EINSTEIN INTRODUCES GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

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)."

Four implications (or implicit assumptions):

1. Light is a continuous field of waves.

2. The measured speed of light does not vary with the gravitational
potential when clocks of identical constitution are used.

3. The wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential.

4. The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is invalid
when clocks of identical constitution are used.

Pentcho Valev

It is easy to see that, if the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2)
introduced by Einstein is true, then the formula:

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

is false both in the presence and in the absence of a gravitational
field. For instance, Einstein says:

"...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."

But "we" also measure a frequency shift:

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

confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment and ENTIRELY caused by the
time dilation effect, and an UNCHANGED wavelength (the assumption that
the wavelength has changed is untenable since this would make the
frequency shift different from the above one). Clearly the formula
(frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is incompatible with the
time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians will have to denounce
this formula officially if the precious gravitational time dilation is
to last forever.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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)."

Four implications (or implicit assumptions):

1. Light is a continuous field of waves.

2. The measured speed of light does not vary with the gravitational
potential when clocks of identical constitution are used.

3. The wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential.

4. The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is invalid
when clocks of identical constitution are used.

Pentcho Valev

Banesh Hoffmann contradicts Einstein very carefully: There is no
gravitational time dilation - rather, the gravitational redshift
"arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and
time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

What can befall light signals in the presence of gravitation? Banesh
Hoffmann next discusses the variation of the speed of light in a
gravitational field.

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 17 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On 11/16/11 Pentcho Valev wrote:

Banesh Hoffmann contradicts Einstein very carefully: There is no
gravitational time dilation - rather, the gravitational redshift
"arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and
time in the presence of gravitation":

What he says does not "contradict" Einstein's 1916 General Relativity, though it
probably does contradict what he said earlier, using incomplete portions of the
theory. While following the long and difficult road from SR to GR, Einstein
said/published several things that turned out to be wrong in the actual theory.

And these are precisely the statements that Valev quotes over and
over without bothering to understand them.

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

This is certainly true in GR. The clocks THEMSELVES are not affected, but the
geometrical relationship between the source clock and the signal is different
from that of the detector clock and the signal, due to the curvature of the
manifold which we call "gravitation".

But your brothers Einsteinians teach that the clocks ARE affected,
Honest Roberts:

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "Décalage vers le rouge ou dilatation
gravitationnelle des durées. (....) D'un point de vue plus général,
puisque la fréquence d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à
l'échelle atomique, le principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une
dilatation gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux
horloges situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel
différents."

http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/01...uete-des-temps
Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace
et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le
temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très
dense qu'à proximité d'une planète."

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

This is exactly what Divine Albert introduced in 1911 and what Banesh
Hoffmann rejects:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "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."

Are brothers Einsteinians as honest and clever as you are, Honest
Roberts?

Pentcho Valev

Banesh Hoffmann contradicts Einstein very carefully: There is NO
GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION - rather, the gravitational redshift
"arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and
time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

What could befall light signals in the presence of gravitation? Their
speed varies with the gravitational potential, as predicted by Michell
and Laplace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911."

Some Einsteinians know that there is no gravitational time dilation,
the majority fiercely teach it. Believers invariably sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity".

Pentcho Valev

Note that in 1911 Einstein was forced to introduce gravitational time
dilation by the implicit assumption that light stretches between the
emitter and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD.
Without this assumption the gravitational time dilation is just
absurd:

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911."

In 1954 Einstein realised that, by relying too much on the field
concept of light, he had in fact killed physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev