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

IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 11, 10:08 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2011...einstein-wrong
"If the speed of light is a constant in the universe, as Albert
Einstein famously predicted..."

Actually he did not predict that. The speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential either in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light or in
accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by general
relativity:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full
formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can
find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The
Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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....For
the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28):
c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. 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
"Around 1911 Einstein proposed to incorporate gravitation into a
modified version of special relativity by allowing the speed of light
to vary as a scalar from place to place in Euclidean space as a
function of the gravitational potential. This "scalar c field" is
remarkably similar to a simple refractive medium, in which the speed
of light varies as a function of the density. Fermat's principle of
least time can then be applied to define the paths of light rays as
geodesics in the spacetime manifold (as discussed in Section 8.4).
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."

CONCLUSION: Light leaving the gravitational field of the emitter
continues its journey with speed c' lower than c. The lower the speed
of light, the higher the redshift.

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old October 4th 11, 09:24 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
konyberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

On Oct 4, 11:08*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2011...orial-was-eins...
"If the speed of light is a constant in the universe, as Albert
Einstein famously predicted..."

Actually he did not predict that. The speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential either in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light or in
accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by general
relativity:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full
formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can
find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The
Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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....For
the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28):
c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. 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
"Around 1911 Einstein proposed to incorporate gravitation into a
modified version of special relativity by allowing the speed of light
to vary as a scalar from place to place in Euclidean space as a
function of the gravitational potential. This "scalar c field" is
remarkably similar to a simple refractive medium, in which the speed
of light varies as a function of the density. Fermat's principle of
least time can then be applied to define the paths of light rays as
geodesics in the spacetime manifold (as discussed in Section 8.4).
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."

CONCLUSION: Light leaving the gravitational field of the emitter
continues its journey with speed c' lower than c. The lower the speed
of light, the higher the redshift.

Pentcho Valev




Hasn't this shift of color to do with the frequensy (wavelength) of
the observed ligt rather than speed? When Einstein spoke about
constant speed of light, he talked about speed in vacuum. In materia
with density, the speed varies?

KON
  #3  
Old October 5th 11, 09:32 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

http://www.physique.usherbrooke.ca/t...relativite.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Le renouveau n'est pourtant pas loin et on peut le
dater asssez précisément. C'est sans doute, en 1960, le succès de
l'expérience de Robert Pound et Glen Rebka qui le marque
scientifiquement. Pour la première fois, une expérience terrestre
confirme la relativité générale, en vérifiant avec précision que les
fréquences d'émission des atomes sont modifiées par le champ de
gravitation de la terre."

Pas exact, Jean Eisenstaedt. L'expérience de Pound-Rebka confirme la
relativité générale GLORIEUSEMENT. Il ne faut pas omettre ce
"GLORIEUSEMENT" parce que l'expérience confirme aussi la théorie de
l'émission de Newton mais d'une façon plutôt minable. Cette théorie
(de l'émission) dit que le décalage mesuré des fréquences est dû au
fait que le champ gravitationnel accélère les signaux lumineux mais
c'est faux, Jean Eisenstaedt, c'est très très faux. Les fréquences
d'émission des atomes sont modifiées parce que ces atomes sont des
petites horloges dont le rythme intrinsèque varie avec le potentiel
gravitationnel. C'est la vérité absolue, Jean Eisenstaedt. Banesh
Hoffmann raconte des bêtises mais c'est pour mieux vendre son liv

http://www.decitre.fr/livres/La-rela.../9782842450199
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativité, histoire d'une grande idée", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, pp. 166-169: "L'observateur au plafond
constatera que l'horloge du plancher fonctionne plus lentement que
celle du plafond. Et pourtant les deux horloges continuent à
fonctionner au même rythme. (.....) Le décalage gravitationnel des
fréquences n'est pas la conséquence d'un changement du rythme
intrinseque des horloges. Ce décalage resulte de L'EFFET DU CHAMP
GRAVITATIONNEL SUR LES SIGNAUX LUMINEUX qui se propagent dans l'espace-
temps."

Michell, Laplace, Soldner, même Einstein en 1911 - ils tous ne
racontaient que des bêtises:

http://www.arte.tv/fr/La-relativite-...ve/856858.html
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Michell est persuadé de l'universalité de la
gravitation et que la lumière doit, comme tout autre corpuscule, y
être soumise. Il en déduit, en cette fin du XVIIIe siècle, qu'un
corpuscule lumineux, émis par une étoile animée d'une vitesse
constante, va être petit à petit freiné et sa vitesse diminuée. À tel
point que, si l'étoile est très massive, le corpuscule, telle une
pierre jetée en l'air, peut s'arrêter dans sa course et retomber sur
l'étoile. Aussi invente-t-il ces objets étranges que Pierre-Simon
Laplace nommera «corps obscurs» (car leur lumière ne peut nous en
parvenir) et qui s'apparentent aux trous noirs. En 1801, s'appuyant
sur ces résultats vulgarisés par Laplace, l'astronome allemand Georg
von Soldner en déduira qu'un rayon lumineux peut être dévié de sa
course s'il passe près d'un corps pesant. Ses résultats ne sont
aucunement différents de ceux d'Einstein, qui calculera le même effet
en 1911."

Et maintenant, Jean Eisenstaedt, la plus grande bêtise:

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."

La bêtise equivalente, dans le monde de Big Brother, est "deux et deux
font quatre":

http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/pdf/orwell_1984.pdf
George Orwell: "Le Parti finirait par annoncer que deux et deux font
cinq et il faudrait le croire. Il était inéluctable que, tôt ou tard,
il fasse cette déclaration. La logique de sa position l'exigeait. Ce
n'était pas seulement la validité de l'expérience, mais l'existence
même d'une réalité extérieure qui était tacitement niée par sa
philosophie. L'hérésie des hérésies était le sens commun. Et le
terrible n'était pas que le Parti tuait ceux qui pensaient autrement,
mais qu'il se pourrait qu'il eût raison. Après tout, comment pouvons-
nous savoir que deux et deux font quatre? Ou que la gravitation exerce
une force? Ou que le passé est immuable? Si le passé et le monde
extérieur n'existent que dans l'esprit et si l'esprit est susceptible
de recevoir des directives? Alors quoi?"

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old October 5th 11, 10:07 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
jgharston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

The speed of light is *not* constant, it slows down as it passes
through different mediums, that's what causes refraction. Didn't
you do physics at school?

JGH
  #5  
Old October 6th 11, 09:03 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."

Einsteinians, as you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
do the waves overtake you AT A SLOWER RATE? No? Gibson is confused? No
matter how fast you are traveling, the waves always overtake you AT
THE SAME RATE? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity?

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old October 7th 11, 08:29 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

Common sense refutation of special relativity (if you move faster
against the wavecrests, wavecrests move faster against you):

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/redshift.pdf
"Appliqué à la lumière, cet effet Doppler-Fizeau engendre un décalage
des fréquences émises par une source en mouvement par rapport à un
observateur. Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? Par un exemple simple :
Une personne est debout sur le rivage d'un bord de la mer. Des vagues
lui arrivent sur les pieds toutes les dix secondes. La personne
marche, puis court en direction du large (là où se forment les
vagues). Elle va à la rencontre des vagues, celles-ci l'atteignent
avec une fréquence plus élevée (par exemple toutes les huit secondes,
puis toutes les cinq secondes). La personne fait alors demi-tour et
marche puis court en direction de la plage. Les vagues l'atteignent
avec une fréquence moins élevée, par exemple toutes les douze, puis
quinze secondes. Cette petite démonstration s'applique à une onde
physique, comme un son, ou ici les vagues sur l'océan pour une
meilleure compréhension. Elle peut être extrapolée à une onde
lumineuse, en considérant que le sommet d'une vague est le point
d'amplitude maximale de l'onde lumineuse."

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

However common sense is "the heresy of heresies" in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world: in this particular world, if you move faster
against the wavecrests, the wavecrests don't move faster against you.
Their speed relative to you remains the same so that believers can
fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

  #7  
Old October 9th 11, 09:00 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

The looming specter of Walther Ritz (no wormholes to hide,
Einsteinians):

http://www.sps.ch/fr/artikel/geschic...physicist_ 2/
Jan Lacki: "Ritz had no time to make his theory more elaborate. He
died complaining that no one, even in Göttingen, was granting his
views sufficient care. His emissionist views were submitted to heavy
criticism and experimental tests were later realized to show their
inanity. Today, with considerable hindsight, we know the end of the
story and how Einstein and Planck's views shaped our contemporary
physics. While few would today contest the reality of quanta or turn
their back on field theory of elementary processes, it is interesting
to know that the criticisms against Ritz's conceptions were shown,
since then, often wanting, if not simply incorrect. It is fair to say
that if Ritz's emission theory is false, it cannot be as easily
dismissed as it was thought in Ritz's times. Be it as it may, Ritz
remains in the history of physics as an admirable figure, with a
highly original theoretical turn of mind and an impressive command of
mathematical methods, making him one of the emblematic theoreticians
of his time. In retrospect, if he refused to adhere to the ongoing
physics revolutions, he was highly aware of what kind of fundamental
problems were at stake, and already this lucidity ranks him among the
best."

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion
like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the
laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of (...) the
notion of field..."

The divine plagiarist also abandoned the notion of field at the end of
his life:

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."

Clues:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a
discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of
Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous
conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves."

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

  #8  
Old October 10th 11, 08:32 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

Divine Albert's logic:

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to
which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Divine Albert's logic in the above text: In a gravitational field, the
speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational
potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary
with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is
constant. This can only mean that Divine Albert's 1905 constant-speed-
of-light postulate is true, absolutely true. The antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing
how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter
relative to the observer, is false, absolutely false.

Initially, Divine Albert's logic makes believers fiercely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" but in the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers
tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions.

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
EINSTEINIANA CAN DO WITHOUT CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 April 20th 10 09:07 AM
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion brian a m stuckless Policy 0 October 16th 05 11:07 PM
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion brian a m stuckless Policy 0 October 16th 05 10:42 PM
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 05 10:42 PM
parllel universe have diffrent speed of light 128 168 300 299 thats how you find diffrent universe i'm from the planet earth that is the 7th from the sun stuck on one that the planet is 3rd from the sun the speed of light is 128 and 32 dimentions Roger Wilco Misc 1 December 30th 03 11:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM.


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.