THE GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FRAUD

The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:
[snip crap]

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Aug 15, 9:38 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

The problem with the gravitational redshift (wavelength or speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential?) is analogous to the
problem with the Doppler shift (wavelength or speed of light varies
with the speed of the light source?):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In the first case, one might assume that light from a
moving source retains the motion of the source when it passes through
a medium at rest or is reflected from a substance at rest. For this
case, Einstein observed, the wavelength of the light would be
unaffected by the motion of the source, but the frequency would be
affected. So a Doppler shift would not be experimentally detected by
devices that measure wavelength directly (such as diffraction
gratings); but it would be detected by processes that measure the
frequency directly. Here he named dispersion processes that depend on
resonance. In the usual understanding, such as supplied by relativity
theory, since wavelength ë and frequency í arealways related by c=ëí,
with c constant, a Doppler shift in frequency can only arise if there
is a corresponding Doppler shift in the wavelength."

So a solution to one of the problems (e.g. the wavelength varies while
the speed of the light is constant) automatically becomes a solution
to the other as well.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:38 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:
[snip crap]

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Aug 15, 6:54*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:38 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:





The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

The problem with the gravitational redshift (wavelength or speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential?) is analogous to the
problem with the Doppler shift (wavelength or speed of light varies
with the speed of the light source?):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In the first case, one might assume that light from a
moving source retains the motion of the source when it passes through
a medium at rest or is reflected from a substance at rest. For this
case, Einstein observed, the wavelength of the light would be
unaffected by the motion of the source, but the frequency would be
affected. So a Doppler shift would not be experimentally detected by
devices that measure wavelength directly (such as diffraction
gratings); but it would be detected by processes that measure the
frequency directly. Here he named dispersion processes that depend on
resonance. In the usual understanding, such as supplied by relativity
theory, since wavelength ë and frequency í arealways related by c=ëí,
with c constant, a Doppler shift in frequency can only arise if there
is a corresponding Doppler shift in the wavelength."

So a solution to one of the problems (e.g. the wavelength varies while
the speed of the light is constant) automatically becomes a solution
to the other as well.

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Mass affects the speed of light either coming or going.
Doesn't anybody remember the reason the bending of light had to be
changed by a factor of 2? Light just had to have more curvature to
account for the measurements we were getting to follow the current
theoretical structure of that era.

If you were a physicist, you could understand that Doppler, frequency
and wavelength can only con grue with a changing of the field it is
within. The field strength of each mass is different and relates to
the mass. Where is the mass now? Did it move? Then so did the
field.

We might not know exactly why such a field exists, but we know it is
there. Gravity contributes to this field in its own way (weak,
strong, electromagnetic and gravity). We already know the strengths
of these 'forces' within the field and know their relative
relationships. R^2 or 1/R^2 to where the mass is.

The question remains as to how we can understand these constituent
'forces'. We developed an 'electro-weak' theory that seems to satisfy
some Q theorists and have even added the 'strong' into it. But not
gravity. We are of the wrong illusion with this.

Where and why does mass get its properties? Does it require energy to
maintain its structure? Yeah, I know that a magnet seems to have a
perpetual energy. How? Would you like to say that 'charges' exist?
Let's examine this.

Where does a 'charge' get its energy from? Is that perpetual also?
This might seem unfair, but they do have the ability to do 'work'. So
how does all this energy exist that can produce all this?

There must be a precursor. We call ours the Big Bang. Does our BB
require a precursor? Were we of many other BB's that might exist to
have an ancestry. And then, why is there an existence at all?

Our so-called 'minds' have struggled to give us a satisfactory
explanation from our own sense of time immemorial. We like to think
that we are 'special' in a God given way, but we don't know of any God
except for one our 'minds' create to provide for such an existence.
And we can't even figure out what gravity is. Go figure.

Well, this is the ultimate paradox. It seems that 'our' assumptions
are the physic and the God. Carefully examine what we think an
assumption is. Yeah. It's all we have to work with.

A rebuttal might contain the fact that a consistency is measured and
provides for relationships. Yes, there is. There is no denying a
structured existence. But what is beyond our assumptive recognition?

This is where we fail to recognize that are our assumptions are just
that. We want to recognize that a physical structure exists, but
don't quite have the knowledge of how or why it exists. We invent to
satisfy the sad history of 'our' assumptions.

I've stopped playing that recursive thought game, although I recognize
that recursive behavior exists in the nature of the physic. It
doesn't mean we can't recognize it! We'll never get to the endgame,
but our assumptions are way off track and lead us into a false
recognition of what a physical recursiveness really is.

The bottom line here is that the physic exists. I hope that people
will understand it better and not make a fantasy of it. But as I look
at these posts, prior assumptions run wild.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 6:54 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:38 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:





The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

The problem with the gravitational redshift (wavelength or speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential?) is analogous to the
problem with the Doppler shift (wavelength or speed of light varies
with the speed of the light source?):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In the first case, one might assume that light from a
moving source retains the motion of the source when it passes through
a medium at rest or is reflected from a substance at rest. For this
case, Einstein observed, the wavelength of the light would be
unaffected by the motion of the source, but the frequency would be
affected. So a Doppler shift would not be experimentally detected by
devices that measure wavelength directly (such as diffraction
gratings); but it would be detected by processes that measure the
frequency directly. Here he named dispersion processes that depend on
resonance. In the usual understanding, such as supplied by relativity
theory, since wavelength ë and frequency í arealways related by c=ëí,
with c constant, a Doppler shift in frequency can only arise if there
is a corresponding Doppler shift in the wavelength."

So a solution to one of the problems (e.g. the wavelength varies while
the speed of the light is constant) automatically becomes a solution
to the other as well.

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Mass affects the speed of light either coming or going.
Doesn't anybody remember the reason the bending of light had to be
changed by a factor of 2?



Light just had to have more curvature to
account for the measurements we were getting to follow the current
theoretical structure of that era.

If you were a physicist, you could understand that Doppler, frequency
and wavelength can only con grue with a changing of the field it is
within. The field strength of each mass is different and relates to
the mass. Where is the mass now?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================



Did it move?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================

Then so did the
field.


We might not know exactly why such a field exists, but we know it is
there. Gravity contributes to this field in its own way (weak,
strong, electromagnetic and gravity). We already know the strengths
of these 'forces' within the field and know their relative
relationships. R^2 or 1/R^2 to where the mass is.

The question remains as to how we can understand these constituent
'forces'. We developed an 'electro-weak' theory that seems to satisfy
some Q theorists and have even added the 'strong' into it. But not
gravity. We are of the wrong illusion with this.

Where and why does mass get its properties?

==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================
Does it require energy to
maintain its structure?

==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================
Yeah, I know that a magnet seems to have a
perpetual energy. How?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================
Would you like to say that 'charges' exist?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================

Let's examine this.

Where does a 'charge' get its energy from? Is that perpetual also?
This might seem unfair, but they do have the ability to do 'work'. So
how does all this energy exist that can produce all this?

There must be a precursor. We call ours the Big Bang. Does our BB
require a precursor? Were we of many other BB's that might exist to
have an ancestry. And then, why is there an existence at all?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================

Our so-called 'minds' have struggled to give us a satisfactory
explanation from our own sense of time immemorial. We like to think
that we are 'special' in a God given way, but we don't know of any God
except for one our 'minds' create to provide for such an existence.
And we can't even figure out what gravity is. Go figure.

Well, this is the ultimate paradox. It seems that 'our' assumptions
are the physic and the God. Carefully examine what we think an
assumption is. Yeah. It's all we have to work with.

A rebuttal might contain the fact that a consistency is measured and
provides for relationships. Yes, there is. There is no denying a
structured existence. But what is beyond our assumptive recognition?
==========================================
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
==========================================


This is where we fail to recognize that are our assumptions are just
that. We want to recognize that a physical structure exists, but
don't quite have the knowledge of how or why it exists. We invent to
satisfy the sad history of 'our' assumptions.

I've stopped playing that recursive thought game, although I recognize
that recursive behavior exists in the nature of the physic. It
doesn't mean we can't recognize it! We'll never get to the endgame,
but our assumptions are way off track and lead us into a false
recognition of what a physical recursiveness really is.

The bottom line here is that the physic exists. I hope that people
will understand it better and not make a fantasy of it. But as I look
at these posts, prior assumptions run wild.

On Aug 16, 3:01*am, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:38 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The fraud:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (issue of 1 April 1960)
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy."

The truth:

[snip crap]

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...periments.html
*Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

Cleverest Uncle Al, you obviously admire Master Tom Roberts's and
Master Clifford Will's thoughts:

Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

Is it true, Cleverest Uncle Al, that "Einstein's approach (via
symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were
other approaches", or Master Tom Roberts is simply lying?

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2006-3/
*Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Clifford Will: "It is interesting to note that the classic derivations
of the deflection of light that use only the corpuscular theory of
light (Cavendish 1784, von Soldner 1803 [277]), or the principle of
equivalence (Einstein 1911), yield only the “1/2” part of the
coefficient in front of the expression in Equation (46). But the
result of these calculations is the deflection of light relative to
local straight lines, as established for example by rigid rods;
however, because of space curvature around the Sun, determined by the
PPN parameter , local straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic
straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the remaining
factor “gamma/2”. The first factor “1/2” holds in any metric theory,
the second “gamma/2” varies from theory to theory. Thus, calculations
that purport to derive the full deflection using the equivalence
principle alone are incorrect."

Here, Cleverest Uncle Al, Master Clifford Will suggests that
Einstein's 1911 approach based on the equivalence principle is
incorrect but still Master does not suggest that the speed of light is
CONSTANT in a gravitational field does he? He is a Genius this Master
Clifford Will - you never know what he suggests, as in the following
classical text:

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

Just think, Cleverest Uncle Al:

Premise 1: John Michell thinks the speed of light is variable in a
gravitational field.

Premise 2: John Michell does not know special relativity.

Conclusion: ?!?!

What conclusion does Master Genius Clifford Will suggest, Cleverest
Uncle Al? The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field? The
speed of light varies but not in the way John Michell, who does not
know special relativity, thinks it should?

Pentcho Valev

On 16 Aug, 09:23, Pentcho Valev wrote:

snip - endless variations on the same old material!

If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+
postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day -
might be enough!


Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would
seem to prove this!


Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

On Aug 16, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 16, 3:01 am, Uncle Al wrote:



Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip]

No other hobbies? Golf, boweling, lawn darts?

You should spread the wealth and drop your pearls of wisdom on other
news groups. It seems a waste to focus so much of your time & talent
on just sci.physics.

--Mike Jr

On Aug 16, 2:37*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Aug 16, 3:01 am, Uncle Al wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip]

No other hobbies? *Golf, boweling, lawn darts?

You should spread the wealth and drop your pearls of wisdom on other
news groups. *It seems a waste to focus so much of your time & talent
on just sci.physics.

I am not su you and Darwin123 are new silly zombies on this forum
and I somehow feel responsible for your intellectual development
("older" silly zombies such as Dirk Moortel need no education: they
know that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is an idiocy, don't take the
forum seriously and participate in the discussions just for fun). So
now you and Darwin123 should consider very carefully the idiotic
implications of the relativistic interpretation of the Doppler shift:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c0706da2fb96b0
John Kennaugh: "SR is physically absurd which is why physics now
insists that physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern
theory. Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away.
According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now
change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v
the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler
shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."

Pentcho Valev