WHY LIGHT IS SO OFTEN REDSHIFTED

According to Newton's emission theory of light, light slows down in
the gravitational field of the emitter and continues to move
REDSHIFTED in the distant (zero-field) space with a DECREASED speed
c'=c(1+phi/c^2), where phi is the gravitational potential difference
between the surface of the emitter and the distant (zero-field) space.

According to Einstein's relativity, light slows down even more
vigorously in the gravitational field of the emitter and continues to
move EVEN MORE REDSHIFTED in the distant (zero-field) space with an
EVEN LOWER speed c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

Apart from the gravitational redshift, light seems to slow down (and
so gets additionally redshifted) even in the absence of a
gravitational field, due to "friction" with some unknown components of
"empty" space. Naturally, this (Hubble) redshift is proportional to
the distance. Einsteinians have found it profitable to explain Hubble
redshift not in terms of slowing down of the speed of light but,
rather, in terms of an accelerating expansion of the universe. Given
the perfect discipline in Einsteiniana, hints at slowing down of the
speed of light in empty space never come from Einsteinians. There was
one exception (now suppressed):

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to Newton's emission theory of light,
[snip crap]

"Principia," 1687; and already wrong.

Pentcho Valev


idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

On Jun 18, 12:44*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
why light is so often redshifted?

why do fireworks spread out of the bangs source!!!

On Jun 18, 1:09*pm, Raymond Yohros wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:44*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

why light is so often redshifted?

why do fireworks spread out of the bangs source!!!

Light flowing through space expands with it for billions of light
years. There is no prefered scale for inbetween galaxies. Orbits and
light expand. This is universal evolution.

Mitch Raemsch

Einsteiniana's explanation of the Doppler effect is even sillier than
the explanations of the gravitational and cosmological redshifts. It
implies that, as the observer starts moving towards the wave source,
wavecrests start hitting him more frequently not because the speed of
the waves relative to him has increased but because the wavelength has
miraculously decreased. That is, the wavelength is sensitive to the
movements of the observer and changes with his speed so as to satisfy
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

You would not find this implication made explicit by Einsteinians
except in two texts (one of them was suppressed after I started
quoting it too frequently):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

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 wrote:

According to Newton's emission theory of light, light slows down in
the gravitational field of the emitter and continues to move
REDSHIFTED in the distant (zero-field) space with a DECREASED speed
c'=c(1+phi/c^2), where phi is the gravitational potential difference
between the surface of the emitter and the distant (zero-field)
space.

According to Einstein's relativity, light slows down even more
vigorously in the gravitational field of the emitter and continues to
move EVEN MORE REDSHIFTED in the distant (zero-field) space with an
EVEN LOWER speed c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

Apart from the gravitational redshift, light seems to slow down (and
so gets additionally redshifted) even in the absence of a
gravitational field, due to "friction" with some unknown components of
"empty" space. Naturally, this (Hubble) redshift is proportional to
the distance. Einsteinians have found it profitable to explain Hubble
redshift not in terms of slowing down of the speed of light but,
rather, in terms of an accelerating expansion of the universe. Given
the perfect discipline in Einsteiniana, hints at slowing down of the
speed of light in empty space never come from Einsteinians. There was
one exception (now suppressed):

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

Why is light redshifted in a gravitational field? The journal Nature
explains:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
Natu "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Yes, the frequency shifts because THE SPEED OF LIGHT SHIFTS, in
accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
theory of light (V is the gravitational potential difference between
the point of emission and the point of reception of light). Believers
would not understand the importance of Nature's confession but at
least they could stop singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", just in case:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

THEOREM 1: The speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) if and
only if, in the absence of a gravitational field, it obeys the
equation c'=c+v where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
observer.

Both equations belong to Newton's emission theory of light and
contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

THEOREM 2 (The Redshift Law): If the assumption that the wavelength of
light varies with the speed of the observer is absurd, then the
following unversal equation holds:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Why is light redshifted in a gravitational field? The journal Nature
explains:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
Natu "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Yes, the frequency shifts because THE SPEED OF LIGHT SHIFTS, in
accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
theory of light (V is the gravitational potential difference between
the point of emission and the point of reception of light). Believers
would not understand the importance of Nature's confession but at
least they could stop singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", just in case:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev