Einstein's Starting Point

In LR, the local gravitational potential field is a "preferred frame". Does that mean the speed of light is ralative to the local gavitatioal potential field?
In MM,the light-carrying medium is made denser by the gravitational field. Does that mean the speed of light is changed by the gavitational potnetial as well?
Can we suggest that the speed of light in vacuum is a function of the gravitational potntial instead of a constant?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />In LR, the local gravitational potential field is a "preferred frame". Does that mean the speed of light is relative to the local gravitational potential field?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In MM,the light-carrying medium is made denser by the gravitational field. Does that mean the speed of light is changed by the gravitational potential as well?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can we suggest that the speed of light in vacuum is a function of the gravitational potential instead of a constant?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The "Shapiro effect" is a delay in the propagation of radar signals bounced off neighboring planets, which can be interpreted as a slowing of the speed of light when it is closer to the Sun. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Charvell</i>
<br />Has anyone seen this? Comments?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We don't do site evaluations here. But you are free to raise specific questions prompted by someone else's material if you care to, as long as the question is detailed enough that it can be understood and answered entirely by discussants participating in this Message Board. An external link to a graphic or picture is okay, but not to text. Quote what you need in its entirety for discussion here.

If you really need a site evaluation, we have a professional (paid) service for that purpose. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp for details. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br />If SR is wrong and LR is right, then where in this chain of reasoning did Einstein go wrong?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In LR, the local gravitational potential field is a "preferred frame", and nothing happens to time. So the Lorentz transformations do not apply both ways between two frames. That makes following a light wave analogous to following a water wave, say, the way a surfer might. The wave does look "static" from that perspective. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[8]I don't feel Einstein went wrong. I do feel he knew more than he let us know. I believe I can answer the question on this but one will have to think abstract and outside the box. What gives me this clue is in his equation when he talks about C squared. Think about it. I feel he knew what we are only still trying to find out. Sad he is not here to give us a hand. Warren

The only option if man is going to reach the Stars in a lifetime is to master both Space and Time. Warp Technology today!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Spacedust</i>
<br />What gives me this clue is in his equation when he talks about C squared.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">C-squared is an energy per unit mass, not a speed. So Einstein's equation E = m c^2 has nothing to do with special relativity, which is the relativity of motion and the subject of the Q&A you quoted. Instead, it is part of general relativity, where Einstein's math was a big improvement over Newton's.

This means Einstein was mostly right, despite his own pessimism near the end of his career. In a 1954 letter to his friend Besso, Einstein wrote: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics." -|Tom|-

Dear, Mr. Flandern
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Because the fine structure constant should be invariant,the elementary charge and the electric constant in vacuum should be invariant in the gravitational field,so if the speed of light is a function of the gravitational potential, does that mean the Planck's constant and the magnetic constant in vacuum are functions of the gravitational potential as well?
Could you show me the function describing how the speed of light slows down in a gravitational field?