Variable Speed of Light Theories

[r_speir]

@stcordova

This thought experiment shows that there are situations where shooting spacecraft in opposite directions do NOT necessitate clocks on the space craft both slowing down to the same rate – in fact it’s possible one clock speeds up and the other slows down (as illustrated by the space craft launched from Rabbit station). Hence this assymetry suggests there must be a Vref = 0 in principle.

I am interested in this somewhat. I don’t think you need an animation right now because it might take too long. Simply draw it up in a figure, picture form with arrows, captions to help clarify. That your experiment takes place in weak gravity is significant, the complaints above notwithstanding.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@structureoftruth

Okay, this requires a huge facepalm emoticon. Sorry Sal, this experiment in no way, whatsoever, shows that there is an absolute reference frame. You are confusing yourself.

Whatever terminolgy is used, the point of the exercise and thought experiments is to argue not just for an absolute Vref = 0 with respect to a local space, but more importantly for an absolute reference clock, which makes a lot of sense on many levels. For example:

Problem of time - Wikipedia

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1]

So what side of the issue are you on as far as time? I say absolute time makes a lot of sense, and there are probably a few physicists who would suggest QM takes precedence over GR.

I’ve posed thought experiments suggesting time is absolute, but CLOCK rates can be malleable, but not time itself. That seems a common sense interpretation, and that common sense interpretation is what my thought experiment is trying to illustrate.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Sal,

Thanks for coming and posting the ideas. It doesn’t quite smell right to me, but I am not well-versed enough in physics to know whether your explanation is wrong or my nose is wrong! I invite Ph.D. physicists @PdotdQ, @pevaquark, and @glipsnort to provide informed comment.

Thanks,
Chris

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@T_aquaticus

I would certainly be interested in a presentation of Larmor’s argument and supporting evidence.

Thank you for your interest in Larmor, I only knew of his work in passing since he is mentioned on and off. But importantly, his “relativity” ideas preceded Einstein’s though Larmor himself was crticial of Einstein’s GR.

The wiki entry is currently my best resource as I am presently more interested in either recent experiments or re-interpretations of old experiments. Anyway:

Joseph Larmor - Wikipedia

Parallel to the development of Lorentz ether theory, Larmor published an approximation to the Lorentz transformations in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1897… He obtained the full Lorentz transformation in 1900 by …This was done around the same time as Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1904) and five years before Albert Einstein (1905).

Larmor however did not possess the correct velocity transformations, which include the addition of velocities law, which were later discovered by Henri Poincaré. Larmor predicted the phenomenon of time dilation, at least for orbiting electrons, by writing (Larmor 1897): “… individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio (1 – v2/c2)^1/2”. He also verified that the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction (length contraction) should occur for bodies whose atoms were held together by electromagnetic forces. In his book Aether and Matter (1900), he again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor was opposed to the spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity because he continued to believe in an absolute aether. He was also critical of the curvature of space of general relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927).

Here again is someone who asserts absolute time and “time dilation” (better term is changing of clock rates).

Also, I think Larmor is correct that the Lorentz transformation does not necessitate conflating space and time into a spacetime model. Some work by Cahill attempts to show that Minkowski-Einstein spacetime models are merely a mathematical abstraction that can be done a way with in favor of making space and time separate dimensions.

In fact, when I studied GR (most of which I forgot), this statement in the opening chapter of my textbook violated my sensibilities:

What we shall now do is adopt a new unit for time, the meter.

Bernard Shutz, A First Course in General Relativity, 2nd Ed.

I was able to slug through the equations to do homework and exams, but I kept thinking, “isn’t there a more elegant way to conceive of this where time and space are separate dimensions? Measuring time in meters is an abomination.”

[PdotdQ]

@stcordova

I want to diagram the experiment that will show that V is best interpreted in relation to the absolute zero Vref=0V_{ref} = 0 other wise this leads to absurdities.

According to mainstream physics, SR has no absurdities. This statement of yours directly counters that.

The answer is clear, but since you never answered my question here Teaching Christian Apologetics in a MegaChurch (McLean Bible) with TE's, OECs, YECs - #55 by PdotdQ, I wil ask again:

Do you, @stcordova, who by your own admission is not an expert in physics, agree or disagree with mainstream physics? Keep in mind that according to you, physics is at the top of the “pecking order” of science.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@PdotdQ

agree or disagree with mainstream physics?

Depends on what you mean by agree, I agree with 100% of experimental physics, does that count as “agree.”

I don’t agree with mainstream hypotheses lacking direct experimental verification – like inflation models that move galactic amounts of matter/energy at thousands or millions times the speed of light – how is that fundamentally different from miracles relative to everyday physics? I don’t agree dark matter is real especially since so many models admit it may be untestable or undetectable in lab experiments. Same for dark energy/anti-gravity.

And now even the CMB is starting to become questioned, not just by creationists.

I don’t have as much problems with astro phyisics as far as stellar structure. Pretty amazing physics.

But, since I attempted to answer your question to the best of my abilities, I will pose a relevant simple question to you. Do you think there is an absolute cosmic time. It pertains to this issue raised here in wiki:

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute , whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1]

I think your answer would be of interest to everyone here which side of the issue you’re on regarding absolute time.

[PdotdQ]

Don’t switch the topic. I am not even talking about cosmology, just special relativity. So, you think this:

@stcordova

Depends on what you mean by agree, I agree with 100% of experimental physics, does that count as “agree.”

Thereby, you agree 100% that preferred frame effects has been disproven to one part in one thousand billion.

Further, do you, @stcordova, who claims no expertise in physics, agree or disagree with the mainstream physics position that SR has no absurdities?

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@PdotdQ

Thereby, you agree 100% that preferred frame effects has been disproven to one part in one thousand billion.

Depends what you mean by preferred frame since so many of the supposed proofs against preferred frames show that there is absolute time, which suggests there is a preferred frame. Your question is a leading question, like " have you stopped beating your puppy." Answering yes or no is pointless.

So I didn’t change the topic, I tossed in a relevant perspective.

That said, since we’re apparently not having a conversation anymore, if @Chris_Falter wants to ask you about absolute time he can.

[PdotdQ]

@stcordova

Depends what you mean by preferred frame since so many of the supposed proofs against preferred frames show that there is absolute time, which suggests there is a preferred frame.

What proof? I am talking about experimental physics. And you are changing the topic, by bringing in things like CMB and cosmology, in a topic about special relativity.

Regardless, you have not answered the question,

@PdotdQ

Further, do you, @stcordova, who claims no expertise in physics, agree or disagree with the mainstream physics position that SR has no absurdities?

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@stcordova

Whatever terminolgy is used, the point of the exercise and thought experiments is to argue not just for an absolute Vref = 0 with respect to a local space, but more importantly for an absolute reference clock, which makes a lot of sense on many levels.

But @T_aquaticus has pointed out what is wrong with your thought experiment in that regard - you just arbitrarily choose one clock in the thought experiment and said it must be the absolute one. You haven’t considered how SR successfully and consistently describes this situation from all reference frames when you account for the transformation rules between them.

@stcordova

So what side of the issue are you on as far as time? I say absolute time makes a lot of sense, and there are probably a few physicists who would suggest QM takes precedence over GR.

I am an A-theorist about time for philosophical reasons, and I agree also that quantum non-locality is a valid basis on which to believe that there might be absolute simultaneity, even though relativity theories make no use of that concept (and some solutions of GR appear to exclude it). So I agree that time in some sense is absolute and that this is a reasonable belief. But your thought experiment here is not what shows that.

[T_aquaticus]

@stcordova

Here again is someone who asserts absolute time and “time dilation” (better term is changing of clock rates).

But is he right? That’s the question. This is also outside my field of expertise so perhaps someone with the physics chops can tackle Larmor’s work if they have the time or willingness.

[PdotdQ]

@structureoftruth

You haven’t considered how SR successfully and consistently describes this situation from all reference frames when you account for the transformation rules between them.

Correct. @stcordova seems to think that this leads to absurdities in SR, and somehow mainstream physicists are too stupid to know that SR has absurdities. So I ask @stcordova again:

@PdotdQ

Further, do you, @stcordova, who claims no expertise in physics, agree or disagree with the mainstream physics position that SR has no absurdities?

This is not a leading question like you said:

@stcordova

Your question is a leading question, like " have you stopped beating your puppy." Answering yes or no is pointless.

I’ll prove it by answering it myself:
I, @PdotdQ, agrees with the mainstream physics position that SR has no absurdities.

If it is a leading question like “have you stopped beating your puppy”, I wouldn’t want to answer it myself, would I?