FALLING LIGHT IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

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."

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative
to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in
accordance with the equation (it is assumed that v(v'-v) and air
friction is ignored):

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

The speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to
the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in
accordance with one of the following equations:

(1) c' = c(1+(gh)/c^2): Newton's emission theory of light.

(2) c' = c(1+2(gh)/c^2): Einstein's general relativity.

(3) c' = c: Stephen Hawking.

The frequency of light emitted downwards with initial frequency f
varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the
equation:

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

This equation was confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960.
It is obviously compatible with (1) and incompatible with (2) and
(3).

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the Pound-Rebka experiment is
just one of the glorious confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory. Stephen Hawking is the Albert Einstein of our times. Newton's
emission theory has been refuted and forgotten.

Pentcho Valev

The "inconsistent" theory of Isaac Newton:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the
theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would
respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might
expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are. (...) In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

Newton's emission theory says that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/
c^2). This, combined with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

leads to the expectation of a frequency shift of gh/c^2. And yes, the
Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed this expectation. How was this
possible if "it is not really consistent to treat light like
cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light
is fixed"?

Pentcho Valev

The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the frequency of light
varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the
equation:

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

In order to account for this frequency shift without violating the
principle of constancy of the speed of light, Einsteinians teach that
the clock on a tower of height h is running fast (compared to a clock
on the ground) by a factor (1+gh/c^2). However there is an implication
in this camouflage that often makes clever Einsteinians wake up in a
cold sweat. If the gravitational time dilation is a true concept,
then, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential. That
is, the gravitational time dilation Einsteinians introduce completely
neutralizes the frequency shift so that any variation of the
wavelength would disturb the precious constancy of the speed of light.

Things get even worse when the principle of equivalence is applied:
now the lack of wavelength change accompanying the gravitational
redshift becomes a lack of wavelength change accompanying the Doppler
effect, when emitter and observer just move relative to one another in
the absence of any gravitational field. In a world different from
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world such a "lack of wavelength change"
would be synonymous to "Einstein's relativity is unthinkable".

Pentcho Valev

Gravitational redshift: theoretical predictions.

The top of a tower of height h emits light towards the grounds. The
emitter MEASURES frequency f, wavelength L and speed of light c. The
receiver (on the ground) MEASURES frequency f', wavelength L' and
speed of light c'. Clocks used by the emitter and the receiver are "of
identical constitution".

Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=L; c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

Einstein 1911:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=L; c'=c.

Einstein 1915 (general relativity):

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=?; c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).

Note that, if Einstein's 1911 predictions are true, the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is invalid. The same seems to hold true for Einstein's 1915
predictions but, for a definitive conclusion, the explicit variation
of the wavelength with the gravitational potential is needed.

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 14, 4:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On 12/14/11 12/14/11 1:30 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Gravitational redshift: theoretical predictions.
Einstein 1915 (general relativity):
f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=?; c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).

Wrong. GR predicts (to first order in small quantities):
f'=f(1+gh/c^2); L'=f(1-gh/c^2); c'=c

These quantities are what a LOCAL observer would measure...

Honest Roberts,

Your "LOCAL observer" is just a silly red herring you have been
repeating for many years. Try to concentrate on the variable speed of
light Einstein himself speaks about. As superior brother Steve Carlip
explains to you, "this interpretation is perfectly valid and makes
good physical sense":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
"...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
[...] 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." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Don't be misled, Honest Roberts, by the last words of superior brother
Steve Carlip - he just practices doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Michelson-Morley experiment
refutes the Michell-Laplace (emission) theory:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the
Michelson-Morley experiment would confirm the Michell-Laplace
(emission) theory:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the Pound-Rebka experiment
gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment
"The Pound-Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert
Einstein's theory of general relativity. (...) It is considered to be
the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general
relativity."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the
Pound-Rebka experiment would have confirmed the Michell-Laplace
emission theory in the first place:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies,
2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37
The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt
"...the gravitational Doppler effect (also called the gravitational
displacement of line rays) discovered by Michell in 1784 is
quantitatively the same as Einstein's."

Pentcho Valev

Antirelativists claim that Einsteinians interpret the result of the
Pound-Rebka experiment in terms of the Michell-Laplace emission
theory:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html
"The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details
but in principle it is very simple. Photons of a precisely determined
wavelength were emitted at the top and bottom of the 22.5-meter-high
Jefferson Tower on the Harvard campus. (...) Proponents of the theory
of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations
of these results that are said to be equivalent to each other and
therefore all equally correct. (...) In the drawing of tower #2, the
photons are emitted at a wavelength of exactly one (=1) that remains
constant as they move through the gravitational "field." However, as
they move thorough this field, the photons "fall" toward the earth
like any other material body, so that the descending photons move at
speeds increasingly greater than C, and the ascending photons move at
decreasing speeds of less than C."

Do antirelativists lie and unjustly accuse Einsteinians of being
inconsistent? They don't - such interpretations could be seen in the
past - but at present search in Internet would show no signs of
interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in terms of the emission
theory:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "The messages he had received referred to articles or
news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it
appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother,
in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian
front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly
be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher
Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big
Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that
had actually happened. Or again, the Times of the nineteenth of
December had published the official forecasts of the output of various
classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was
also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue
contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared
that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job
was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the
later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple
error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time
ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a
"categorical pledge" were the official words) that there would be no
reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston
was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes
to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to
substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably
be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April."

Pentcho Valev