

Since you are getting more and more unable to answer criticisms, you
seem to be resorting to the tried-and-true tactic of shitting and
running. You say your stupid ***, then you run away because you are
unable to defend any of it.

How long until you change your name again?
.

Quantcast