🚀 go-pugleaf

Joseph Lazio wrote:

> >>>>> "DAT" == Dale A Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>
> DAT> Joseph Lazio wrote:
> >> >>>>> "ITH" == Indestructible Truth Holder <nospam@mindspring.com>
> >> writes:
>
> ITH> Why does BBT assume the speed of light is and always was constant
> ITH> and independent of gravity?
> >>  Because observations, particularly many in the solar system,
> >> indicate that the speed of light is independent of the depth of the
> >> gravitational potential.  Can you cite any observations that
> >> suggest otherwise?
>
> DAT> Shapiro Effect.

Dale Trynor wrote:
To be honest now that you mention it I am a bit unsure if the Shapiro
effect is the same or different from the Shapiro delay. Maybe I should
have said Shapiro delay.
Actually I had been planing my own posts asking for more opinions on this
subject myself as it relates to time dilation. I need to weed out any
uncertainties and or differences in opinion now and then further evaluate
the value of the theory I promote, before I start updating my site.

>
>
> You'll have to be more specific.  I just skimmed the discussion of the
> Shapiro delay in MTW's _Gravitation_.  The magnitude of the Shapiro
> delay depends upon the line of sight through the gravitational
> potential of the Sun (which, experimentally, means it depends upon the
> orbits of the planets used in the experiment).

Theory I promote is more interested in showing the Shapiro delay as it
relates to gravitational lenses as its easier to illustrate how different
observers would measure different distances. That because one can do the
pole in barn Gedanken with an extra time dilation within the barn to show
how a longer pole would fit within the barn with both doors closed, and
this would be for all observers. The usual gedanken only allows some
observers to see both doors as closed while containing the rod. It also
would work with such things as setting up our experiments around black
holes because of the way you can more easily illustrate how our points of
measure for distances would work in a similar way to the above gedanken.
Instead of barn doors we have satellites. Putting an exaggerated time
dilation in for easy illustration tends to make the whole idea become
rather clear and more easily comprehended.

> However, nowhere is
> there any mention of a change in the speed of light.  Indeed, the
> speed of light in the derivation is conspicuously constant.

Here is my best understanding of this and anyone can post their own
disagrement here if they please.
Its a bit confusing sometimes when one can argue that the speed of light
hasn't changed yet its slowed down so you can get a delay in its arrival.
In reality the change could of course, not be observed up close and in the
same area that the change has occurred. Sense everything else also changes
equally what would you use within that same frame to tell if it has
changed as time will change equally it becomes only a relative thing. So
changes in light speed just as is the case for time, can only be observed
somewhere else and in someone else's frame of reference, never within ones
own frame. It reminds one of those childish arguments where two children
put each other down,  no its your speed of light that has changed, not
mine. Ironically its true for both observers as they will see no changes
within their own area of reference. One should be able to argue that one
observer call him A could see the other  B with faster time, while B could
be argued to see A with slower time. Speed of light and speed of time
should be tied together and be essentially the same thing.

A nice little link I found on a google search that shows how one should
illustrate information for different levels of understanding. I did mean
to mention this idea in the thread Re: Scholars and Crackpots as they were
trying to figure out a " explain it easy concepts page" for them, but was
too lazy today and ran out of time for it. Maybe tomorrow.
 http://world.std.com/~sweetser/PopScience/timeDelay/timeDelay.html

>
>
> --
> Lt. Lazio, HTML police   | e-mail: jlazio@patriot.net
> No means no, stop rape.  | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
> sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html