A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 13, 08:06 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

The gravitational redshift as measured in numerous experiments confirms Newton's emission theory of light according to which, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies just like the speed of ordinary mechanical objects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

If the gravitational redshift confirms the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory, does it confirm the variation predicted by Einstein's relativity as well? General relativity predicts a variation of the speed of light twice as great as the variation of the speed of ordinary mechanical objects:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

So we have:

NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY: predicted speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+phi/c^2); measured frequency shift f'=c'/L=f(1+phi/c^2) where L is the wavelength.

EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY: predicted speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+2phi/c^2); measured frequency shift f'=f(1+phi/c^2).

Clearly the measured frequency shift f'=f(1+phi/c^2) is compatible with the speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+phi/c^2) predicted by the emission theory but is incompatible with the speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) predicted by general relativity.

There seems to be only one paper on Internet trying to convince the reader that the measured frequency shift f'=f(1+phi/c^2) is compatible with both the speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+phi/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory and the speed-of-light shift c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) predicted by Einstein's general relativity:

http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html
"The difference between c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) (1916) and c'=c(1+phi/c^2) (1911) is the factor 2 with the gravitational potential. Gravitational redshift gives no decision which of the equations is the right one."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 30th 13, 08:56 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964AmJPh..32...52O
American Journal of Physics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 52-55 (1964): "Gravitational redshift of photons from a star and gravitational bending of the path of photons grazing the sun can be derived by using only Newton's laws and the idea of a photon as a particle of mass hv/c^2. The difference between the relativistic and Newtonian equations for gravitational redshift is too small to be detected and, therefore, gravitational redshift does not provide experimental verification of the general theory of relativity."

That is, the shift in frequency is caused by the shift in the speed of light in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. It can be shown that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)), then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer again in accordance with the emission theory (c'=c+v):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

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

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old May 1st 13, 08:14 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...in-relativity/
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center.. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

According to Newton's emission theory of light, "light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" means that photons lose SPEED just like ordinary mechanical objects (e.g. cannonballs).

According to Einstein's general relativity, "light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" means that photons lose SPEED twice as fast as ordinary mechanical objects.

Any sane scientist knows that Newton's emission theory of light is correct and Einstein's general relativity is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old May 2nd 13, 07:28 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Professor Bingo the Einsteiniano, Fellow of the Royal Society, explains why Newton's emission theory of light is wrong, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...ublic-2006.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "It is interesting to analyze the problem using the Ballistic Theory according to which energy is also conserved. The speed of the 'light particles' which have to climb up the gravitational potential well is reduced. Thus according to the Ballistic Theory, light coming from different sources will have different speeds. In fact in 1784 John Michell predicted precisely this would happen and suggested an experiment with a prism to check it. But his prediction contradicts the observed fact (which we use when setting up Special Relativity) that the speed of light received here on earth is universal and independent of its source."

Bingo the Einsteiniano is the name of any person in Divine Albert's world who has undergone special brainwashing in Einsteiniana, brainwashing very similar to the one undergone by an unfortunate creature called Bingo the Clowno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 12 01:21 PM
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 December 30th 11 12:08 PM
Gravitational Redshift WG Astronomy Misc 1 February 26th 10 06:28 PM
Thinking about gravitational RedShift Robert Karl Stonjek Astronomy Misc 0 August 16th 08 03:13 PM
EINSTEIN ZOMBIES CONFUSED ABOUT GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 August 15th 07 07:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.