- #36
Meir Achuz
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 3,696
- 227
The gravitational red shift can be derived in special relativity as an acceleration red shift for an orbiting satellite.
He's referring to the redshift that occurs when sending light from the bottom to the top of a rocket accelerating in flat spacetime (which is described by the Rindler congruence of worldlines). Calling it "gravitational" redshift is fairly common in the literature, based on the equivalence principle. But of course this use of "gravitational" does not imply spacetime curvature, which is what GR is necessary to describe.vanhees71 said:Gravitation is described by GR and not in SR. I also don't know, what "an acceleration red shift" should be.
If people were going to be precise in their use of natural language, we’d be saying something like “gravity-equivalent redshift” or “equivalence-principle redshift” instead of “gravitational redshift”….. but of course natural language is not and never has been about being precise.PeterDonis said:He's referring to the redshift that occurs when sending light from the bottom to the top of a rocket accelerating in flat spacetime (which is described by the Rindler congruence of worldlines). Calling it "gravitational" redshift is fairly common in the literature, based on the equivalence principle. But of course this use of "gravitational" does not imply spacetime curvature, which is what GR is necessary to describe.
I am afraid that, partly due my wording of it, this post has led to ...Meir Achuz said:The gravitational red shift can be derived in special relativity as an acceleration red shift for an orbiting satellite.
An orbiting satellite has no proper acceleration. It is in free fall. It has coordinate acceleration in a frame in which the Earth is at rest, but coordinate acceleration is not what leads to the red shift. Proper acceleration is.Meir Achuz said:I think that the derivation would not work for acceleration perpendicular to the velocity, as in an orbiting satellite.
We're not really talking about dissent here, though. We're talking about people who would fail an introductory course in relativity and regard that as a badge of honour. That's not dissent, it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect.ebg said:then there is nothing to fear from dissent
There is actually a large body of recent experimental work seeking more and more subtle evidence of Lorentz violations. Such signals would be very informative for physics beyond the standard model. So not only is there no actual fear of dissent there is active seeking of it, and great prestige and financial rewards for achieving it.ebg said:there is nothing to fear from dissent
Yes, with 'they' being the Catholic Church. Having contrary ideas is welcome in science as long as those ideas are logical, self consistent, and testable. Unfortunately many 'contrarians' don't understand this and loudly decry science as dogmatic and intolerant, when in reality it's like going to your math teacher and expecting them to take you seriously when you hand in a 5-page report that says 1+1 = 11.ebg said:didn't they imprisoned Galileo for having ideas contrary to Aristotle's?
The correct notation would be Ⅰ+Ⅰ = Ⅱ.Drakkith said:when you hand in a 5-page report that says 1+1 = 11.
on the other hand....1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven, but is accepted as being true because the probability of the outcome it being 2 is quite high. What is the possibility (not probability) of the sum of 1+1 = 11? QED is not a proof.Drakkith said:Yes, with 'they' being the Catholic Church. Having contrary ideas is welcome in science as long as those ideas are logical, self consistent, and testable. Unfortunately many 'contrarians' don't understand this and loudly decry science as dogmatic and intolerant, when in reality it's like going to your math teacher and expecting them to take you seriously when you hand in a 5-page report that says 1+1 = 11.
Not true. There have been a number of proofs, the earliest of which that I am aware of is a VERY long, involved one by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead over 100 years ago.ebg said:on the other hand....1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven
Bertrand Russell would like a word...ebg said:on the other hand....1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven
Easy - try to find a set of self consistent axioms that include or imply that. If you succeed you have your answer.ebg said:What is the possibility (not probability) of the sum of 1+1 = 11
It is a bit of a digression here, but 1+1=2 is a theorem that can be proven from axioms of arithmetic.ebg said:on the other hand....1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven, but is accepted as being true because the probability of the outcome it being 2 is quite high. What is the possibility (not probability) of the sum of 1+1 = 11? QED is not a proof.
That is completely ridiculous. It has nothing whatsoever to do with probability.ebg said:1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven, but is accepted as being true because the probability of the outcome it being 2 is quite high
The mathematics that is used to underpin physical theories is, in a way, tested along with the theories themselves. Basic arithmetic, wherever it comes from, is tested alongside the physical postulates. The same goes for vectors, calculus, differential geometry etc. It doesn't really matter whether you can mathematically justify the real numbers. They are, in a way, physically justified by the success of the physical theories based on them!Nugatory said:This is a different situation than claims made by empirical science, which are based on experimental evidence and observations about how the world works, and are evaluated based on the accuracy and generality of their predictions. A challenge to such a theory will only be taken seriously if we either produce empirical evidence showing that the predictions are incorrect, or we advance an alternative theory that produces, to the limits of experimental accuracy, the same predictions as the existing theory and also produces correct predictions outside of the range of validity of the existing theory.
Whereas it should be 1+1=10.Drakkith said:it's like going to your math teacher and expecting them to take you seriously when you hand in a 5-page report that says 1+1 = 11.
If you only have two fingers to count with, perhaps...nasu said:Whereas it should be 1+1=10.
Do you suppose that is the reason that we use base 10? Because we can count on 10 fingers?PeterDonis said:If you only have two fingers to count with, perhaps...
AFAIK it's one hypothesis.FactChecker said:Do you suppose that is the reason that we use base 10? Because we can count on 10 fingers?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who know ternary, those who don't know ternary, and those who were expecting a joke about binary.nasu said:Whereas it should be 1+1=10.
This means that the romans did not have 10 fingers?PeterDonis said:AFAIK it's one hypothesis.
Oh, they had 10 fingers, but they were VERY inventive with obscene gestures requiring various combinations fingers to produce many variations of insults.nasu said:This means that the romans did not have 10 fingers?
Dale said:Your arguments are fine, but doomed to failure anyway. I would give them this link and then walk away:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Any alternative theory must explain all of these experiments. Not just Michelson Morley
He mis-spelled the name of the anti-relativist Hartwig Thim.ergospherical said:I liked how he made space for a whole section just to roast people. It's like the Darwin/Razzy awards but for experimentalists:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/phys...ments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR