PANICKY EINSTEINIANS PROVE TIME DILATION AGAIN

There is so much panic in Einstein criminal cult that PHYSORG, a group
of zombies responsible for propaganda, published the following idiocy:

http://www.physorg.com/news114010680.html
"The first measurement of Einstein's time dilation took place in 1938,
when US scientists used the Doppler effect -- the change in pitch when
a sound and the person hearing it are moving apart or closer together
-- as the measuring tool."

A slightly less idiotic reference to the same experiment is given
he

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/
"The first experimental proof of time dilation was performed by Ives
and Stilwell [1] by measuring the Doppler-shifted frequencies of an
emission line in hydrogen canal rays in parallel and antiparallel
direction. The respective resonance conditions are given by the
relativistic Doppler-formula, which is a direct consequence of time
dilation."

The problem is whether the Doppler shift is due to time dilation or
not. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the observer?

Those who wish to know the answer should first solve an analogous
problem: Is the gravitational redshift due to gravitational time
dilation or is it due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential?

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 15, 5:21 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is so much panic in Einstein criminal cult that PHYSORG, a group
of zombies responsible for propaganda, published the following idiocy:

http://www.physorg.com/news114010680.html
"The first measurement of Einstein's time dilation took place in 1938,
when US scientists used the Doppler effect -- the change in pitch when
a sound and the person hearing it are moving apart or closer together
-- as the measuring tool."

A slightly less idiotic reference to the same experiment is given
he

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/
"The first experimental proof of time dilation was performed by Ives
and Stilwell [1] by measuring the Doppler-shifted frequencies of an
emission line in hydrogen canal rays in parallel and antiparallel
direction. The respective resonance conditions are given by the
relativistic Doppler-formula, which is a direct consequence of time
dilation."

The problem is whether the Doppler shift is due to time dilation or
not. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the observer?

Those who wish to know the answer should first solve an analogous
problem: Is the gravitational redshift due to gravitational time
dilation or is it due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential?

Pentcho Valev

The pecan crop was very poor this year.

On Nov 16, 12:21 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The problem is whether the Doppler shift is due to time dilation or
not. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the observer?

That's easy, go to the library, find the published paper, check their
working, repeat the calculations assuming changing light speed,
compare the results. If it works, you then need to find there's no
research showing that light speed doesn't change in that kind of
situation. Armed with this justification, perform a suitable
experiment to show the speed really is changing. Finally, fill in the
application form to claim your Nobel prize.

It might take a few years, but if you're sure you're right, it will be
worth the effort don't you think?

However if you don't really believe yourself, if you're just doing it
for the anti-establishment buzz it gives you, then you will never find
the motivation to do more than blab about it.

On 15 Nov, 16:33, wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:21 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The problem is whether the Doppler shift is due to time dilation or
not. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the observer?

That's easy, go to the library, find the published paper, check their
working, repeat the calculations assuming changing light speed,
compare the results. If it works, you then need to find there's no
research showing that light speed doesn't change in that kind of
situation. Armed with this justification, perform a suitable
experiment to show the speed really is changing. Finally, fill in the
application form to claim your Nobel prize.

It might take a few years, but if you're sure you're right, it will be
worth the effort don't you think?

No because Divine Albert has already solved half of the problem (in
fact the whole problem) in 1911:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

But the fact that the "speed" (really velocity) of light is constant,
independent of the motions of the source and the receiver, is one of
the most firmly established principles of science.

But ---- what is the light moving relative to????????

"Don Stockbauer" wrote in message
...
: But the fact that the "speed" (really velocity) of light is constant,
: independent of the motions of the source and the receiver, is one of
: the most firmly established principles of science.
:
: But ---- what is the light moving relative to????????

The source, of course.

The fiction that the "speed" (really velocity) of light is constant,
independent of the motions of the source and the receiver, is one of the
stupidest unestablished loads of crap in Nature.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:09:47 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Don Stockbauer" wrote in message
...
: But the fact that the "speed" (really velocity) of light is constant,
: independent of the motions of the source and the receiver, is one of
: the most firmly established principles of science.
:
: But ---- what is the light moving relative to????????

The source, of course.

The fiction that the "speed" (really velocity) of light is constant,
independent of the motions of the source and the receiver, is one of the
stupidest unestablished loads of crap in Nature.

The truth is: every measurement of c yields the same value.
Nobody has ever measured something different (within error bars)
and nobody says: velocity IS constant (or not), everybody nowadays
refers to what one measures, except Androcles, that fisherman in the
sea of wisdom with his broken fishing rod.

Androcles is the stupidest established crackpot in the Universe.
ahahaaa........except hanson, pentcho, traveler, ahahhaaa,
there is actually no stupidest one, they outdo each other
every other day.

w.

Precision time dilatation measurements:

http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/leadArticle.do?laid=9851

On Nov 16, 4:46 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
worth the effort don't you think?

No because Divine Albert has already solved half of the problem (in
fact the whole problem) in 1911:

So general relativity correctly describes the speed of light? Then
what are you moaning about? You should be using your energy to promote
public understanding of GR.

If you don't think GR applies here, and are saying that there's in
fact a new mechanism which is unknown in the literature, then see my
previous response about solving the problem yourself.

On Nov 17, 8:36 am, wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:46 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

worth the effort don't you think?

No because Divine Albert has already solved half of the problem (in
fact the whole problem) in 1911:

So general relativity correctly describes the speed of light? Then
what are you moaning about? You should be using your energy to promote
public understanding of GR.

Let us say it this way: Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
describing how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential is CORRECT:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

However the fact that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
CORRECT implies that, as your masters measure the gravitational
redshift and e.g. confirm Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2), they
in fact measure the variability of the speed of light and confirm
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). They do not confirm any
gravitational time dilation. Equivalently, the Doppler effect confirms
the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light c'=c+v, where v is
the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Again no time
dilation. Now see what your masters and their sycophants teach:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"Special relativity joins space and time into a single weird thing
called spacetime that appears different to observers moving relative
to each other. Imagine you hold a firecracker in each of your
outstretched hands and you see the two go off simultaneously. (Ouch!)
Bizarrely, another person zooming by at near-light speed will see the
firecrackers explode at different times. (She'll also claim your arms
are shorter than you say they are.) In much the same way, a clock
flying at near-light speed would tick more slowly than the watch on
your wrist, and a person who travels through space in a high-speed
rocket would appear to age unusually slowly to someone stuck on Earth.
Such "time dilation" seems preposterous. But in 1907, Einstein
proposed an experiment to test the idea. Atoms and ions give off light
of specific colors. Light is a kind of rippling wave, and the rate of
rippling can be viewed essentially as the ticking of a clock. Einstein
reasoned that if the ion were accelerated to near-light speed, time
would slow for it and, hence, so would the rippling of the emitted
light waves. That is, the speeding ions would emit light of a lower
frequency. Now, Gerald Gwinner, a physicist at the University of
Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, and colleagues have tested time dilation
in just this way."

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 17, 8:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

However the fact that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
CORRECT implies that, as your masters measure the gravitational
redshift and e.g. confirm Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2), they
in fact measure the variability of the speed of light and confirm
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). They do not confirm any
gravitational time dilation. Equivalently, the Doppler effect confirms
the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light c'=c+v, where v is

So you think GR is partly wrong? Then show it formally. Don't just
throw equations around, nobody can even understand that, let alone
believe it.

What are these measurements of gravitational redshift? Why don't you
dig up the raw data and analyse it according to what you think is
correct and see what comes out. You can't make a conculsion without
doing any analysis.