Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Einstein gloriously "borrowed" from the nonexistent ether "the one aspect that he needed":

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Judging only from the variation of their speed, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in presence or absence of gravity, just like the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets). Actually, this is a proven truth but no one cares (post-truth science):

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:41:25 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> Einstein gloriously "borrowed" from the nonexistent ether "the one aspect that he needed":
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Judging only from the variation of their speed, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in presence or absence of gravity, just like the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets). Actually, this is a proven truth but no one cares (post-truth science):
>
> "Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> "A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Wow! That Tipler-Llewellyn textbook is really full of crap! It says this on page 100:

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which
shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of
the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating,
the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of
the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola.
But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an
accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational
field. We conclude, therefore, that a beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational
field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall
with acceleration 9.8 m s2. This is difficult to observe because of the enormous speed
of light. For example, in a distance of 3000 km, which takes about 0.01 second to
cover, a beam of light should fall about 0.5 mm. Einstein pointed out that the deflection
of a light beam in a gravitational field might be observed when light from a distant
star passes close to the Sun."

If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves faster and faster
than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!

A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c, which is 299,792,458
meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of the mountain at 299,792,458 meters
PER SECOND. However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
mountain than at the bottom. So, at the bottom they will measure the light as
traveling "faster" when it is actually traveling at the same speed. At the bottom of
the mountain they just used a LONGER SECOND.

Ed

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

So Einstein declared that light consists of particles but then "resisted the temptation" to draw the implications concerning the speed of light and "introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in a [nonexistent] ether". Nice confusion, wasn't it? Physics immediately became insane:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2198aa663d490ad9e32c87a9771ec5f4.webp

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On 2022-08-08 16:49:38 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> Wow! That Tipler-Llewellyn textbook is really full of crap! It says
> this on page 100:
>
> "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure
> 2-17, which
> shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive
> positions of
> the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the
> compartment is accelerating,
> the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of
> the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is
> therefore a parabola.
> But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to
> distinguish between an
> accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform
> gravitational
> field. We conclude, therefore, that a beam of light will accelerate in
> a gravitational
> field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of
> Earth light will fall
> with acceleration 9.8 m s2. This is difficult to observe because of the
> enormous speed
> of light. For example, in a distance of 3000 km, which takes about 0.01
> second to
> cover, a beam of light should fall about 0.5 mm. Einstein pointed out
> that the deflection
> of a light beam in a gravitational field might be observed when light
> from a distant
> star passes close to the Sun."

This is how Einstein reasoned about it.

> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> faster and faster
> than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!

At first it seems so. However, that didn't stop Einstein. It took him some
years to put all the pieces together but he managed to create a coherent
theory, now known as General Relativity, which mathematically predicts
what is described above. Observations confirm those predictions.

Mikko

On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!

Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
plain wrong.

The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.

[#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
and do not reflect physical phenomena.

> A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
> which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
> the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.

Both measured LOCALLY.

> However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
> mountain than at the bottom.

This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
we inhabit.

In GR, the local laws of physics are the same in every local region of
the manifold, including the vacuum speed of light being c, Cs-133 clocks
oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz, etc. Note, however, that measurements
of distant phenomena require signals from there to the measurement
instrument, and spacetime curvature affects how those signals are
measured -- this yields "gravitational redshift", etc.

I repeat: as you continually insist on using sloppy wording, relativity
is more subtle that it is possible for you to understand. You MUST
increase the precision of your thoughts and words.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 5:47:32 PM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
>
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second PRINCIPLE seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second PRINCIPLE something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Wow! Banesh Hoffmann really complicates things. And why does he
constantly refer to Einstein's POSTULATES as "principles"? In the
passage you quoted, you changed the second mention of "principle"
to "postulate." I changed it back to the way Hoffmann wrote it.

Light photons CONTAIN NO MASS. So, you cannot compare them to
throwing stones from a train. How do you throw something that has
no mass? You can't. Newton's laws do not apply. Photons are EMITTED,
not thrown.

> So Einstein declared that light consists of particles but then "resisted the temptation" to draw the implications concerning the speed of light and "introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in a [nonexistent] ether". Nice confusion, wasn't it? Physics immediately became insane:

And why does Hoffmann use the word "dilatation" instead of dilation?
Dilation refers to the act of becoming wider, larger, or more open.
Dilatation refers to the action of being dilated beyond normal dimensions

A textbook should EXPLAIN things, not complicate things.

Ed

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:51 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-08-08 16:49:38 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > Wow! That Tipler-Llewellyn textbook is really full of crap! It says
> > this on page 100:
> >
> > "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure
> > 2-17, which
> > shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive
> > positions of
> > the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the
> > compartment is accelerating,
> > the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of
> > the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is
> > therefore a parabola.
> > But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to
> > distinguish between an
> > accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform
> > gravitational
> > field. We conclude, therefore, that a beam of light will accelerate in
> > a gravitational
> > field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of
> > Earth light will fall
> > with acceleration 9.8 m s2. This is difficult to observe because of the
> > enormous speed
> > of light. For example, in a distance of 3000 km, which takes about 0.01
> > second to
> > cover, a beam of light should fall about 0.5 mm. Einstein pointed out
> > that the deflection
> > of a light beam in a gravitational field might be observed when light
> > from a distant
> > star passes close to the Sun."
> This is how Einstein reasoned about it.
> > If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> > faster and faster
> > than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
> At first it seems so. However, that didn't stop Einstein. It took him some
> years to put all the pieces together but he managed to create a coherent
> theory, now known as General Relativity, which mathematically predicts
> what is described above. Observations confirm those predictions.
>
> Mikko

"Observations," a..k.a. "experiments" show that light does NOT change
speeds and move faster and faster as it moves lower. TIME just ticks
slower at lower altitudes. So, when you measure the speed of light PER
SECOND, you get more speed when you have a longer second.

Experiments which verify this: #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and #12 here:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:51:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> > faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
> plain wrong.
>
> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
>
> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
> > A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
> > which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
> > the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> Both measured LOCALLY.
> > However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
> > mountain than at the bottom.
> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
> we inhabit.

"Actual experiments in the world we inhabit": #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and
#12 here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

On 8/9/2022 11:10 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:51:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
>>> faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
>> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
>> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
>> plain wrong.
>>
>> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
>> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
>> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
>> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
>> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
>> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
>>
>> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
>> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
>>> A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
>>> which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
>>> the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
>> Both measured LOCALLY.
>>> However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
>>> mountain than at the bottom.
>> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
>> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
>> we inhabit.
>
> "Actual experiments in the world we inhabit": #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and
> #12 here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
Every single one of those experiments has you ASSUMING the reason for
the results is your BELIEF clocks tick at different rates, not caused by
effects on signals used to compare the clocks. In other words, you are
assuming your conclusion.

Additionally, some of those experiments come with descriptions dumbed
down for the general public, who wouldn't understand the nuances of
effects on the signals vs. the easier to swallow "time passes at a
different rate". You're included with that group, since you don't
understand any of the many explanations you've been given. Instead
you've come up with your kooky BELIEF the length of seconds can be
different, and pretend that it's FACT, not your mistaken BELIEF.

For any experiment to prove your personal fantasy of length of the
second differing, you'll need to come up with some experiment which
gives one result if the length of a second is different and a different
result if the signal between two clocks is affected by SR/GR effects. I
don't expect you to even understand this paragraph, so you'll go right
back to claiming your personal fantasy of seconds of different lengths.

(And I again remind you of SR velocity effects of A and B in relative
motion, where A sees B's clock as running slow and B sees A's clock as
running slow. This cannot be explained by different lengths of A's
second and B's second. You either ignore this or supply some explanation
depending on some sort of absolute rest frame, or even claim that if A
sees B's clock as running slow, B must see A's clock as running fast,
not slow)

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 8/9/2022 11:10 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:51:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> >>> faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
> >> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
> >> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
> >> plain wrong.
> >>
> >> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
> >> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
> >> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
> >> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
> >> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
> >> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
> >>
> >> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
> >> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
> >>> A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
> >>> which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
> >>> the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> >> Both measured LOCALLY.
> >>> However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
> >>> mountain than at the bottom.
> >> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
> >> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
> >> we inhabit.
> >
> > "Actual experiments in the world we inhabit": #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and
> > #12 here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >
> Every single one of those experiments has you ASSUMING the reason for
> the results is your BELIEF clocks tick at different rates, not caused by
> effects on signals used to compare the clocks. In other words, you are
> assuming your conclusion.

No, every experiment is explained in plain English. For example, here is what
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) wrote about
experiment #2:

"Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—
a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been
measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."

A quote from #6:

"According to the theory of general relativity, the gravitational red shift causes
a clock placed at a lower altitude, where gravity is strong, to run more slowly
than a clock placed at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker."
>
> Additionally, some of those experiments come with descriptions dumbed
> down for the general public, who wouldn't understand the nuances of
> effects on the signals vs. the easier to swallow "time passes at a
> different rate". You're included with that group, since you don't
> understand any of the many explanations you've been given. Instead
> you've come up with your kooky BELIEF the length of seconds can be
> different, and pretend that it's FACT, not your mistaken BELIEF.

No, you evidently have a nonsensical belief that is not affected by the
results of any experiment. You believe that scientists are LYING ("dumbing
down" the facts) when they say things you do not believe.

And evidently you do not know the difference between experiments involving
the speed of light and experiments involving the passage of time at different
speeds and altitudes.

>
> For any experiment to prove your personal fantasy of length of the
> second differing, you'll need to come up with some experiment which
> gives one result if the length of a second is different and a different
> result if the signal between two clocks is affected by SR/GR effects. I
> don't expect you to even understand this paragraph, so you'll go right
> back to claiming your personal fantasy of seconds of different lengths.

Signals between two clocks is about the SPEED OF LIGHT and the distance
traveled. This discussion is about TIME DILATION.

>
> (And I again remind you of SR velocity effects of A and B in relative
> motion, where A sees B's clock as running slow and B sees A's clock as
> running slow. This cannot be explained by different lengths of A's
> second and B's second. You either ignore this or supply some explanation
> depending on some sort of absolute rest frame, or even claim that if A
> sees B's clock as running slow, B must see A's clock as running fast,
> not slow)

You cannot SEE a clock that is moving at high speeds away from you.
Instead, they make certain two clocks show the same amount of time
has passed since the clocks were "set," and then they move one of the
clocks at high speed to some distant point and then bring it back. When
the two clocks are compared, they show the clock that was moved
experienced less time than the clock that was stationary.

Ed

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

> Every single one of those experiments has you ASSUMING the reason for
> the results is your BELIEF clocks tick at different rates, not caused by
> effects on signals used to compare the clocks. In other words, you are
> assuming your conclusion.
>

Same as Ken Shito
> Additionally, some of those experiments come with descriptions dumbed
> down for the general public, who wouldn't understand the nuances of
> effects on the signals vs. the easier to swallow "time passes at a
> different rate". You're included with that group, since you don't
> understand any of the many explanations you've been given. Instead
> you've come up with your kooky BELIEF the length of seconds can be
> different, and pretend that it's FACT, not your mistaken BELIEF.
>
Same as Ken Shito
> For any experiment to prove your personal fantasy of length of the
> second differing, you'll need to come up with some experiment which
> gives one result if the length of a second is different and a different
> result if the signal between two clocks is affected by SR/GR effects. I
> don't expect you to even understand this paragraph, so you'll go right
> back to claiming your personal fantasy of seconds of different lengths.
>
Same as....once an idiot, always an idiot.

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 16:51:47 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> > faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
> plain wrong.
>
> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
>
> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
> > A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
> > which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
> > the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> Both measured LOCALLY.
> > However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
> > mountain than at the bottom.
> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
> we inhabit.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. Anyone can check GPS
or TAI, serious measurement equipment keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

>
> In GR, the local laws of physics are the same in every local region of
> the manifold, including the vacuum speed of light being c, Cs-133 clocks
> oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz, etc.

For sure, that's how things are in your tales. They're different
in real GPS, though.

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 18:05:26 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/9/2022 11:10 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:51:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
> >>> faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
> >> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
> >> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
> >> plain wrong.
> >>
> >> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
> >> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
> >> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
> >> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
> >> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
> >> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
> >>
> >> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
> >> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
> >>> A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
> >>> which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
> >>> the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> >> Both measured LOCALLY.
> >>> However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
> >>> mountain than at the bottom.
> >> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
> >> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
> >> we inhabit.
> >
> > "Actual experiments in the world we inhabit": #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and
> > #12 here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >
> Every single one of those experiments has you ASSUMING the reason for
> the results is your BELIEF clocks tick at different rates, not caused by
> effects on signals used to compare the clocks. In other words, you are
> assuming your conclusion.
>
> Additionally, some of those experiments come with descriptions dumbed
> down for the general public, who wouldn't understand the nuances of
> effects on the signals vs. the easier to swallow "time passes at a
> different rate". You're included with that group, since you don't
> understand any of the many explanations you've been given. Instead
> you've come up with your kooky BELIEF the length of seconds can be
> different, and pretend that it's FACT, not your mistaken BELIEF.
>
> For any experiment to prove your personal fantasy of length of the
> second differing, you'll need to come up with some experiment which
> gives one result if the length of a second is different and a different
> result if the signal between two clocks is affected by SR/GR effects. I
> don't expect you to even understand this paragraph, so you'll go right
> back to claiming your personal fantasy of seconds of different lengths.
>
> (And I again remind you of SR velocity effects of A and B in relative
> motion, where A sees B's clock as running slow and B sees A's clock as
> running slow. This cannot be explained by different lengths of A's
> second and B's second.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your idiot gurus GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On 8/9/2022 12:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/9/2022 11:10 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:51:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/22 11:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> If a beam of light accelerates in gravity, that means that it moves
>>>>> faster and faster than c as it moves lower and lower. That's NUTS!
>>>> Yes, it is NUTS. Fortunately that is NOT what GR predicts. The "NUTS"
>>>> part of this is your excessively sloppy wording which makes it just
>>>> plain wrong.
>>>>
>>>> The context here is GR, and light in vacuum. Remember that SR's constant
>>>> speed of light applies only LOCALLY in GR. Light approaching a massive
>>>> object has a non-zero COORDINATE acceleration [#] for coordinates that
>>>> cover a large region of spacetime (and thus are not local coordinates);
>>>> in each local region the speed of the light is c. This is an aspect of
>>>> the spacetime curvature induced by that massive object.
>>>>
>>>> [#] Remember that coordinates are artificial human constructs,
>>>> and do not reflect physical phenomena.
>>>>> A beam of light emitted from the top of a mountain travels at c,
>>>>> which is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. It will hit the bottom of
>>>>> the mountain at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
>>>> Both measured LOCALLY.
>>>>> However, the LENGTH OF A SECOND is shorter at the top of the
>>>>> mountain than at the bottom.
>>>> This is WRONG. It is just YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and is inconsistent
>>>> with GR. It is also inconsistent with actual measurements in the world
>>>> we inhabit.
>>>
>>> "Actual experiments in the world we inhabit": #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #11 and
>>> #12 here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>>>
>> Every single one of those experiments has you ASSUMING the reason for
>> the results is your BELIEF clocks tick at different rates, not caused by
>> effects on signals used to compare the clocks. In other words, you are
>> assuming your conclusion.
>
> No, every experiment is explained in plain English.

And none of them claimed the second is different length of time in
different frames. As I stated, you assume what you want to prove.

> For example, here is what
> the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) wrote about
> experiment #2:

Again, I already wrote that some things are "dumbed down" for people
like yourself to comprehend. Also don't forget you were the one who
picked some children's public relations person at NASA as some "rocket
scientist" who supposedly supported your claim about radar operation. Is
this "NIST" source any better?

> A quote from #6:
>
> "According to the theory of general relativity, the gravitational red shift causes
> a clock placed at a lower altitude, where gravity is strong, to run more slowly
> than a clock placed at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker."

Again, dumbed down. As I said:

>> Additionally, some of those experiments come with descriptions dumbed
>> down for the general public, who wouldn't understand the nuances of
>> effects on the signals vs. the easier to swallow "time passes at a
>> different rate". You're included with that group, since you don't
>> understand any of the many explanations you've been given. Instead
>> you've come up with your kooky BELIEF the length of seconds can be
>> different, and pretend that it's FACT, not your mistaken BELIEF.
>
> No, you evidently have a nonsensical belief that is not affected by the
> results of any experiment.

And you have a nonsensical belief that seconds come in different lengths.

> You believe that scientists are LYING ("dumbing
> down" the facts) when they say things you do not believe.

Are these quotes from "scientists" or someone trying to get schoolkids
interested in science, like your "NASA radar expert"?
>
> And evidently you do not know the difference between experiments involving
> the speed of light and experiments involving the passage of time at different
> speeds and altitudes.

I know more about them than you do, that's certain.
>
>>
>> For any experiment to prove your personal fantasy of length of the
>> second differing, you'll need to come up with some experiment which
>> gives one result if the length of a second is different and a different
>> result if the signal between two clocks is affected by SR/GR effects. I
>> don't expect you to even understand this paragraph, so you'll go right
>> back to claiming your personal fantasy of seconds of different lengths.
>
> Signals between two clocks is about the SPEED OF LIGHT and the distance
> traveled. This discussion is about TIME DILATION.

And the signals, with the effects of motion and/or gravity on them,
causes the observation of time dilation. But that's over your head.

>> (And I again remind you of SR velocity effects of A and B in relative
>> motion, where A sees B's clock as running slow and B sees A's clock as
>> running slow. This cannot be explained by different lengths of A's
>> second and B's second. You either ignore this or supply some explanation
>> depending on some sort of absolute rest frame, or even claim that if A
>> sees B's clock as running slow, B must see A's clock as running fast,
>> not slow)
>
> You cannot SEE a clock that is moving at high speeds away from you.

Sure you can. As long as the clock isn't Mickey Mouse with his big hand
on the 12 and Mickey's little hand on the 5, that gets hard to see
quickly. In fact, a known constant frequency transmitted is about the
simplest clock possible, and works to show a rate. A slightly more
complicated version is if a TV camera in both A and B is pointed at a
clock and the signal is transmitted to the other.

> Instead, they make certain two clocks show the same amount of time
> has passed since the clocks were "set," and then they move one of the
> clocks at high speed to some distant point and then bring it back.

Now you are talking about the "traveling twin" gedanken, not simple
velocity related time dilation. Velocity related time dilation as
described by Einstein in his 1905 paper is _inertial_ while the
traveling twin has a turnaround event.

(I bet you don't understand the difference!)

> When
> the two clocks are compared, they show the clock that was moved
> experienced less time than the clock that was stationary.
>
Now tell me how simple inertial motion time dilation works, with no
turnaround event.
If you can.

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 4:41:25 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> Einstein gloriously "borrowed" from the nonexistent ether "the one aspect that he needed":
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Judging only from the variation of their speed, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in presence or absence of gravity, just like the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets). Actually, this is a proven truth but no one cares (post-truth science):
>
> "Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> "A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

In principle c sameness of speed in the space of the universe is correct.