A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Idiotic Prediction of Einstein's General Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 16th 19, 08:38 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Idiotic Prediction of Einstein's General Relativity

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) DECREASES as the black hole is approached." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

This prediction of Einstein's general relativity was originally an idiotic fudge factor reconciling the miraculous gravitational time dilation Einstein had fabricated in 1911 and the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory. Gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift are only compatible if the speed of light falling in gravity idiotically DECREASES (the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g near Earth's surface):

"...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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Actually the speed of light falling in gravity INCREASES (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2) as predicted by Newton's theory and unequivocally confirmed by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment:

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old April 16th 19, 05:09 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Idiotic Prediction of Einstein's General Relativity

Post-truth science: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p1...ionMercury.htm

Sometimes the truth shows up even in Einstein's schizophrenic world: Countless ad hoc adjustments until "excellent agreement with observation" is reached:

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field.. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." http://zope.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/livi...files/EBms.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 17th 19, 07:30 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Idiotic Prediction of Einstein's General Relativity

Gravitational time dilation is an idiocy Einstein fabricated in 1911 - later he included it in his 1915 "theory":

Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch..._7314788..html

Actually the prediction is much more idiotic than that: General relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

"the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass." http://cds.cern.ch/record/538836/files/0202058.pdf

In a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field, two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment - feel EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational force acting on them - and yet one of them ticks faster than the other, according to general relativity. That is, general relativity implicitly says that the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

"Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein's schizophrenic world - Einsteinians worship even greater idiocies. Still clever Einsteinians feel uncomfortable and suggest that there is no gravitational time dilation:

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." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768

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
Idiotic Fudge Factor in Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 12th 19 02:23 PM
Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's Relativity: Idiotic Coexistence Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 3rd 17 08:16 PM
Flat Earth Theory and Einstein's Relativity: Which Is More Idiotic? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 February 16th 17 07:48 AM
Einstein's Relativity or How Idiotic Science Can Get Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 13th 16 02:06 PM
IDIOTIC VARIATION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 16th 15 04:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.