|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE AGAINST DIVINE ALBERT
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out..._Slow_Time?/1/
Perimeter Institute: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth’s gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . . 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 [. . .] 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." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so." 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]….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." Einstein zombie world: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ "DIVINE EINSTEIN" http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3 Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE AGAINST DIVINE ALBERT
On Jun 28, 7:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out...niverse/Why_Do... Perimeter Institute: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth’s gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light." xxein: Gravity is a discoverable, discernible and measurable effect, It bends light for crying out loud. THINK. What happens to light as it goes directly to or away from a gravitational object? Geez, our science is dumb. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE AGAINST DIVINE ALBERT
On Jun 29, 4:42*am, xxein wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out..._Slow_Time?/1/ Perimeter Institute: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth’s gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light." xxein: *Gravity is a discoverable, discernible and measurable effect, It bends light for crying out loud. THINK. *What happens to light as it goes directly to or away from a gravitational object? John Michell was about to answer that question but unfortunately he did not know special relativity: http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)" Pentcho Valev Geez, our science is dumb. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE AGAINST DIVINE ALBERT
On Jun 29, 2:01*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 29, wrote: On Jun 28, 7:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Out...niverse/Why_Do.... Perimeter Institute: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth’s gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light." xxein: *Gravity is a discoverable, discernible and measurable effect, It bends light for crying out loud. THINK. *What happens to light as it goes directly to or away from a gravitational object? John Michell was about to answer that question but unfortunately he did not know special relativity: http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...urces/05344933... Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)" Pentcho Valev Geez, our science is dumb.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - xxein: I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. But my point is solid. In gravity, directly 'away' or directly 'to' mean different speeds for light. We cannot directly measure the speed of light. So in attempting to do just that, we measure a round trip for light. In doing so, we find our clock statically positioned in a field of gravity that has the effect of slowing it down. This, combined with any assumption of distance based on the notion put forward in SR for a universal speed of light, will reflect only on that assumption. Iow, we have no direct proof of it at all. Another way of saying this is that gravity is not flat space. There should be very careful consideration to how we equate SR to GR and whether or not all assumptions can make a viable physic. Btim, that there is definitely a difference that has to be reckoned with. For the most part, gravity presents itself as the weakest force we know of. But it is hardly to be sloughed off when we see the effects of BH's. Such enormity is not easily disregarded and cannot possibly be described as a connection in the way Einstein gave us SR and GR. A little, yes, but that is controlled by what is called a subjective measurement technique that is at the basis of what Einstein mathematically formulated. In QM, there is no such relative measure. Everything is assumed to be so small that a gravity is non-existent. It doesn't rule out SR, but it is in a microcosm of its own. The trouble here is that gravity still exists without recognition. There are a few theories that attempt to reconcile this discrepancy. None can really hold their water. Some come close, though. None can complete to the physic and I don't think a time will come when it is possible to do so. Even my own. There are very logical reasons for this and they are well known. We have to accept this fact. SR, GR and QM's, QE's etc., are all beneficial to us. No one could describe it all. But there is more to learn about how the physic works. None of the aforementioned, stands a chance of being the physic. We can only learn more. But, the big but, is that we call it all physics. I guess that is OK as long as we think we can control something. But there are things we can't know or control. Making an automobile operate with sal****er and get 1000 mpg would certainly be a physics, just not the whole of a physic. I was always with the assumption that theories presumed to be the physic. I have a good one and now realize that that it can never be so. Iow, we can invent things, processes and techniques that can work to whatever our present extent of knowledge let's us believe as a physic. But it is always going to prove a false assumption. So? Why do I get on here and kibbutz? It is simply because I recognize that the presumptive idea of the physic, to behold as a physic, is dead-end wrong. As everyone should know by now, my math is not that great. But the physic is independent of any math we project upon it. So? Where is it? The point here is that we don't think a logical physic. We tend to quantify it through math and make a workable physics out of it. Again, not bad, but still misses the actual physic. I've been immersed in this sort of game for almost a quarter of a century and still wonder who is qualified to credential another. Isn't that simply a human belief process? Btw, I think I know what gravity is. It's not a simple process. But it can be well understood in principle, logic and with math. One would only have to break from previous beliefs and cogitate more on the physic than the physics. Mmm. It's dark now and the duplex apartment behind me that has been vacant for two years now has all the inside lights on. The venetian blinds have missing parts. I wonder if it is illegal to be in my yard and look to see if it has any cute chicks. It's the scientific method. You wonder, you measure, and propose a theory. What happens if I see something I don't like? Well? This is what happens in science all the time. You tend to ignore it. You don't just fail to investigate further, you just say it's trivial and makes no physical connection. Just as if you knew what the physic was to start with. The presumption of it all. If it doesn't fit, you try to make it fit. That's how I got interested in science to start with. Why should square pegs 'fit' into round holes? There's no math that can alter a shape or size. Only a proper way of understanding the physic can do that. All of our physics has this/a disquiet to it. Merely describing what happens in gravity using a math belief of physics is pretty much like guessing what kind of jewelry your wife would like. You'd better have a return or exchange policy with the jeweler. Iow, be prepared to say you guessed wrongly. With that (so much word salad), what does crow taste like, anyway? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 25th 11 01:00 AM |
ARTHUR EDDINGTON (AND DIVINE ALBERT) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 14 | August 2nd 08 07:25 AM |
John Norton, Divine Albert, Ecclesiastes | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 27th 08 07:50 PM |
PERIMETER INSTITUTE MAY ALSO REFUTE EINSTEIN | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 25th 07 08:26 AM |
HOW STRING THEORISTS AVOID THE IMPERFECTIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | June 4th 07 11:37 PM |