Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity

On 26 , 02:47, Sam Wormley wrote in
sci.physics:
Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity

Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is
that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and
some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant
in special relativity.

Fortunately Wormley Nature does not pay any attention to what you call
"the predictions of general relativity". This means that, objectively,
either the speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential,
or it does not vary with the gravitational potential. One of the two
assertions is true, the other is false, and Nature has already said
which one is true. Clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult know
Nature's verdict (the speed of photons DOES VARY with the
gravitational potential) but are reluctant to discuss it because, by
applying Einstein's equivalence principle, one can infer that, in the
absence of a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies with the
relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a
matter of deduction that can be presented in this way:

(c'=c(1+V/c^2)) + (equivalence principle) -- (c'=c+v)

Pentcho Valev

In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein
arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of
equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a
freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the
infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR
remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity.

Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...eleration.html

The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course
there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of
accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
did.

The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.

See:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...eleration.html

I fail to see a conflict, Pentcho. When gravitational fields are important,
general relativity is the tool to use. When gravitational fields are
negligible, the speed of light is measured c for all observers. Let the
data do the talking. There has not been an observation that contradicts
a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general
relativity.

On Jul 27, 9:58 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip idiocy]

Go away obsessive loon.

On 29 , 00:10, Tom Roberts wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
...the speed of photons varies with the
relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a
matter of deduction that can be presented in this way:
(c'=c(1+V/c^2)) + (equivalence principle) -- (c'=c+v)

That's cool, Pentcho

Don't be sucked in by an idiot. In his leftmost equation, V is the
NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, not any velocity (check the units).
His implication does not hold, based on logical deductions from these
equations.

and we have empirical data, Pentcho to show
whether you are right or wrong.

Yes. He is wrong. That is, his leftmost equation is refuted
experimentally, as is his right-hand equation. The implication is thus moot.

Tom Roberts

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking in no longer etc.). According to the Albert Einstein of our
generation, by confirming experimentally the gravitational redshift

f'=f(1+V/c^2)

Pound and Rebka REFUTED Einstein's 1911 equation

c'=c(1+V/c^2)

Other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult may think that the validity
of f'=f(1+V/c^2) CONFIRMS the validity of c'=c(1+V/c^2) and for that
reason those hypnotists may even TEACH Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) but this situation is standard in Einstein zombie world:
bellicose zombies should be programmed to know that the equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is BOTH true and false and to defend BOTH the truth and
the falsehood. The destruction of heretics is what matters.

And the implication is MOOT according to the Albert Einstein of our
generation:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) and you obtain c'=c+v. That is what Tom Roberts, the
Albert Einstein of our generation, calls a MOOT implication.

Pentcho Valev

On 29 July, 18:29, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote stuff:

[snipped]

Are you dense, Pentcho? See Shapiro Effect
Consider the time delay of signal passing between the earth and Mars
due to the curvature of space time by the Sun. Then

delta T_max = (4G M/c^3)*[ln(4 r_mars r_earth/r_sun^2) +1 ]

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

BTW, Pentcho -- Gravitational Redshift
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lRedshift.html

Wormley Wormley why should we consider all the definitions that
zombies in Einstein criminal cult have found it suitable to give? It
would be much better for us to deal with the interpretation of
gravitational redshift given in perhaps the best relativity textbook:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
"This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound
and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured
the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was
a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a
frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to
within 1% accuracy."

Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
following question:

Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On 29 July, 18:29, Sam Wormley wrote:
: Pentcho Valev wrote stuff:
:
: [snipped]
:
: Are you dense, Pentcho? See Shapiro Effect
: Consider the time delay of signal passing between the earth and Mars
: due to the curvature of space time by the Sun. Then
:
: delta T_max = (4G M/c^3)*[ln(4 r_mars r_earth/r_sun^2) +1 ]
:
: http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
:
: BTW, Pentcho -- Gravitational Redshift
: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lRedshift.html
:
: Wormley Wormley why should we consider all the definitions that
: zombies in Einstein criminal cult have found it suitable to give? It
: would be much better for us to deal with the interpretation of
: gravitational redshift given in perhaps the best relativity textbook:
:
: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
: "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound
: and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured
: the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was
: a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a
: frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to
: within 1% accuracy."
:
: Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
: following question:
:
: Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
: equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
: gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
: +v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
: source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
: observer?
:
: Pentcho Valev

Cars come off an assembly line and are driven out of the factory
to a holding area, a large parking lot.

Inside the plant the cars are one car length apart, crawl along at 1 mph
and leave the car plant at a rate of 1 per minute. A quick inspection
is then carried out, turning on the lights etc., adding fuel and starting
the
engine. They are then driven at 20 mph to the holding area.

Because speed = car length * frequency and the speed of the
cars is 1 mph, 60 cars an hour are produced inside the plant and
1200 cars an hour arrive at the holding area because they are driven
20 times faster outside than they move inside the plant.

This is a notable feat indeed, considering that Ford engineer Joe
Shapiro was able to measure the distance between cars (that is, the
increase in frequency) to within 10% accuracy.

Are you dense, Pentcho? See Joe Shapiro effect.
Consider the time delay of cars passing between the plant and
the holding area due to the curvature of roads along the way.
Then 20 mph = car length * frequency.

On 30 July, 15:54, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 29 July, 18:29, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote stuff:

[snipped]

Are you dense, Pentcho? See Shapiro Effect
Consider the time delay of signal passing between the earth and Mars
due to the curvature of space time by the Sun. Then

delta T_max = (4G M/c^3)*[ln(4 r_mars r_earth/r_sun^2) +1 ]

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

BTW, Pentcho -- Gravitational Redshift
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lRedshift.html

Wormley Wormley why should we consider all the definitions that
zombies in Einstein criminal cult have found it suitable to give? It
would be much better for us to deal with the interpretation of
gravitational redshift given in perhaps the best relativity textbook:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...ch13.pdfpp.2-4
"This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound
and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured
the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was
a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a
frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to
within 1% accuracy."

Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
following question:

Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?

Pentcho Valev

You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency
shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c,
therefore,

delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or

f_new = f_org (1+gh/c^2

Bravo Wormley!

Pentcho Valev

On 30 July, 19:41, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
following question:
Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?
Pentcho Valev
You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency
shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c,
therefore,

delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or

f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)

Bravo Wormley!

Pentcho Valev

Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK?

Wormley Wormley that is not the end of the story. Now you should
combine your equation

f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)

and the textbook equation

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Master Tom Roberts often does so and obtains....yes he obtains
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). Then Master Tom Roberts
sticks his head in the sand, exposes other parts of his body and
starts shouting, mouth full of sand:

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc.

Of course, Master Tom Roberts does not expect YOU to do the same. No
zombie in Einstein criminal cult is allowed to say anything like
"Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong!". Zombies are
only allowed to destroy heretics, sing "Divine Einstein" and go into
convulsions while singing.

Pentcho Valev

On 31 July, 10:48, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 30 July, 19:41, Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
following question:
Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?
Pentcho Valev
You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency
shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c,
therefore,
delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or
f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)
Bravo Wormley!
Pentcho Valev
Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK?

Wormley Wormley that is not the end of the story. Now you should
combine your equation

f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)

and the textbook equation

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Master Tom Roberts often does so and obtains....yes he obtains
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). Then Master Tom Roberts
sticks his head in the sand, exposes other parts of his body and
starts shouting, mouth full of sand:

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc.

Of course, Master Tom Roberts does not expect YOU to do the same. No
zombie in Einstein criminal cult is allowed to say anything like
"Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong!". Zombies are
only allowed to destroy heretics, sing "Divine Einstein" and go into
convulsions while singing.

Pentcho Valev

Lambda_new = Lambda_orig (1-gh/c^2)

Were you expecting something else, Pentcho?

No of course. On seeing this last result of yours, Master Tom Roberts
will start crying. He will lose any hope. Zombies will destroy
Einstein criminal cult in the end.

Pentcho Valev

http://xkcd.com/202/
http://xkcd.com/258/
Bug report:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm



"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On 30 July, 19:41, Sam Wormley wrote:
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
: following question:
: Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
: equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
: gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation
c'=c
: +v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
: source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
: observer?
: Pentcho Valev
: You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the
frequency
: shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c,
: therefore,
:
: delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or
:
: f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)
:
: Bravo Wormley!
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK?
:
: Wormley Wormley that is not the end of the story. Now you should
: combine your equation
:
: f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)
:
: and the textbook equation
:
: frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
:
: Master Tom Roberts often does so and obtains....yes he obtains
: Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). Then Master Tom Roberts
: sticks his head in the sand, exposes other parts of his body and
: starts shouting, mouth full of sand:
:
: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
: Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc.
:
: Of course, Master Tom Roberts does not expect YOU to do the same. No
: zombie in Einstein criminal cult is allowed to say anything like
: "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong!". Zombies are
: only allowed to destroy heretics, sing "Divine Einstein" and go into
: convulsions while singing.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:

On Jul 31, 3:18 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 30 July, 19:41, Sam Wormley wrote:



Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now Wormley Wormley you and Master Tom Roberts should answer the
following question:
Is the frequency shift of gh/c^2 consistent with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and, equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c
+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light
source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer?
Pentcho Valev
You might want to correct your expression, Pentcho.... the frequency
shift of gh/c^2 is just that, not a shift in the speed of light c,
therefore,

delta f / f = gh/c^2 , or

f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)

Bravo Wormley!

Pentcho Valev

Now I don't want you to get this wrong again! OK?

Wormley Wormley that is not the end of the story. Now you should
combine your equation

f_new = f_orig (1+gh/c^2)

and the textbook equation

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Master Tom Roberts often does so and obtains....yes he obtains
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). Then Master Tom Roberts
sticks his head in the sand, exposes other parts of his body and
starts shouting, mouth full of sand:

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Wrong! Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....etc.

What's wrong with that? GR is not the 1911 theory,
it was introduced in 1915.

Unlike you, we don't think Einstein is some sort of
divine figure. He was a working physicist. That means
that unlike you, in 4 years he could make progress,
and hypotheses could change.

Einstein died in 1955. That's 40 years after the GR
paper, and 50 after the SR paper. Unlike you, a working
physicist could make even more progress in 40 or 50
years than in 4. So there have been other modifications
and refinements to SR, GR, their derivations and their
interpretations.

Actual scientists can make mistakes and realize they've
made mistakes. That's how science works. So sorry it
goes against your world view.

- Randy