# a story about special relativity,who can explain it？

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TonyYuan, Mar 17, 2020.

1. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
To summarize the recent discussions:
1.In a uniform gravitational field, the speed of light does not change.
2.At different gravitational field strengths, the speed of light is different.
(1)The stronger the gravitational field, the slower the light speed, and the weaker the gravitational field, the faster the light speed.
(2)Light passing through an uneven gravitational field will cause refraction bending due to different speeds.
3.The Doppler effect exists in the gravitational field.
(1)If away from each other, the strength of the gravitational field will be smaller than that at the relatively stationary state, the larger the relative speed , the weaker the gravitational field;
(2)If close to each other, the strength of the gravitational field will be greater than that at the relatively stationary state, the greater the relative speed, the stronger the gravitational field.
4.There is a uniform gravitational field on the surface of the earth, and the speed of light measured in different directions is constant.
5.To calculate the motion of celestial bodies with universal ravitation, the Doppler effect of the gravitational field needs to be considered. The greater the relative speed, the more pronounced.

3. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,525
Correction: "To summarize Tony's quackery"

5. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
Last edited: Mar 25, 2020

7. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
226
Your problem is that you have presented yourself as a quack, asserting such things as Newton being as correct as anybody for calculating things like Mercury's orbit.
So now, even when you have a valid point, you're dismissed with no argument. You've dug your own grave.

You've worded it wrong, and thus have contradicted yourself. If I am deeper in a gravity well, but under uniform gravity, does light speed change or not?
You assert opposite answers in the top and bottom line.
2 is better worded thus:
To any given observer, speed of light is different at different potentials of gravity well. It will always locally measured as c (which is the postulate of SR).
It has not to do with the strength of the field (the acceleration: Gravity field is an acceleration field).
Example: Gravity is stronger on Saturn than it is on Earth (not much stronger). I weigh more there. Yet a clock on Saturn will run faster than one on Earth because it has higher potential.
The relative time difference has more to do with the gravitational potential field (units Energy/mass), and not the gravitational strength field (units meters/sec^2).
(Note, both mass and meters seem to abbreviate to m, confusing had I just put 'm' in both those units)

This is true, but I notice nobody stops to listen to your attempt to justify it.
(Q) put out this post about how SR and GR have fabulously withstood the test of time (they have), and all these people liked that post or agreed with it in some way, but nobody argued how GR doesn't actually predict what you're asserting here with 2(2). It does, but everybody has stopped listening to you because of all the other crank stuff you've posted.
Yes, gravitational refraction is a thing, and no, it does not explain the angle of bending measured, so presenting it as the whole story is wrong, and that's what you seem to be doing.

What? Doppler effect has to do with relative motion and has nothing to do with gravity.
Here you go weakening a valid point by mixing it in with nonsense again.
None of this parses. Being away results in a smaller strength than if stationary? Those are not opposites. I can be both away and stationary or near and moving. Gravitational field strength is function of distance, not motion.
Doppler has to do with motion, and gravity isn't a Doppler effect. If I throw a rock upward, it accelerates the same going up as it does coming down. Anything else would violate energy conservation.

I invite you to wind a fiber optic cable around the equator and time the light going through it east and then west. But that is due not to non-uniform gravity field, but rather to the surface of Earth not being an inertial reference frame.

Until you justify this statement, it looks like a duck.

8. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,525
And, pigs will fly, snakes will talk and Trump is actually a really nice guy.

9. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,525
The main problem with Tony's understanding is that he's trying to present gravitational refraction on a local level, around the earth, for example, as opposed to what we observe from gravitational lensing over very large distances.

10. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
The proposal of a new theory will always be hindered by the original forces. This is normal.

Last edited: Mar 25, 2020
11. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
It seems that there are similar sayings all over the world. You also are really nice guy.

12. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
We always say that LIGO has discovered gravitational waves. Since it is a wave, why don't you want to acknowledge the Doppler effect of gravitational field waves?

13. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
226
Well, light does bend around Earth due to gravity, but it's unclear how one would go about locally measuring that since light beams are typically used by surveyors as straight line references.
Tony in post 70 said something never really explained about Earth's gravity holding the light, like it was a black hole or something.
The only attempt to explain this resulted in this word salad:

What can this possibly mean? That there is no light within 10 times a star's radius, but light does manage to exist on Earth all the way to the surface? Quack indeed.

Anyway, I jumped in just because everybody seems to assume that GR does not allow variable light speed as measured by non-local observers, when it very much does.
Interestingly, I thought of a sort of setup (a massive straight hose) that would help a rock win a race over distance but would retard the speed of a photon taking the same trip.

Imagine a long straight pipe, say 300,000 km long with a 1-meter inside diameter, and lots of mass so it has significant gravity.
From a start line 600,000 km from the finish line, we shine a light, which takes 2 seconds to get to the finish. Now we insert the pipe halfway, and it takes longer due to the slower speed of light in the pipe, relative to the outside observer.
Do the same with a rock thrown at 600 m/sec and it takes a million seconds without the pipe, but less with the pipe in the path. The pipe helps speed the rock but not the photon.
Notice I didn't throw the rock very hard. At some speed, the two effects cancel and the pipe makes no difference in how long it takes the rock to make the trip.

14. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,779
Aha, at last, the Galileo Gambit.

20 crank points for that.

Michael 345 likes this.
15. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440

Last edited: Mar 25, 2020
16. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
My theory is all based on classical physics, and there is nothing new in it. If you can recognize gravitational waves, why can't you recognize that the Doppler effect works on gravitational fields?
In a uniform flow of water, a boat traveling in different directions can get different speeds relative to the river bank.
Why can't the light in the gravitational field follow the same principle?

Janus, where are you? You should stand up bravely and continue our discussion.

Last edited: Mar 25, 2020
17. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,779
...and now the set-up, for converting the boredom and annoyance of non-responders into a spurious "victory" for crank science.

30 crank points for that, when it comes.

18. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
226
Of course I don't understand it. Light doesn't have a diameter, so talking about it: "The light near the star is 10 times the diameter of the star, while the light on the earth is 1 times the radius of the earth." leaves me totally guessing. That was post 75 or something, so any explanation (Doppler explains it!) wasn't really there at the time.
Doppler has nothing to do with a gravitational strength field. Such a field has no frequency. Neither does a gravitational potential field. A field is a state of a system at some moment of time, not a dynamic.

251 you say. That just had some nice pictures of geodesics. That post didn't have any reference that it was an explanation for the comment I quote above.
OK, given those pictures and your comment above, I take it to mean that the light from a distant star is passing our sun within 10x of its radius. Not sure if that has ever been observed. The famous first observation of the effect was light passing right next to the sun, and the only reason it hadn't been observed earlier was that the brightness of the sun obscured the faint stars seen right next to it.
More modern instances of the effect involve light lensing around massive things like galaxies.

What you said in my quote above (the one I called word salad) just doesn't say that at all. It just says "the light IS 10x the diameter of the sun", and that comment as an explanation of the prior comment of "Earth's gravity holds the light"which still baffles me. I have no idea what you're trying to convey, and thus it's not even wrong.

So anyway, you go on for pages about how GR predicts gravitational refraction and such, but then say just above:
Classical physics has no concept gravitation refraction since it does not predict gravitational time dilation. So you're contradicting yourself when you lean on GR when convenient, but then go on and assert that classical physics explains everything. It doesn't. Classical physics had no notion of gravitational waves. These where predicted by GR, long before they were ever detected.

19. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
You are a very imaginative guy.

20. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
If my point of view is close to GR, it is really exciting. The knowledge about GR comes from the discussion with you, and even the speed formula of SR comes from Janus. I just wanted to use classic physics to prove that the speed of light does not change is a wrong assumption. Now that our discussion has come to GR, I think you have also discovered that as Einstein himself said, GR is against the constant speed of light.

The Doppler effect is classical physics. This theory can be applied to mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves, and gravitational waves as well. Although gravitational waves are not mentioned in classical physics, the model I created for gravitational waves is a model of classical physics. The knowledge you need to understand it does not go beyond the scope of classical physics.

The Doppler effect of the gravitational field I described is clear. The gravitational formula needs to include a velocity (not speed) parameter. F = G * M * m / r ^ 2 * f (v), v is the velocity relative to the M.
When v = 0, it is the gravitational strength when it is relatively stationary, F = G * M * m / r ^ 2, so f (0) = 1.
The velocity v_gf of the gravitational wave is equal to c, and the direction is M to m.
When v = c, the gravitational wave cannot reach the object, so F = 0, so f (c) = 0.
So it might be f (v) = ( v_gf - v ) / c , v_gf and v all are velocity , not speed.
F = G * M * m / r ^ 2 * f(v) = (G * M * m / r ^ 2) * ( v_gf - v ) / c.
Let the magnitude of their velocity vector difference be x, then get F = G * M * m / r ^ 2 * f(v) = (G * M * m / r ^ 2) * x / c .

Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
21. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
226
You're saying you don't know physics well at all, but you have the temerity to come here and suggest something different, all without any evidence.

Do you even read my posts? I've not been disagreeing with this, even to the point of suggesting an experiment to demonstrate it.

Yes it can, but gravity and gravitational waves are two completely different things. A planet just sitting somewhere exerts gravity on everything on or around it, but emits no gravitational waves, which require a source of energy.

There is no Doppler effect of a field of anything. I don't think you know what a field is.

Let me know how that works for you. Force as a function of velocity.

Again, you confuse gravity with gravitational waves. The latter don't go from A to B, they just go forever. It's energy lost from the system. Earth emits about 200 watts of gravitational wave power as it orbits the sun, which means it continuously loses energy at that pace. The energy is not sent into the sun. Gravitational waves do not convey force. They convey distortions in spacetime.

Really, if you're going to come up with something totally new, depicting gravity as waves, call it something else since 'gravitational waves' is already taken.

This violates energy conservation and first law of thermodynamics. I could build a perpetual motion machine, generating infinite energy with physics that worked that way.

Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
22. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
If the spacecraft leaves the planet at a speed of c, the spacecraft will no longer be affected by gravity. This is crazy, the faster you leave the planet, the easier it is to get rid of the shackles of gravity.
When the photon approaches the planet at the speed of c, it will bend toward the planet due to the vertical gravitational field. But if the photon leaves at the speed of c in the same direction as the gravitational field, it will not be affected by gravity.

This is crazy, have we found a way to overcome gravity.

23. ### TonyYuanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
440
The movement of the planets provides energy. Kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy [ This description is incorrect].

Photons are a perpetual motion machine, and because it is fast enough, few planets can grasp it by gravity. It can exist for a long time.

We know that the regular movement of the electrons inside the atom leads to the generation of a magnetic field. The magnet looks like a perpetual motion.
Will the gravitational field play a role in other microscopic matter.

I think our discussion is not about comparing who learns better, but exploring science together.

Last edited: Mar 26, 2020