VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

On Jul 25, 7:04*pm, moky wrote:
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.

I am afraid you are too confused and should be more careful if you
want to make a career in Einsteiniana. ALL CLEVER Einsteinians know
that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is variable. Of
course some of them teach it is constant, others try to undermine the
importance of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) etc. but this has
more to do with their honesty than with their intellect. That is the
reason why I am reluctant to discuss the problem with you - I simply
don't have the energy to analyse your silly idea of a variable
wavelength and a constant speed of light that even your cleverer
brothers would reject. Try to develop your physical (not mathematical)
intuition and you will understand why your idea is so silly.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :

I am afraid you are too confused and should be more careful if you
want to make a career in Einsteiniana. ALL CLEVER Einsteinians know
that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is variable. Of
course some of them teach it is constant, others try to undermine the
importance of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) etc. but this has
more to do with their honesty than with their intellect. That is the
reason why I am reluctant to discuss the problem with you - I simply
don't have the energy to analyse your silly idea of a variable
wavelength and a constant speed of light that even your cleverer
brothers would reject. Try to develop your physical (not mathematical)
intuition and you will understand why your idea is so silly.

J'aime bien ce genre de message où l'inculte à peine capable de citer,
sempiternellement, les trois ou quatre mêmes messages croit retourner
la situation en s'érigeant en donneur de leçons et en traitant de haut
celui dont il sait qu'il le dépasse, sur tous les plans de la
discussion, de mille longueurs.

Pencho, vous êtes un clown déplorable, vous ne trompez personne. Vos
manœuvres d'évitement sont tellement transparentes...

--
kd

I am afraid you are too confused and should be more careful if you
want to make a career in Einsteiniana. ALL CLEVER Einsteinians know
that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is variable.

I already have a PhD in Einsteiniana:
http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be:81/ETD-db/...282007-141821/
Do not worry for me.


Of course some of them teach it is constant, others try to undermine the
importance of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) etc. but this has
more to do with their honesty than with their intellect. That is the
reason why I am reluctant to discuss the problem with you - I simply
don't have the energy to analyse your silly idea of a variable
wavelength and a constant speed of light that even your cleverer
brothers would reject. Try to develop your physical (not mathematical)
intuition and you will understand why your idea is so silly.

This is exactly what I want.
Look at what I said :
«
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 ?
»

I explicitly said that the pure mathematics are not enough for
conclude Einstein-1911 or anti-Einstein-1911. A new idea is needed. I
gave a one which allows me to conclude to anti-Einstein-1911.

you wrote :
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.

Are the two last sentenses what you call "to develop your physical
(not mathematical) intuition" ?

Why should I believe in Einstein-1911 (without proof) while I have a
proof of anti-Einstein ?

Good afternoon
Laurent

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).

This is part of the answer to the "unresolved questions" formulated by
Eric Baird:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...edoflight.html
"Towards the end of his life, Einstein wrote that he no longer
considered the decision to construct general relativity as a two-stage
model, with "curvature" arguments built on top of a flat-spacetime
"SR" foundation, as justifiable. It had been the best that could be
achieved at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it didn't deem
to be defensible. [9] Quite what Einstein may have meant by this, what
the alternative might have been, and what the implications might be of
having a general theory that didn't have a forced reduction to special
relativity, still seem to be unresolved questions."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 25, 2:21*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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)

(seehttp://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).

This is part of the answer to the "unresolved questions" formulated by
Eric Baird:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...edoflight.html
"Towards the end of his life, Einstein wrote that he no longer
considered the decision to construct general relativity as a two-stage
model, with "curvature" arguments built on top of a flat-spacetime
"SR" foundation, as justifiable. It had been the best that could be
achieved at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it didn't deem
to be defensible. [9] Quite what Einstein may have meant by this, what
the alternative might have been, and what the implications might be of
having a general theory that didn't have a forced reduction to special
relativity, still seem to be unresolved questions."

Pentcho Valev


The speed of light is a constant but time for light isn't. Speed is
constant for light but time isn't.

Mitch Raemsch

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
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)


Up to here, okay. That's cool*

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...edoflight.html
"Towards the end of his life, Einstein wrote that he no longer
considered the decision to construct general relativity as a two-stage
model, with "curvature" arguments built on top of a flat-spacetime
"SR" foundation, as justifiable. It had been the best that could be
achieved at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it didn't deem
to be defensible. [9] Quite what Einstein may have meant by this, what
the alternative might have been, and what the implications might be of
having a general theory that didn't have a forced reduction to special
relativity, still seem to be unresolved questions."

But here ... I do not see the proof.


Ow.
By the way, we are ok that without gravitation, the Lorentz group is
the correct one ?


Good night
Laurent

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:24:32 +0200, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:37:55 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Talebun" wrote in message
...
| On 24 Jul, 08:31, 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)
|
| (seehttp://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.
|
| Pentcho Valev
|
|
| Ah, velocity relative to source. Could you explain to me how it is
| possible to see double stars.

Yes. You are seeing double.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm



Andro does not read my posts, so ask him what speed
(or velocity) his ballistic light balls will have when they
get reflected by a mirror.

An interesting question, the answer to which is not currently known.

It could be c+v or c wrt the mirror..... or maybe something in between.

And what happens when primary and reflected lightballs
interfere with each other...

Also unknown..... because it has never been attempted.

+############ ---this was my cat
ahahahahahaaa..

w.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

In article , Dr. Henri Wilson

[snip]

An interesting question, the answer to which is not currently known.

"Not currently known"? Maybe not by you. But those of us who actually passed
upper-division E&M know the answer: in vacuum, light always propagates with the
same speed in any interial reference frame: that speed is c.

Matthew Johnson wrote:
In article , Dr. Henri
Wilson

[snip]

An interesting question, the answer to which is not currently known.

"Not currently known"? Maybe not by you. But those of us who actually
passed upper-division E&M know the answer: in vacuum, light always
propagates with the same speed in any interial reference frame: that
speed is c.

Matthew,
Two objects (A and B) are following each other and moving at
0.5c in direction N, the object in the back (B) is following object
A from 1 light second behind it, and the relative speed between the two is
0.

In article , Spaceman says...

Matthew Johnson wrote:
In article , Dr. Henri

[snip]

"Not currently known"? Maybe not by you. But those of us who actually
passed upper-division E&M know the answer: in vacuum, light always
propagates with the same speed in any interial reference frame: that
speed is c.

Matthew,
Two objects (A and B) are following each other and moving at
0.5c in direction N, the object in the back (B) is following object
A from 1 light second behind it, and the relative speed between the two is
0.
Object A turns on a lightsource.
Do you truly think it will take 1 wholesecond for object B to see the light
from A even though B is traveling at 0.5c towards the first emission point
of light?
Or would you say it takes only 1/2 second?

Obviously, the answer depends on which reference frame you measure th time in.
If you measure in the reference frame of objects A and B, then it takes 1
second.

But if you measure in the unnamed reference frame you alluded to when you said
"movint at speed 0.5c", then the answer is different. I'm sure you can compute
sqrt(1-(0.5)^2) as well as I can,

1/2 second is wrong in both reference frames.