VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

On Jul 24, 9:31 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein offered two equations showing how the speed of photons moving
radially with respect to a spherical mass varies with the
gravitational potential V:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

( see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm )

Equation A is consistent with the Pound-Rebka experiment and also
(through the application of Einstein's equivalence principle) with the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the
speed of the light source relative to the observer). It is not clear
what equation B is consistent with.

Equation A has a simple derivation. The gravitational frequency shift
confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka is:

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

This should be combined with the textbook formula:

f' = c'/L' ; f = c/L

where L is the wavelength. So we obtain:

c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L (Einstein 1911)

or:

c' = c ; L' = L/(1+V/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)

Einstein 1911 is reasonable but fatal for Divine Albert's Divine
Theory. Anti-Einstein 1911 is absurd but it is the only salvation.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein 1911 is reasonable but fatal for Divine Albert's Divine
Theory. Anti-Einstein 1911 is absurd but it is the only salvation.

You already said it the
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&

I explaned why anti-Einstein has to be chosen.
Will you answer easier if I translate in English ?

Bonne nuit
Laurent

On Jul 24, 11:09*pm, moky wrote:
Einstein 1911 is reasonable but fatal for Divine Albert's Divine
Theory. Anti-Einstein 1911 is absurd but it is the only salvation.

You already said it the http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&

I explaned

YOU explained?! But you knew nothing about Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) 10 days ago.

why anti-Einstein has to be chosen.
Will you answer easier if I translate in English ?

OK give your "explanation" once more. English or French.

Bonne nuit
Laurent

Bonne nuit.

Pentcho Valev

I explaned

YOU explained?! But you knew nothing about Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) 10 days ago.

I still do not know anything about that equation :
On the one hand, I have a proof of anti-Einstein (this is what I
explaned) ... while, on the other hand, I have no proof af Einstien
1911.

In that case, I do not pretend to "know about" Enstein 1911

OK give your "explanation" once more. English or French.


Just a translation. The original explanation is here
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&


I'm following the reasoning of
http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/Relatgene.pdf
when she deduce the equation
f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35).

(We are looking at a light ray coming from the ground to a height of h
in an uniform gravitational field corresponding to the acceleration g)

Let K the the accelerated observer. At the instant t1, K coincides
with the inertial observer O1. At the instant t2, K coincides with the
observer O2 which has an uniform motion of velocity gh/c with respect
to O1.

We use the Doppler effect of special relativity between O1 and O2 in
order to get the well known formula
f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35).

Now, we have to find the wavelength using the definitions
f1 = c1/L1 ; f2 = c2/L2


There are, of course, infinitely many solutions. Among others, the two
following ones :
c1 = c2(1+gh/c^2) ; L1 = L2 (Einstein 1911)
and
c1 = c2 ; L1 = L2/(1+gh/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)

How to chose ?
Let us do the same as what was done in order to deduce f1 = f2(1+gh/
c^2). We compare what happens in O1 and O2. These two are related by
an inertial motion of velocity gh/c. According to special relativity,
c1=c2 in that case.

Thus I choose anti-Einstein 1911.

If we agree with
f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35),
I do not see how not to agree with my proof of anti-Einstein.

Where is the problem ?



Have a good night
Laurent


PS : I feel free to add a summary of what happens here in our French
discussion, if you give up the French discussion (which seems to be
exactly on the same point as here)

By the way, you said a bit before that

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)
(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)
Equation A has a simple derivation.

You did not gave the "simple derivation". Indeed, taking
f' = f(1+V/c^2) (1)
and
f' = c'/L' ; f = c/L (2)

you arrive 2 equations (2) for 3 unknowns (c',L and L'). Then you list
two solutions (out of an infinity)
c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L (Einstein 1911)
c' = c ; L' = L/(1+V/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)

From here, I have a certain number of questions ...
1. What is the relation between the $c$ in equation (1) and the one in
equation (2) ?

2. Should I consider (1) and (2) as a 3 equations system for the
unknowns c,c',f,f',L,L' ?

3. Whatever is the answer to my question 2, one obviously has
infinitely many solutions. Thus, in order to conclude one has to make
use of a new idea.


In light of my question 3, I think that you forgot one or two lines
because you stop your "simple derivation" by just listing two possible
solutions, without even explaining why these two are better than the
inifinitely many others.

Anyway, I guess that I would be able to answer the questions 1-3 by
myself if you just give your derivation of the formula
f' = f(1+V/c^2) (1),
on which we agree.


Have a good night
Laurent

On Jul 25, 1:17 am, moky wrote:
I explaned

YOU explained?! But you knew nothing about Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) 10 days ago.

I still do not know anything about that equation :
On the one hand, I have a proof of anti-Einstein (this is what I
explaned) ... while, on the other hand, I have no proof af Einstien
1911.

In that case, I do not pretend to "know about" Enstein 1911

OK give your "explanation" once more. English or French.

Just a translation. The original explanation is here http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&

I'm following the reasoning of http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/Relatgene.pdf
when she deduce the equation

f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35).

(We are looking at a light ray coming from the ground to a height of h
in an uniform gravitational field corresponding to the acceleration g)

Let K the the accelerated observer. At the instant t1, K coincides
with the inertial observer O1. At the instant t2, K coincides with the
observer O2 which has an uniform motion of velocity gh/c with respect
to O1.

We use the Doppler effect of special relativity between O1 and O2 in
order to get the well known formula
f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35).

Now, we have to find the wavelength using the definitions

f1 = c1/L1 ; f2 = c2/L2

There are, of course, infinitely many solutions. Among others, the two
following ones :

c1 = c2(1+gh/c^2) ; L1 = L2 (Einstein 1911)
and
c1 = c2 ; L1 = L2/(1+gh/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)

How to chose ?
Let us do the same as what was done in order to deduce f1 = f2(1+gh/
c^2). We compare what happens in O1 and O2. These two are related by
an inertial motion of velocity gh/c. According to special relativity,
c1=c2 in that case.

Thus I choose anti-Einstein 1911.

If we agree with
f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2) (2.5.35),
I do not see how not to agree with my proof of anti-Einstein.

Where is the problem ?

Have a good night
Laurent

PS : I feel free to add a summary of what happens here in our French
discussion, if you give up the French discussion (which seems to be
exactly on the same point as here)

You must be writing a book or something (Einsteinians always fiercely
teach the world) and since the author of

http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/Relatgene.pdf

has not explained how gravitational time dilation relates to the
Doppler effect, you expect ME to fill the gap. I will not. I wish
Einsteinians would stop teaching the world so fiercely. Just for non-
relativists:

Derivations of this type in Einsteiniana are based on an implicit
(sometimes explicit) shift in meaning: the frequency and wavelength of
light are replaced by the frequency of emission of light pulses and
the distance between two adjacent travelling pulses respectively.
There can be nothing more idiotic than that but, on the other hand, in
Einstein zombie world nothing is idiotic by definition.

Pentcho Valev

You must be writing a book or something (Einsteinians always fiercely
teach the world) and since the author of

http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/Relatgene.pdf

has not explained how gravitational time dilation relates to the
Doppler effect, you expect ME to fill the gap. I will not. I wish
Einsteinians would stop teaching the world so fiercely. Just for non-
relativists:


It happens often in university courses that a result studied two years
before is not recalled.
Equation (15.5.48) here
http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/CEDtout.pdf
(same author)

The Doppler effect is explained in terms of Lorentz. The link with the
gravitation is explained exactly in the reference I gave; and I
already re-wrote it twice on the forum.
What missing part are you speaking about ?

Anyway, the following questions are independent : you say that
Einstein-1911 has a simple derivation that you pretend to provide ...
but your simple derivation is incomplete.

f' = f(1+V/c^2) (1)
f' = c'/L' ; f = c/L (2)
you arrive 2 equations (2) for 3 unknowns (c',L and L'). Then you
list
two solutions (out of an infinity)
c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L (Einstein 1911)
c' = c ; L' = L/(1+V/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)

From here, I have a certain number of questions ...
1. What is the relation between the $c$ in equation (1) and the one
in
equation (2) ?

2. Should I consider (1) and (2) as a 3 equations system for the
unknowns c,c',f,f',L,L' ?

3. Whatever is the answer to my question 2, one obviously has
infinitely many solutions. Thus, in order to conclude one has to
make
use of a new idea. How do you conclude to Einstein instead of anti-
Einstein of any other solution ?

4. Are you ok that, without gravity, the Lorentz group is the correct
one ?

Good afternoon
Laurent

I would like to add some precisions about my question.

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

1. What is the relation between the $c$ in equation (1) and the one in equation (2).

What trouble me is the following.
In equation (2), the symbol $c$ denotes the light speed for the first
observer, while $c'$ is the light speed for the second observer.
In equation (1), however, the symbol $c$ seems to be an "universal"
constant. At least in the way I derive equation (1), it is unclear if
$c$ is the light speed for the first or the second observer.

If the light speed depends on the observer, is it totally clear than
equation (1) should not be
f' = f(1+V/c'^2) (1')
with a prime on the $c$ ?

In fact, if c is different of c', the derivation I give of equation
(1) is simply wrong because the light starts from the ground with
speed c and arrives at the top with speed c'. So the travel time
should be computed with something like an accelerated motion, while I
consider that travel time being h/c.

For me, it is unclear. How can one agree with equation (1) without
agreeing with an invariant speed of light ?
That's why I ask, Pentcho, YOUR derivation of (1). Because you simply
cannot agree with mine.


Hope my trouble is more clear like that
have a good afternoon
Laurent

On Jul 25, 5:19*pm, moky wrote:
I would like to add some precisions about my question.

f' = f(1+V/c^2) * * * * * * *(1)
f' = c'/L' *; *f = c/L * * * * * *(2)
*1. What is the relation between the $c$ in equation (1) and the one in equation (2).

What trouble me is the following.
In equation (2), the symbol $c$ denotes the light speed for the first
observer, while $c'$ is the light speed for the second observer.
In equation (1), however, the symbol $c$ seems to be an "universal"
constant. At least in the way I derive equation (1), it is unclear if
$c$ is the light speed for the first or the second observer.

If the light speed depends on the observer, is it totally clear than
equation (1) should not be f' = f(1+V/c'^2) * * * * * (1')

with a prime on the $c$ ?

In fact, if c is different of c', the derivation I give of equation
(1) is simply wrong because the light starts from the ground with
speed c and arrives at the top with speed c'. So the travel time
should be computed with something like an accelerated motion, while I
consider that travel time being h/c.

For me, it is unclear. How can one agree with equation (1) without
agreeing with an invariant speed of light ?
That's why I ask, Pentcho, YOUR derivation of (1). Because you simply
cannot agree with mine.

Hope my trouble is more clear like that
have a good afternoon
Laurent

Laurent you are obviously a freshman in Einsteiniana and do not know
that the variability/constancy of the speed of light in a
gravitational field is one of the the cult's most important internal
problems that is solved in the following way: half of your superior
brothers teach that the speed of light is variable, the other half
teach it is constant. They believe and hope this type of teaching
would not allow Einstein zombie world to restore its lost rationality.

So if you sincerely believe the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field, then immediately start fighting those brothers of
yours that teach the opposite. The discussion with me is meaningless -
I am just nobody in your world. If you can reach the conclusion I have
reached, that is, that your brothers' ambiguous teaching is
deliberate, then leave the criminal cult, come on the other side of
the river and if I am still there, our discussion could continue.

Best regards,
Pentcho

Laurent you are obviously a freshman in Einsteiniana and do not know
that the variability/constancy of the speed of light in a
gravitational field is one of the the cult's most important internal
problems that is solved in the following way: half of your superior
brothers teach that the speed of light is variable, the other half
teach it is constant. They believe and hope this type of teaching
would not allow Einstein zombie world to restore its lost rationality.
[snip]

Ok. What about your "simple derivation" of Einstein-1911 ? You pretend
to prove it. I'm waiting. I'm honnest : I gave all the proves you
asked me.
I concluded to anti-Einstein-1911 with a complete set of proofs
relying on the Lorentz group between inertial obsevers, and the
correspondence principle.

What is you proof of anti-Einstein-1911 ? You announced a one,
isnt'it ?

For you, is the numerical value of $c$ in
f' = f(1+V/c^2) (1)
the same as the one in
f' = c'/L' ; f = c/L (2) ?


1. Show an error in what I say (I do not care what other say[1])
2. Prove your statement (which is different of mine)

If you do not do at least the second point, why do you post on the
forum ?

Do not try to deviate the debate from a scientific domain (proofs of
statements) to a personal one (me with respect to my colleages).


Have a good night
Laurent

[1] And, in particular, I do not care what Einstein said in 1905 or
1911. I'm working with data, knowledge and formalism of 2008.