A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EINSTEINIANS REJECT EINSTEIN



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 3rd 13, 07:47 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANS REJECT EINSTEIN

The variable speed of light taught by Einstein even as late as 1920 is "perfectly valid and makes good physical sense", but "a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "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. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

Indeed, some Einsteinians are more blasphemous than antirelativists and mercilessly humiliate Divine Albert:

http://www.oapt.ca/newsletter/2004-0...Searchable.pdf
Richard Epp: "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://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "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.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Other, more naive, Einsteinians remain faithful to Divine Albert's original teaching:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...way/index.html
John Norton: "In 1907, Einstein had also concluded that the speed of light, and not just its direction, would be affected by the gravitational field."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) 07:56 : (c+dc)/c = 1+(g/c^2)dh [as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light]"

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Why is it so important for less naive Einsteinians to go against the Divine Teaching and proclaim that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field? Because they know that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, then, in gravitation-free space, a moving observer will find that this speed varies with his speed, in violation of special relativity:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...elativity.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

Substituting f=c/L (L is the wavelength) into Fowler's equation gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L = c(1+gh/c^2)/L = c'/L

where f' is the frequency measured by both the observer "stationary in the earth's gravitational field" and an equivalent observer who, in gravitation-free space, moves with speed v=gh/c towards the emitter. Accordingly, c'=c+v=c(1+gh/c^2) is the speed of light relative to those two observers.. Clearly the frequency shift (measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment) confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old November 3rd 13, 02:47 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANS REJECT EINSTEIN

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Is this a refutation of Einstein's relativity? The top of a tower of height h emits light downwards. According to Newton's emission theory of light, as this light reaches the observer on the ground, its speed relative to him is:

c' = c(1+gh/c^2)

Pound and Rebka showed that the observer on the ground measures the frequency to be:

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

where f is the initial frequency (as measured by the emitter) and L is the wavelength.

Clearly the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) given by the emission theory is consistent with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2) confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

On the other hand, the equations c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) given by general relativity and c'=c taught by today's Einsteinians are obviously inconsistent with f'=f(1+gh/c^2). Einstein's relativity is refuted.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old November 3rd 13, 08:42 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANS REJECT EINSTEIN

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Is this a refutation of Einstein's relativity? "Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that, in the time t, a stationary (with respect to the source) observer travels a distance of 3D along the light wave while the observer/receiver moving at (1/3)c travels a distance of 4D along the light wave, where D is the distance between subsequent pulses. Then, if c=3D/t is the speed of light relative to the stationary observer, c'=4D/t=(4/3)c is the speed of light relative to the moving observer/receiver. Einstein's relativity is refuted.

The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. This means that, if the relativistic corrections are taken into account, c'=(1.05)(4/3)c. Einstein's relativity is even more refuted.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEINIANS MISREPRESENT EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 31st 11 12:00 PM
EINSTEINIANS REJECT THE RELATIVITY OF TIME Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 July 10th 11 07:43 PM
Are There a Billion Others Who Reject Newton? Quadibloc Amateur Astronomy 11 September 7th 09 12:13 AM
EINSTEINIANS BOTHERED BY EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 February 20th 09 11:26 AM
EINSTEINIANS: EINSTEIN'S EQUATION IS WRONG Double-A Misc 42 November 14th 06 08:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.