Black holes

[Farsight]

I didn't have egg on my face. You did. You confused the way all observers see the lower clock running slower with different measurements by different observers at different elevations. Now you're trying the same drivel again. Go away Dopa, your physics is poor, your dishonesty is palpable, and nobody's listening to you.

 

[Tubbythin]

I didn't have egg on my face. You did. You confused the way all observers see the lower clock running slower with different measurements by different observers at different elevations. Now you're trying the same drivel again. Go away Dopa, your physics is poor, your dishonesty is palpable, and nobody's listening to you.

I'm listening. Wrong again Farsight.

 

[Farsight]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

 

[Tubbythin]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited quoted breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

I disagree. I have tried to engage in meaningful conversation with you only to be told, based on zero evidence, that I'm not well-educated in physics.

 

[Farsight]

No you haven't. Click on your name on the left, then click on Find more posts by Tubbythin, and take a look at them. They're one-liners, and snipey. Now go look at my posts. Spot the difference?

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? It isn't fixed. It's Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). Note that c = √(1/ε₀μ₀). And that c varies. Like Einstein said.

Totally wrong: c is the speed of light in vacuum which is a constant in both SR and GR. Like Einstein said.

Quote mining Einstein is not good. He states after the equation that the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good" in GR.
On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light (PDF)
"If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation

c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²).
​

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.​

".​

 

[Tubbythin]

No you haven't. Click on your name on the left, then click on Find more posts by Tubbythin, and take a look at them. They're one-liners, and snipey. Now go look at my posts. Spot the difference?

I'm not the one that has just been moderated.
My posts tend to have more scientific content when there is scientific content to respond to. When somebody makes false claims like "Go away Dopa, your physics is poor, your dishonesty is palpable, and nobody's listening to you." or claims false victories, its good to put them down a peg or to by pointing out they're wrong.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You confused the way all observers see the lower clock running slower with different measurements by different observers at different elevations.

So I guess that's as clear a statement from you as anyone can expect, to the effect that, in FGR, the impedance of space at a particular location is like velocity, and unlike air temperature - its value depends upon which (remote) observer is measuring it.

As the impedance of space is derived - in FGR - from the measured value of c (though only you know how to make such a calculation), this blows a pretty big hole in FGR, with respect to black holes, doesn't it?

Recall your signature parallel-mirror light clock, the one in which you displayed the photons in the lower clock as not bouncing at all*? That was, if I recall correctly, critical to the FGR view of black holes.

Funny thing is this: you've just confirmed that this measured c=0 is entirely observer dependent! It is entirely possible, within FGR, to find a remote observer who measures the speed of light at that location as something other than 0.

Now I do not claim to have understood your views on coordinates in FGR, but I think that this also pulls the rug under your claims that one particular set is unique.

[...] your physics is poor, your dishonesty is palpable, and nobody's listening to you.

Per Tubbythin's post, apparently not.

But why waste time with bluster? Surely the credibility of your claims would have been better served by you either completely ignoring me, or responding with hard scientific evidence, logic, that sort of thing?

* I'll provide a link to Farsight's actual post, in this thread, if anyone's interested

 

[Kwalish Kid]

"If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)".

If this is properly representative of relativity, please show us how it is used in modelling a black hole in detail. This is the subject of this thread.

 

[Roboramma]

For those interested in this topic, I've been watching a lecture by Leonard Suskind on youtube that does a pretty good job of explaining some of the things brought up in this thread:
http://youtu.be/i1s5eOJ3V6k

 

[dafydd]

I didn't have egg on my face. You did. You confused the way all observers see the lower clock running slower with different measurements by different observers at different elevations. Now you're trying the same drivel again. Go away Dopa, your physics is poor, your dishonesty is palpable, and nobody's listening to you.

Wrong.

 

[dafydd]

No you haven't. Click on your name on the left, then click on Find more posts by Tubbythin, and take a look at them. They're one-liners, and snipey. Now go look at my posts. Spot the difference?

Yes. Your posts show a deep misunderstanding of basic physics.