|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042105274.html
"Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering. Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it." Pound showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation F'=F(1+V/c^2). This implies that the speed of light c varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2): an equation explicitly used by Einstein in 1911 and given by Newton's emission theory of light. However there is a Principle in Einsteiniana: Principle: Any experiment which confirms Newton's emission theory of light gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2 John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." In fact, Einsteniana's Principle has a more general version: General Principle: Any experiment, even the most fraudulent one, gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I am a Shakespearean actor, I would have you know
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042105274.html "Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering. Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it." Pound showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation F'=F(1+V/c^2). This implies that the speed of light c varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2): an equation explicitly used by Einstein in 1911 and given by Newton's emission theory of light. However there is a Principle in Einsteiniana: Principle: Any experiment which confirms Newton's emission theory of light gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2 John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." In fact, Einsteniana's Principle has a more general version: General Principle: Any experiment, even the most fraudulent one, gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY
The most fraudulent experiment gloriously confirming Divine Albert's
Divine Theory is undoubtedly the one "showing" that moving muons live longer than muons "at rest". When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because scientific rationality is so devastated that, when the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely declare that in fact this muon is "at rest" within the obstacle and, being "at rest", disintegrates more quickly than another muon which is not "at rest", in perfect accordance with the predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html "The purpose of this experiment is to measure life time of muons decaying at rest. Muons, produced in the atmoshere bombarded by high energy cosmic radiation, are passing through the system of two detectors located one above the other one. A coincidence of signals from these two detectors (signals occuring in both detectors within 100ns) marks a particle entering the muon telescope from above and serves as a filter rejecting many noninteresting signals from background radiation. Some particles, with appropriate energies, will end their flight in the lower detector (proper amount of lead between both detectors ensures that many of them will be muons). If a stopped particle is muon, it will decay after some time producing electron. The time interval between signals from the muon entering the lower detector and the electron emerging after its decay is converted by a time-to-amplitude converter into amplitude of signal fed to the CAMAC analog-to-digital converter (ADC) controlled by the computer. The spectrum of time intervals is displayed in the figure below. The expected distribution should be exponential with the exponential time constant being the average life time of muon. The full range of the spectrum (about channel 2000) corresponds to the time interval of about 25 microsecond. There are not many muons with such energies that they will end their path exactly in the lower detector (usually they will pass both detectors and will be stopped in somewhere in the ground), so counting rate is rather low. To collect a reasonable number of events, the experiment has to be run a number of days." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042105274.html "Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering. Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it." Pound showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation F'=F(1+V/c^2). This implies that the speed of light c varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2): an equation explicitly used by Einstein in 1911 and given by Newton's emission theory of light. However there is a Principle in Einsteiniana: Principle: Any experiment which confirms Newton's emission theory of light gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2 John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." In fact, Einsteniana's Principle has a more general version: General Principle: Any experiment, even the most fraudulent one, gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
My theatre performances are legendary you know
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042105274.html "Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering. Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it." Pound showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation F'=F(1+V/c^2). This implies that the speed of light c varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2): an equation explicitly used by Einstein in 1911 and given by Newton's emission theory of light. However there is a Principle in Einsteiniana: Principle: Any experiment which confirms Newton's emission theory of light gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2 John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." In fact, Einsteniana's Principle has a more general version: General Principle: Any experiment, even the most fraudulent one, gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03...ther-big-test/ "In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its publication, GR has passed test after test after test..." The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation: F'=F(1+V/c^2) This means that, in accordance with the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) either the speed of light c varies: c'=c(1+V/c^2) (Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's emission theory of light) or the wavelength L varies: L'=L/(1+V/c^2) (an equation which on close inspection can only be characterized as idiotic) Since theoretical physics is dead, Einsteinians can safely say "The wavelength varies because Divine Albert said so" although Einstein has claimed all along that it is the speed of light that varies: The truth: Einstein has always regarded the speed of light in a gravitational field as VARIABLE and this is ESSENTIAL for his theory: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. 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." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." The lie (always one leap ahead of the truth): The speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT, the wavelength is variable, and THAT'S IT: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)" http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66 Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT." http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
HOW PATHETIC CAN THIS BE?
seriously, guys, if you're so devout to science and the search for
true knowledge outside "mainstream" science, what's the point of so much time wasted trolling on usenet? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote: Someone hijacked your material and put under the heading "popstar adopts diseased monkey" with the name of John Jones IIRC http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03...ther-big-test/ "In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its publication, GR has passed test after test after test..." The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation: F'=F(1+V/c^2) This means that, in accordance with the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) either the speed of light c varies: c'=c(1+V/c^2) (Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's emission theory of light) or the wavelength L varies: L'=L/(1+V/c^2) (an equation which on close inspection can only be characterized as idiotic) Since theoretical physics is dead, Einsteinians can safely say "The wavelength varies because Divine Albert said so" although Einstein has claimed all along that it is the speed of light that varies: The truth: Einstein has always regarded the speed of light in a gravitational field as VARIABLE and this is ESSENTIAL for his theory: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. 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." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." The lie (always one leap ahead of the truth): The speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT, the wavelength is variable, and THAT'S IT: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)" http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66 Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT." http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
QUANTUM GRAVITY, DIVINE EINSTEIN, DIVINE MICHELL | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | January 18th 09 09:38 PM |
Divine politics | klunk | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 24th 07 10:18 AM |
variant among divine fish | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 19th 07 08:52 AM |
who devotes vivaciously, when Roxanna renders the divine pound worth the obelisk | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 08:57 AM |
DIVINE 1911 EINSTEIN | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 26th 07 01:21 AM |