Physicists please help?

[K3NS31]

Re the last 2 paragraphs on this page (and follow the link for more "explanation")
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

This sounds like rubbish to me, but I don't have the in-depth physics / maths knowledge to figure out if this guy's missing something fundamental or if he's actually making a perfectly valid argument.

I know we have some people on this forum who do have the knowledge.
Please explain to me?

Much appreciated.

 

[ponder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_light_in_non-inertial_reference_frames
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-dragging_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j31r4l17484g5251/

Abstract
This chapter revisited the question of the constancy of the speed of light by pointing out that it has two answers — the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, but when determined in a non-inertial frame, it depends on the frame’s proper acceleration. (The local velocity of light, however, is always c.) It has been shown that the complete description of the propagation of light in non-inertial frames of reference requires an average coordinate and an average proper velocity of light. The need for an average coordinate velocity was demonstrated in the case of Einstein’s elevator thought experiment — to explain the fact that two light signals emitted from points A and C in Fig. 8.1 meet at B′, not at B. It was also shown that an average proper velocity of light is implicitly used in the Shapiro time delay effect; when such a velocity is explicitly defined, it follows that, in the case of a parallel gravitational field, the Shapiro effect is not always a delay effect.
The Sagnac effect was also revisited by defining the coordinate velocity of light in the non-inertial frame of the rotating disk. This velocity naturally explains the fact that two light signals emitted from a point on the rim of the rotating disk and propagating along its rim in opposite directions do not arrive simultaneously at the same point.

Way above me but it seems he's not talking crap. Google "Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames"

 

[K3NS31]

Thanks, I understand it generally, but not well enough to apply the principles to this guy's example and see if he's just playing with numbers or if there's actually something there.

Smacks of numerology tho'. I mean, why not lunar orbits per hour? Why'd he arbitrarily choose per day? ( /rhetorical)

 

[Mudshark]

The motion of anything can only be described relative to something else. The simplest description of the motion of anything, such as the speed of light, for example, is done by reference to inertial frames of reference. Descriptions of motion with reference to non-inertial frames of reference results in unnecessarily complex calculations and results which can fit almost any theories.
In order to ensure that all interested parties are consistent with their efforts in physics, work is done in inertial frames of reference.

 

[K3NS31]

The motion of anything can only be described relative to something else. The simplest description of the motion of anything, such as the speed of light, for example, is done by reference to inertial frames of reference. Descriptions of motion with reference to non-inertial frames of reference results in unnecessarily complex calculations and results which can fit almost any theories.
In order to ensure that all interested parties are consistent with their efforts in physics, work is done in inertial frames of reference.

Ya, but what does this say about this dude's crazy "lunar orbits" theory? I get the frames of reference bit, it's his linking of the speed of light to a certain number of lunar orbits that bothers me. I don't understand how he worked that out.
(Hence I specified the LAST 2 paragraphs on that page)

 

[scotty777]

It's that time is not a constant thing when you start involving acceleration, velocity and gravity. When you put a clock in a very strong gravitational field, time slows down. This is just because the clock is actually accelerating towards the center of the gravitational field.

So what happens in layman's terms is that if you use a time reference that is constant to one reference, ie : Earth, then we know a second hand will take (1/60 * 1/60 * 1/24 ) of a day to tick over. Also, velocity is basically something moving a distance over a certain amount of time. Thus, on earth, we will see the Bugatti Veron moving at 400km/h... However, if you put yourself in a very strong gravitational field, say, a black hole, time will slow down so much that if you viewed that car moving around, it will be moving in a less time dilated zone, and will look like it's moving at a gazillion km/h IF you using the same time reference of seconds that was made on Earth. Just like how if you put a normal clock made on earth next to a black hole, then looked at it tick over, each second on the clock will take like a day to the observer on earth.

However, if you take something that is observed by both earth and the guy chilling on the black hole with his camping chair, say, the number of revolutions the earth takes. Because this is something observable to both parties, only, since time is slower in the gravitational field of the black hole, the revolutions of the earth would looks like it's spinning like crazy, so when you divide the distance covered by the Bugatti, by the number of revolutions the earth has made, then you will see that the speed of the bugatti is faster .

 

[ponder]

Best explanation I've read.

 

[scotty777]

Best explanation I've read.

which? mine?

 

[K3NS31]

snip explanation, snip

Thanks for that, makes sense. Which would imply that the logic of this guy's argument is sound? Which I guess means if we assume his maths is also correct, then he's presumably just doing a numerology thing? i.e. playing with the numbers until he gets one that matches the quote he's interested in.

 

[scotty777]

Thanks for that, makes sense. Which would imply that the logic of this guy's argument is sound? Which I guess means if we assume his maths is also correct, then he's presumably just doing a numerology thing? i.e. playing with the numbers until he gets one that matches the quote he's interested in.

The maths looks sound yes.

As for playing with numbers until one works is actually a very useful tool to physicists as quite a few things in nature don't seem to carry any 'nice numbers' like other things. Planks constant (which is extremely useful to us, it helps us work out the energy of photons and is used in engineering and science) was made by fiddling with the number until the answers became right.

Some things in nature take a while to make sense, just try understand the more complex thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics. Sweet Jesus it confused me... The problem with modern physics, you can't just use intuition, because those things don't follow it... You kinda have to follow the maths, and then only does it make sense . Also, most of the books and articles related to modern physics are written by people with IQ's well about that of ours, so it's really difficult trying to make sense of everything!

 

[K3NS31]

The maths looks sound yes.

As for playing with numbers until one works is actually a very useful tool to physicists as quite a few things in nature don't seem to carry any 'nice numbers' like other things. Planks constant (which is extremely useful to us, it helps us work out the energy of photons and is used in engineering and science) was made by fiddling with the number until the answers became right.

For sure, but he used observable phenomena / experimentation to see if his numbers were right, didn't he? As opposed to some arb book...

 

[ponder]

which? mine?

Yes, yours

 

[scotty777]

For sure, but he used observable phenomena / experimentation to see if his numbers were right, didn't he? As opposed to some arb book...

Hmmm, well, you have to prove your pudding in experiments with physics. So if the maths fits the observations, he could be logically flawed somewhere, and using that flaw in both processes, or he's right. I'm not going to sift through all that work to check if it's 100%, that'll take a few days at best sadly, because you have to prove it and then see if it works for all situations! I'm also not a physicist, so I'm more than likely to fall prey to errors, and I have an average knowledge of this stuff. Through it to a physicist in Cern if you want it to be checked .

Yes, yours

AW!!! I now have this warm fuzzy feeling inside me now .

 

[K3NS31]

Hmmm, well, you have to prove your pudding in experiments with physics. So if the maths fits the observations, he could be logically flawed somewhere, and using that flaw in both processes, or he's right. I'm not going to sift through all that work to check if it's 100%, that'll take a few days at best sadly, because you have to prove it and then see if it works for all situations! I'm also not a physicist, so I'm more than likely to fall prey to errors, and I have an average knowledge of this stuff. Through it to a physicist in Cern if you want it to be checked .

Nah, this is good enough for me. Just wanted to know if there were any obvious mistakes. Way too much effort to actually check that stuff properly. I'm happy to just take him at his word and let him make the numbers mean whatever he likes.