EINSTEINIANA: CONSTANT WAVELENGTH IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of
equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly
the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could
imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it
gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see
at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives?
There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know
that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the
universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

On the next page Cox and Forshaw explain that the gravitational time
dilation is responsible for the frequency shift. That is, clocks at
the bottom of the laboratory run slower so that more wavecrests hit
the receiver in a unit time. This is silly camouflage of course - any
sane person would at least suspect that, since light's "energy should
increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other
thing we could imagine dropping", the effect can only be due to
acceleration. That is, it is the speed of light that "should increase
by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we
could imagine dropping". Yet this is Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world - the more idiotic the camouflage, the more efficient.

The gravitational-time-dilation interpretation of the frequency shift
has an implication that clever Einsteinians know about: the emitter
and the receiver measure the same wavelength! That is, the camouflage
is unable to twist the fact that the wavelength does not vary with the
gravitational potential. Silly Einsteinians do not know and do not
care about this implication and fiercely teach that the frequency and
the wavelength vary while the speed of light gloriously remains
constant. Of all clever Einsteinians not one could think of a reason
why silly Einsteinians should teach otherwise.

Pentcho Valev

Utmost schizophrenia:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastr...s/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité
générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe
comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0
Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as
everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do
material objects."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world all those statements do not mean
at all that light accelerates in a gravitational field "in exactly the
same way as a massive test particle". They mean just the opposite:

"Light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a
massive test particle" =

= "La lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de
la pesanteur" =

= "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything
else" =

= "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects"
=

= "In a gravitational field light does not accelerate - its speed
remains constant - while everything else accelerates".

Pentcho Valev

Utmost ignorance in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (zombies write
bestsellers):

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
pp. 32-33: "Maxwell's equations predict that light always moves with a
velocity of 299,792,458 meters per second, and there is no place to
insert the velocity of the source of the light or the velocity of the
receiver. The equations really do seem to assert that the speed of
light will always be measured to be the same, no matter how fast the
source and the receiver of the light are moving relative to each
other. It seems that Maxwell's equations are telling us that the speed
of light is a constant of nature. This really is a bizarre assertion,
so let us spend a little more time exploring its meaning. Imagine that
light is shining out from a flashlight. According to common sense, if
we run fast enough we could in principle catch up with the front of
the beam of light as it advances forward. Common sense might even
suggest that we could jog alongside the front of the beam if we
managed to run at the speed of light. But if we are to follow
Maxwell's equations to the letter, then no matter how fast we run, the
beam still recedes away from us at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per
second. If it did not, the speed of light would be different for the
person running compared to the person holding the flashlight,
contradicting Michelson and Morley's experimental results and our
assertion that the speed of light is a constant of nature, always the
same number, irrespective of the motion of the source or the
observer."

John Norton rebukes bestselling zombies but to no effect:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Michio Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he
could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he
suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's
equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered
more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams
always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
John Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a
student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in
1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity.
Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the
ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That
theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of
a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

As can be seen from the quotation below, in 1911 Einstein derived the
gravitational time dilation factor 1+phi/c^2 based on three premises:

Premise 1: The measured frequency varies with the gravitational
potential in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) when clocks
of identical constitution are used.

Premise 2: The measured wavelength does not vary with the
gravitational potential.

Premise 3: In the absence of a gravitational field the measured speed
of light is always the same when clocks of identical constitution are
used.

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one. If we did not satisfy this
condition, we should arrive at a definition of time by the application
of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this
would certainly be unnatural and unpractical. Therefore the two clocks
in S1 and S2 do not both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time
in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock
which goes 1+phi/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared
with U at one and the same place. For when measured by such a clock
the frequency of the ray of light which is considered above is at its
emission in S2 (...) equal to the frequency v1 of the same ray of
light on its arrival in S1. This has a consequence which is of
fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity
of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free
system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the
same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our
fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has
just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring
time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring
time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates,
has the gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when
removed to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c^2) times more
slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-
ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

Clearly the gravitational time dilation is incompatible with any
variation of the wavelength. Yet Einsteiniana's zombies fiercely teach
both gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength based on the
inference "I teach anything - they pay me regularly - what a wonderful
world". Einsteiniana's priests know about the incompatibility and
usually teach gravitational time dilation without mentioning the
wavelength at all.

Pentcho Valev

So the concept of gravitational time dilation is incompatible with the
concept of wavelength varying with the gravitational potential. Both
concepts are sacrosanct in Einsteiniana and are fiercely taught but
teaching them simultaneously might evoke dangerous thoughts in
students who are not brainwashed yet. Fully aware of the danger,
clever Einsteinians do not use the standard wave model when teaching
gravitational time dilation. In the new model the wavecrests are
replaced by flashes of light travelling in a row and the dangerous
wavelength is nowhere to be found:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin, p. 3: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits
flashes at time intervals t_s. A receiver on the ground receives the
flashes at time intervals t_r. What is t_r in terms of t_s? (...)
Therefore, the frequencies, f_r=1/t_r and f_s=1/t_s..."

David Morin's text reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev wrote:

As can be seen from the quotation below, in 1911 Einstein derived the
gravitational time dilation factor 1+phi/c^2 based on three premises:

Premise 1: The measured frequency varies with the gravitational
potential in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) when clocks
of identical constitution are used.

Premise 2: The measured wavelength does not vary with the
gravitational potential.

Premise 3: In the absence of a gravitational field the measured speed
of light is always the same when clocks of identical constitution are
used.

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one. If we did not satisfy this
condition, we should arrive at a definition of time by the application
of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this
would certainly be unnatural and unpractical. Therefore the two clocks
in S1 and S2 do not both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time
in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock
which goes 1+phi/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared
with U at one and the same place. For when measured by such a clock
the frequency of the ray of light which is considered above is at its
emission in S2 (...) equal to the frequency v1 of the same ray of
light on its arrival in S1. This has a consequence which is of
fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity
of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free
system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the
same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our
fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has
just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring
time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring
time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates,
has the gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when
removed to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c^2) times more
slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-
ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

Clearly the gravitational time dilation is incompatible with any
variation of the wavelength. Yet Einsteiniana's zombies fiercely teach
both gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength based on the
inference "I teach anything - they pay me regularly - what a wonderful
world". Einsteiniana's priests know about the incompatibility and
usually teach gravitational time dilation without mentioning the
wavelength at all.

Pentcho Valev

From time to time naïve Einsteinians, unaware of the danger, discover
that the wavelength is constant in a gravitational field:

http://128.84.158.119/PS_cache/gr-qc...9810030v13.pdf
Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of a
photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along
with its frequency (...) As both frequency and velocity change in this
experiment the measurement of a change in a photon frequency is in
fact an indirect measurement of a change in the photon local velocity.
(...) The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows
that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the
change of its frequency. (...) In such a way the gravitational
redshift essentially shows that two photons emitted at points of
different gravitational potential have different local velocities at
the same observation point in contradiction with the standard curved-
spacetime interpretation of general relativity which requires that the
local velocity of light be c (i.e. be independent of light pre-
history)."

Einsteiniana's priests have found a very silly way to neutralize such
discoveries, silly but extremely efficient in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world. They have redefined the meaning of the word
"local" - the original meaning is completely abandoned and in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world "local" means "as judged from a
system in free fall in the gravitational field". With the new meaning
of "local" Petkov's claim that "two photons emitted at points of
different gravitational potential have different local velocities at
the same observation point" is wrong and the money-spinner is saved.

Pentcho Valev

Absolute crimestop in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"Imagine a pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff
just as a diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the
diver will have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on
the ground as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source
was stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
effect."

Should the detector see the light's speed increased as well?
Einsteinians?

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev