WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR COMES FROM

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"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."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

On May 8, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"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."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho,

actually, explanation of the Shapiro time delay requires a slightly
different formula for the speed of light in the gravitational field
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The gravitational redshift factor is, indeed, given by
(1+V/c^2). This difference is discussed in my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.

Regards.
Eugene.

wrote:
On May 8, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"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."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho,

actually, explanation of the Shapiro time delay requires a slightly
different formula for the speed of light in the gravitational field
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The gravitational redshift factor is, indeed, given by
(1+V/c^2). This difference is discussed in my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.

You don't seem to have applied the formula

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

It would be very difficult to reconcile this formula with speed
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) and redshift factor (1+V/c^2). By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?
See this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...863cbd34?tvc=1
Tom Roberts:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
"You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.... [later] I see I over-spoke, and realize
now that it is not any approximation, and is not valid for any
physical situation."

Pentcho Valev

On May 8, 11:25 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

You don't seem to have applied the formula

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

It would be very difficult to reconcile this formula with speed
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) and redshift factor (1+V/c^2). By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?


Hi Pentcho,

The gravitational redshift factor is (1+V/c^2), and the speed of light
is modified in gravity as c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The factors are different,
but there is no contradiction. These are two separate effects which
arise from different parts of the Hamiltonian. Both of them are
confirmed in experiments. It took me a while to realize this
difference, but now I am sure I understand this. This point is briefly
discussed on page 18 (see also footnote 21) of my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.
Let me know if you would like a more detailed explanation.

Eugene.

On May 8, 11:25 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?

If you assume that c'=c(1+V/c^2) and integrate 1/c' along the linear
return path
Earth-Sun-Mars-Sun-Earth you'll get a time delay value, which is 2x
smaller than the one measured in Shapiro radar echo experiments. The
correct speed of light reduction factor is (1+2V/c^2).

Eugene.

However, when the structure along the physics would be controlled along the
constants.

Therefore, would be G = 0, generally in that moment, it would not be the
gravity, as the c would be equal to an infinity, or even 1 / c = 0 means a
simply, no transmitions any more along anything, all along, and this what is
all about, a definitely as a matter a fact.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!



wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 8, 11:25 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?

If you assume that c'=c(1+V/c^2) and integrate 1/c' along the linear
return path
Earth-Sun-Mars-Sun-Earth you'll get a time delay value, which is 2x
smaller than the one measured in Shapiro radar echo experiments. The
correct speed of light reduction factor is (1+2V/c^2).

Eugene.

On 9 May 2007 09:59:24 -0700, wrote:

On May 8, 11:25 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?

If you assume that c'=c(1+V/c^2) and integrate 1/c' along the linear
return path
Earth-Sun-Mars-Sun-Earth you'll get a time delay value, which is 2x
smaller than the one measured in Shapiro radar echo experiments. The
correct speed of light reduction factor is (1+2V/c^2).

Eugene.
Actually not. There is another test, Brault's.
The correct expression purely for the increase in c is c'/c=sqrt(1 +
2MG/Rc^2) = sqrt(1+2V/c^2) ~ 1+ V/c^2 = 1+MG/Rc^2
This is demonstrated in Brault's experiment on the Sun's D-line which
he quantified as an increase of +635 m/s in c on leaving the sun.
Using the mass and radius of the sun,
dc = c*MG/Rc^2 = 635 m/s
In the Shapiro effect there is space dilation also that gives the
doubling effect and there it would be 1+ 2V/c^2.
Brault's experiment is in MTL Gravitation.
John Polasek

On May 9, 3:16 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:

Actually not. There is another test, Brault's.
The correct expression purely for the increase in c is c'/c=sqrt(1 +
2MG/Rc^2) = sqrt(1+2V/c^2) ~ 1+ V/c^2 = 1+MG/Rc^2
This is demonstrated in Brault's experiment on the Sun's D-line which
he quantified as an increase of +635 m/s in c on leaving the sun.
Using the mass and radius of the sun,
dc = c*MG/Rc^2 = 635 m/s
In the Shapiro effect there is space dilation also that gives the
doubling effect and there it would be 1+ 2V/c^2.
Brault's experiment is in MTL Gravitation.
John Polasek


Unfortunately, I don't have MTL Gravitation, but I have two dozen of
articles about the gravitational shift of Solar spectral lines. At
some point I was interested in this phenomenon and spent a lot of time
reading about it. I suspect you misunderstood the speed of 635 m/s
which is often quoted in connection with the Sun redshift. In my
understanding, this is the (imaginary) speed which produces a Doppler
shift numerically identical to the gravitational redshift observed on
the Sun's surface. Nobody is saying that this is the actual speed of
atoms on the Sun's surface. Moreover, this is not the amount by which
the speed of light changes. This is just a convenient (though rather
abstract) measure of the effect of Sun's gravity on spectral line
frequencies.

Eugene.

On May 8, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

... GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Consider the common Schwarzschild spacetime as described by the
equation below.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2

Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r

The case for gravitational red shift under the hypothesis known as the
general theory of relativity (GR) is solely from the element of the
metric associated with dt^2. It gives a nice prediction of
gravitational red shift. This leads to arguments that time dilation
results in red shift, but this is in direct collision course with
another hypothesis know as the special theory of relativity (SR).
Under SR, the transverse Doppler shift is blue. Thus, under SR, time
dilation represents a blue shift in frequency. Before you throw up
you hands in the air on bother GR and SR, if you consider the other
element of the metric represented by the equation above, you will find
the following contradicting predictions.

** dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) = gravitational blue shift

** r^2 dO^2 = gravitational no shift

** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 = gravitational red shift

It sounds like GR got all bases covered. It is very capable of
predicting anything that fits any observation. shrug

On May 9, 5:08 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

Why are you comparing SR and GR, stupid?