Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JohnDuffield on 04/03/2017 18:01:06
-
I note pmb's answers above.
From the above discussion, I take it that:
A photon has an "inertial mass", which equals its "gravitational mass", and is equal to E/c2 = hf/c2
Yes.
A photon has momentum = mc = E/c
Yes, but we normally say p=hf/c.
A photon falling into a gravitational well gains energy and inertial mass (and the opposite when it leaves)
No. It doesn't gain energy or inertial mass. Conservation of energy applies. If you send a 511 keV photon into a black hole the black hole mass increases by 511 keV/c².
A photon passing by a gravitational well is deflected due to the curvature of spacetime.
No. It isn't deflected by the curvature of spacetime. Spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force, not the "force" of gravity.
This affects the photon's velocity (a vector which includes direction), but not its speed (a scalar which is constant c in a vacuum).
No. The speed of light is spatially variable, and because of this the photon changes direction. See EInstein saying it here (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22):
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/8KXbI.jpg)
Inertial mass is also a scalar, and ignores direction.
Yes.
When a photon "leaves" a gravitational well, it has the same inertial mass as when it "entered" (...to the same distance, in the frame of reference of the massive object)
Yes.
Some of the photon's momentum can be transferred to other objects (eg electrons, in Compton scattering). This reduces the photon's momentum and inertial mass by reducing its frequency, but not changing its speed.
Yes.
-
Why had this post been moved to new theories?
How can I complain about this?
-
Why had this post been moved to new theories?
How can I complain about this?
If a photon moves at the speed of light, then why hasn't it got a huge mass?
-
If a photon moves at the speed of light, then why hasn't it got a huge mass?
Because the photon has zero proper mass to begin with.
-
Why had this post been moved to new theories?
How can I complain about this?
The main sections of this forum General Science, Non Life Sciences, and Life Sciences are reserved for currently accepted theory. Any new theory, or variation or reinterpretation of an accepted theory, should be posted in New Theories or Just Chat. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0)
Persistent offenders can face a ban.
-
This is yet another example of Mr. Duffield trotting out the same lies about Einstein that he always does. Many people have demonstrated that Mr. Duffield is false, but he continues to peddle the same lies. He usually gets scared off from somewhere, only to return later.
In this case, like many others, Mr. Duffield's lie is one of omission: he selectively quotes Einstein while ignoring the General Theory of Relativity, where Einstein explicitly makes the speed of light a constant in a special way. Mr. Duffield wants people to ignore the actual use of spacetime curvature that Einstein uses, where the geometry near to a given point is different, but objectively related, to that at distant points, and the choice of coordinate system is still fairly arbitrary.
Mr. Duffield is still trying to sell the vague theory in his book, where he believes that there is one, true Euclidean system of coordinates.
-
This is yet another example of Mr. Duffield trotting out the same lies about Einstein that he always does. Many people have demonstrated that Mr. Duffield is false, but he continues to peddle the same lies. ....
..............
Mr. Duffield is still trying to sell the vague theory in his book, where he believes that there is one, true Euclidean system of coordinates.
He may yet test our patience. We have a lower tolerance of ignorance where commercial gain is concerned.
-
I do not have commercial gain but do have a issue with statements being made.
1. Light cannot have a consistent speed and change wavelength. You have to chose one or the other. The back part of a wave matches the front part of a wave through space as c or c is incorrect.
2. The SOL is measured to be the same in every frame. That is different from the speed of light is the same in every frame.
A more likely scenario of gravity dilation in a gravity well is the measuring devise being dilated creating a measured blue shift down a gravity well. Calibration of instruments change when measurements change in a gravity well. Speed of light is still constant through Gulliver's fractal frame just the distance measurements have changed. Cycle time of the frames clock is longer and the tick rate is longer between ticks. There is an equivalence in SR for the electron travel through space increasing distance per cycle of the clock. All relative to c as energy state of Pe vs. Ke.
-
1. Light cannot have a consistent speed and change wavelength. You have to chose one or the other. The back part of a wave matches the front part of a wave through space as c or c is incorrect.
Hmmm.... I wonder if there are actually ways in GR to do this...
Nah, I suppose it's better to just deny the science without looking.
2. The SOL is measured to be the same in every frame. That is different from the speed of light is the same in every frame.
Yes, it is different. Of course, we're not talking about inertial frames of reference if we're talking about GR, we're talking about spacetime manifolds. Different rules.
-
The main sections of this forum General Science, Non Life Sciences, and Life Sciences are reserved for currently accepted theory. Any new theory, or variation or reinterpretation of an accepted theory, should be posted in New Theories or Just Chat. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0) Persistent offenders can face a ban.
I haven't posted anything incorrect. Compare my answer with pmb's here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69853.msg508806#msg508806): "No. The speed of a photon changes with gravitational potential. This is a well known fact in GR and was one of the first results Einstein derived in his papers on GR."
PhysBang is being malicious and dishonest I'm afraid. He doesn't contribute positively to forums like this. I don't talk on forums like this for personal gain. I do so to educate.
-
1. Light cannot have a consistent speed and change wavelength. You have to chose one or the other.
Drivel.
-
1. Light cannot have a consistent speed and change wavelength. You have to chose one or the other. The back part of a wave matches the front part of a wave through space as c or c is incorrect.
Hmmm.... I wonder if there are actually ways in GR to do this...
Nah, I suppose it's better to just deny the science without looking.
2. The SOL is measured to be the same in every frame. That is different from the speed of light is the same in every frame.
Yes, it is different. Of course, we're not talking about inertial frames of reference if we're talking about GR, we're talking about spacetime manifolds. Different rules.
Yes there are ways to do this in GR. What is science if not logic and observation. What appears logical is not always the proper explanation. f it is not what you are taught it becomes Drivel to you.
There is equivalency between SR and GR. The spacetime manifold is equivalent to acceleration while the center of mass is the inertial speed. The energy state where light is created determines the shift in light. By c it remains the same wavelength. A clock measures the energy state relative to another frames energy state by dilation of energy.
Both will follow relativity observations but then you have to ask what moves the electrons confounded with the photon? Is it coincidence? If you believe in that sort of thing fine but that is not science. You can chose the electrons move by God or energy of space. God has been replaced by scientific understanding. Energy being of space is just another hurdle. The MMX proved there was no stationary or moving Aether. A spin energy Ether was not disproven. What you were taught by the subjective opinion of others you respect is the most difficult baggage to overcome.
The main sections of this forum General Science, Non Life Sciences, and Life Sciences are reserved for currently accepted theory. Any new theory, or variation or reinterpretation of an accepted theory, should be posted in New Theories or Just Chat. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0) Persistent offenders can face a ban.
I haven't posted anything incorrect. Compare my answer with pmb's here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69853.msg508806#msg508806): "No. The speed of a photon changes with gravitational potential. This is a well known fact in GR and was one of the first results Einstein derived in his papers on GR."
PhysBang is being malicious and dishonest I'm afraid. He doesn't contribute positively to forums like this. I don't talk on forums like this for personal gain. I do so to educate.
The speed of light is constant by the postulate of relativity. You ether follow it or make up your own theory. The energy state of position changes by dilation of the detector cells down a gravity well. You measure a photon unchanged as blue shifted down a gravity well because the measurements of your measuring stick increase distance by the dilation of space.
1. Light cannot have a consistent speed and change wavelength. You have to chose one or the other.
Drivel.
Is your understanding following relativity postulates? A wave moves through space as a constant front and back or there is no constant. Is it the second part of my paragraph you could not add with confidence?