No, you're
claiming to identify issues with the mathematics or science. When asked to provide actual evidence, you've repeated your claims while adding increasingly aggressive language (e.g. "
I'll be on them like a ton of bricks", "
I'm like a cage-fighter working out toddlers", "What erudite arrogant tosh").
I've provided actual evidence. Optical clocks do go slower when they're lower. The
Shapiro delay is a delay, the radar signal goes slower when it goes past the sun. We have hard scientific evidence that the speed of light varies, and that's backed up by Einstein
as per a previous post of mine. So it's no use pretending I'm offering no evidence. It just won't wash.
Your sweet talk is not fully convincing.
Quoting a notorious crackpot and creationist wasn't much better.
But he is right that there is no motion through spacetime. We plot worldlines in it, but we don't move through it because it's an all-times view, a block universe. Your ad-hominem abuse doesn't change that.
Farsight said:
I'm giving you scientific evidence and straightforward logic.
Empty claim, contradicted by evidence.
LOL. Would you like me to tell you about the
optical clocks again as per a previous thread? Or how about the
NIST Caesium Fountain Clock which uses the hyperfine transition and microwaves to define the second? Here it is again for your convenience:
"Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".
In the NIST caesium fountain clock, lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which emit microwaves - light in the wider sense. There’s a peak frequency in the emitted light, which is found and measured by the detector. But note that frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. So what the detectors actually do is count incoming microwave peaks, and when they get to 9,192,631,770,
that's a second. The frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. Then we use the second along with light to define the metre:
"Since 1983 the metre has been defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second".
And since everything has an electromagnetic nature, and since we define our second and our metre using the motion of light, and then use them to
measure the speed of light, we always measure the local speed of light to be the same.
Your response would have been more convincing if you hadn't demonstrated the truth of my statement just a moment later.
Change the record, Clinger. Taking refuge behind
you don't understand the mathematics just isn't good enough.
Everyone agrees that coordinates are arbitrary. You, however, are the only one whose argument is founded upon a mere artifact (excuse me: "artefact"
) of your arbitrary choice of coordinates.
No, my argument is based on the empirical evidence of what's there,
light moving, and what Einstein actually said.
Wrong? Well, that's easy enough to check. Here's the metric for Schwarzschild's solution of the Einstein field equations for spacetime around an isolated black hole, in Lemaître coordinates:
[latex]
\[
ds^2 = - d \tau^2 + \frac{2M}{r} d \rho^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2
\]
[/latex]
For light traveling radially, ds=dΩ=0 so the coordinate speed of radial light is
[latex]
\[
\frac{d \rho}{d \tau} = \pm \sqrt{\frac{r}{2M}}
\]
[/latex]
At the event horizon, r=2M so the coordinate speed of light is plus or minus unity.
Looks like I was right. This is not the first time you've said someone's math or science was wrong when they were right all along. It's beginning to look as though your opinions are less than worthless.
Looks like you're using circular reasoning. Because everybody can look at
Lemaitre coordinates and read this:
Changing to Lemaître coordinates removes the coordinate singularity at the Schwarzschild radius, which is present in Schwarzschild coordinates.
Again you've evaded the undefined result at R=2M. I will reiterate, to understand why it's incorrect to do this you have to look at the empirical evidence of moving light, and what Einstein said, and what clocks do. Clocks do not measure "the flow of time", they clock up some regular motion and display a cumulative tally that we call the time. And when those distant observers in the universe at large observe that a light clock has stopped, it has stopped. You cannot perform a coordinate transformation to pretend that it has not stopped, and is instead still ticking. Not in the real world. Because it takes forever for that clock to tick; it hasn't ticked yet, and never ever will
ETA: The point of the above calculation is not that the coordinate speed of light is unity in any objective sense, but that the coordinate speed of light is a mere artifact of your arbitrary choice of coordinate system.
sol invictus stated that fact in
post #60.
Farsight denied that fact in
his post #61 and following. It will surprise few that
Farsight is wrong and
sol invictus right.
I'm right. Sol's wrong. One employs the CMBR to define a coordinate system for the universe as a whole, and notes that when light doesn't move, there are no seconds and there no metres, and no coordinate system either. Besides, his waterfall claim is based on the assumption that the speed of light is absolutely constant. Look at his
post #88. He has a bitter pill to swallow when he reads my sonar reference.
! So how do you do anything with something that does not exist?
since you are not a troll, just another crank demonstrating your ignorance of GR on the Internet.
