Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Gravity is not absolute: 1) If gravity is a particle, then it moves at light speed, there is no absolute frame of reference here, since particles which travel at lightspeed do not have a frame of reference. 2) I have explained that it is far more likely there is no particle associated to gravity because it is a pseudo force! Why would we think of a particle nature when there is no mediator needed for any of the other classical pseudo forces? Why are you talking about gravity? Stop changing what I said! I didn't say gravity was absolute. What I (well, John Baez, actually) said was that gravitational time dilation is absolute. If you don't agree with that, then you're just wrong, OK? This is nothing new. Einstein said, shortly after inventing GR, that c could be exceeded in that theory, and that the speed of light would not be constant. Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Ah... stop talking about gravity because I am off-topic, yet you admitted in the next sentence that you quoted gravity as an absolute frame? You're a mind ****.... so get to ****. I am blocking you. READ it again, fool. Verbatim I said: Gravitational dilation is absolute See that little word "dilation?" Read what Baez said, which I already posted for you, for God's sake. He makes it very clear. If you can read, anyway. There's time dilation due to gravity, and time dilation due to velocity, in case you didn't know. I told you what kind of dilation he was talking about. Gravitational dilation is absolute, which is exactly what I said. Velocity dilation is relative, in SR, absolute in LR Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 Well, you are right that gravity time dilation is absolute, or one-directional. Can you explain why you say that c can be exceeded because of this? I don't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 No, I mean it in the context of local measurement of light for an observer, say just three quarter of a lightyear away. In this local frame, from the observers frame to add, he or she will measure the speed of light to be moving slower. If you were even more local than that, say very near the event horizon, you would measure the speed of light moving at the speed of light. The reason why is because the black hole has in fact stretched space - this means light has to travel a larger distance in ''its frame'' --- though photons do not have frame, imagine you were next to it, you'd see the same distance dilation. But a person located far from the black hole, will always measure the speed of light to be the speed we expect it to be measured at. I didn't know you were talking about the vicinity of a black hole! Dubbelosix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Ok I'll let you off. That's a relief! Edited July 10, 2018 by OceanBreeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 I think we all need to have a humour in this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 Well, you are right that gravity time dilation is absolute, or one-directional. Can you explain why you say that c can be exceeded because of this? I don't get that. Well, I'm not sure what else to say Popeye, other than just repeat what I said already. I just structured what Baez was saying to try to make it clearer. He says: 1. I'm on the floor, and I will see light travelling at c in my frame. 2. But I will see light on the ceiling going faster --that would be faster than c. 3. This is not a relative difference, having anything to do with other objects. The only thing I'm looking at is light. I'm seeing it travel at c+, which shows it's an absolute difference, although Baez explained that in complete detail too, if you read him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) He talks about absolute in a difference sense, unless he can explain this more clearly, Adding to it, I don't get the logic of how c can be exceeded either. Maybe there's some confusion about the term "absolute." It just means "frame-independent" in this context. All frames will see it the same--it's not relative. Baez says the ceiling will see the floor light go slower and that the floor light will see the ceiling light go faster. There's nothing "reciprocal" about it. It's not relative, it's absolute. You'll see it the same whatever frame you're in. Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 I think we all need to have a humour in this thread! I'm all in for that, too! It's awfully stuffy in here, as it is. Not to even mention DEAD SERIOUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Maybe there's some confusion about the term "absolute." It just means "frame-independent" in this context. All frames will see it the same--it's not relative. Baez says the ceiling will see the floor light go slower and that the floor light will see the ceiling light go faster. There's nothing "reciprocal" about it. It's not relative, it's absolute. You'll see it the same whatever frame you're in. This is the same reason that you're positing absolute motion if you say the earth revolves around the sun: Then the sun sees the earth as moving and the earth sees itself as moving (strictly forbidden by SR). Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 Well, you under-estimate us sir, because we got you the first time around. Well then what could the question be? It's a matter of simple arithmetic. If I see light at c in one frame and I (not it) see light moving FASTER in another frame, then, by necessity, the light in THAT frame is going faster than c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) There's no question, I told you, you were wrong.There is no absolute reference frame... gravity is not even an absolute reference frame. And you just told me that you don't have the slightest clue about what Baez is talking about. He's not talking about gravity, at least not directly. He's not talking about absolute frames. He's CERTAINLY not talking about an absolute frame FOR gravity. He's talking about the speed of light, that's all. Get it? Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) This is the kind of thing I was talking about. Some people basically only know one language--math. If you don't put it in numbers, they have no clue. They don't understand basic concepts. I'm only the floor. I see light in my frame going approx. 186,000 miles per second. Then I look at the light on the ceiling. It is travelling 200,000 miles/sec. The exciting math calculation is now coming...wait for it! 200,000 is MORE THAN 186,000. Get it now? Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Ah... stop talking about gravity because I am off-topic, yet you admitted in the next sentence that you quoted gravity as an absolute frame? You're a mind ****.... so get to ****. I am blocking you. You're starting to revert to A-wal's M.O. again, eh, Dubbo? You have your own idiosyncratic and mistaken "understanding" of things and you're cocksure you're RIGHT. If anyone dares to point out your errors to you, you cuss them out. What was that great advice you were so gratuitously favoring me with again? Admit it when you're wrong--something like that? Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Even in regards to the magnitudes of your own talents, and trust me, this is me being magnanimous about the situation. An olive branch so to speak. Go kick rocks, you arrogant S.O.B. If you were even 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus. Can you read? Can you solve "word problems" in logic? Or do you only understand numbers? Read what I quoted Baez as saying. Go to the link I provided for the full context if you need to. For you to just bluster and bombastically shout "THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE FRAMES!!!" as a routine matter of chanting the mantras that have apparently been beaten into your head 1,000 times over does not display much of your alleged "talent," I'm afraid. Try understanding the concepts you so religiously and robotically chant sometime. Absolute frames have absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue. Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Here's the excerpt from Baez. It basically explains what absolute means. In this context it has nothing to do with an "absolute frame" (I suspect you're trying to say "preferred frame") If you're fixed to the ceiling, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. And if you're fixed to the floor, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. But if you are on the floor, you maintain that light travels faster than c near the ceiling. And if you're on the ceiling, you maintain that light travels slower than c near the floor. You "maintain" (i.e. perceive) that it is going faster on the ceiling IF you're on the floor, because it is. You also maintain that the speed is c in YOUR frame, if you're on the floor, because it is. So you perceive the light on the ceiling to be faster than in your own frame if you're on the floor, because it is. If the situation were reversed and you were on the ceiling, then you would perceive the light on the floor to be going slower, because it is. Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Trust me Moronium, you live to your name. Only a moron would make enemies with people who have not only a bigger repertoire but even bigger ego's to maintain. I ignored you a lot, but no one has shown me the disrespect you have shown me today. I told you! he's arguing to be right hoping to blindly land on something prodigious like I did when i plugged the volume of a sphere for lambda max into google calculate to redefine dark flow & gravitation as turtles all the way down, & figuring the dif geometry using 4 koch curves & 9-manifolds for sub-planck graviton metric Edited July 10, 2018 by Super Polymath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts