THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740
"Pulses of light sent upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be
Doppler shifted, or redshifted, when the lift is accelerating upwards,
meaning that this clock will appear to tick more slowly when its
flashes are compared at the ceiling of the lift to another clock.
Because there is no way to tell gravity and acceleration apart the
same will hold true in a gravitational field, in other words the
greater the gravitational pull experienced by a clock, or the closer
it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will tick."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...asurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

The "gravitational time dilation" is an idiocy devised by Einstein in
1911: somehow he had to camouflage the fact that, in dealing with the
behaviour of light in a gravitational field, he was using Newton's
emission theory of light:

ttp://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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein managed to definitively get rid of Newton's emission
theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/
c^2), which is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5:

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."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 18, 2:14 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740
"Pulses of light sent upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be
Doppler shifted, or redshifted, when the lift is accelerating upwards,
meaning that this clock will appear to tick more slowly when its
flashes are compared at the ceiling of the lift to another clock.
Because there is no way to tell gravity and acceleration apart the
same will hold true in a gravitational field, in other words the
greater the gravitational pull experienced by a clock, or the closer
it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will tick."

Hey Pencho. Thanks to one of your links I bought Magueijo's book for
just a dollar on the net; used hardback. There are some nice
incidental details and he has a good writing style. He is not aloof at
all, and a tension is carried much like the grind of personalitites in
science. He certainly speaks his truth clearly. I am not done with it
yet, but have already learned alot of seemingly minor details, the
accumulation of which could be helpful to any budding or even leafed
out theorist.

I find the falsification of relativity straightforward directly from
the tensor usage. Einstein clearly states the isotropic assumption,
but fails to specify whether that isotropic quality extends to
spacetime or is just spatial. Within the tensor format we need only
consider a measuring rod in 3D, then extend it into the 4D, and see
that the rod actually has no freedom to rotate into the time
component, thus refuting the 4D tensor usage.

Instead the Minkowski metric imposes a structure on spacetime and this
then challenges the 4D isotropic claim. The paradigm ought to be of
structured spacetime, and I happily grant relativity theory as an
instance of such.

The peculiar nature of the photon as instantaneous within its own
reference frame is rarely discussed if at all, and this paradox ought
to come more to the surface, for interaction of instantaneous
phenomena is an extremely puzzling context, with an opening to
multipath dynamics.

I prefer to grant some respect for relativity theory, but still to
criticize it, and thus state that there is room for a cleaner theory,
and that the paradigm of structured spacetime will alight. Further, I
have found arithmetic support for spacetime with unidirectional zero
dimensional time:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
The polysign numbers go so deep as to redefine the real number, though
few seem to appreciate polysign to this degree of simplicity. The
resulting generalized structure yield complex numbers P3 and
unidirectional time P1 alongside their middling relative P2; the
traditional real number. The arithmetic is clean and promises natural
spacetime support for he who can implement physics within the polysign
paradigm. This is a mighty challenge for which I offer a US$100 bonus
for a contribution, particularly for the expression of
electromagnetism within the polysign paradigm, where the structured
form of spacetime already carries the electromagnetic geometry, and so
a prediction of a simplification of Maxwell's equations is easily
visible, though difficult to instantiate mathematically.

We know that such a radical move is required to shuffle the deck.
Doesn't it make sense that the arithmetic needs to change? I encourage
all to take a fresh look at polysign, and I do accept the criticisms
of relativity theory which take place here on usenet, though I think
much of the criticism is overblown to outright rejection, whereas what
ought to be declared is an opening. It is from this open place that I
present polysign, for I have no ultimate physical theory; just clean
math.

- Tim


http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...obtain-highly-...
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

The "gravitational time dilation" is an idiocy devised by Einstein in
1911: somehow he had to camouflage the fact that, in dealing with the
behaviour of light in a gravitational field, he was using Newton's
emission theory of light:

ttp://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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein managed to definitively get rid of Newton's emission
theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/
c^2), which is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5:

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...ein-papers/191...
). 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."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

a hundred dollars for some "clean math?"

the best odometer for relativity is quaternions,
where the imaginary part is the "vector," and
the real part is the "scalar" in Hamilton's lingua;
see the work-up by Lanczos, _Variational Mechanics_.

Death to the lightcone!

We know that such a radical move is required to shuffle the deck.

thus:
don't top-post!...
what exactly is not analogous about doppler shifts
of frequency of light waves & sound waves?

presumably, there are no "photonic booms," because nothing
can emit light that is going at over "warp factor one."

thus:
sea-level is not rising, globally --
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...ornerInterview...
-- and warming is mostly equatorial. however, there is loss of soil,
and that might change *relative* sea-level
in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea!

thus quoth:
Let’s take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the
polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived
both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago),
when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole.
Clearly, polar bears have adapted to the changing environment,
as evidenced by their presence today.
(This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and
the other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar
bear survived the last Interglacial because it did not
have computer climate models that said,
polar bears should not have survived!)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...l_Warming.html

thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.

Nude Scientist said:
Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2010/1...sts_sudan.html

"Gravitational time dilation" is just one of Einsteiniana's panicky
reactions to a great threat: the frequency of light the receiver
(observer) measures is often different from the frequency the emitter
measures, that is, light is often redshifted or blueshifted. In
accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the only reasonable explanation of the measured frequency shift is
that the speed of light relative to the receiver is different from the
speed of light relative to the emitter, that is, the speed of light is
VARIABLE, not constant. "Gravitational time dilation" misleads the
public into believing that the frequency shift is due to a miraculous
time dilation dependent on the gravitational potential, not to a
variation of the speed of light:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html
Albert Einstein: "Furthermore, we can regard an atom which is emitting
spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold:
An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on
the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated."

In the absence of gravitational field Einsteinians resort to an even
more blatant lie: the frequency shift is accomanied with a wavelength
shift, not with a variation of the speed of light:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740
"Pulses of light sent upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be
Doppler shifted, or redshifted, when the lift is accelerating upwards,
meaning that this clock will appear to tick more slowly when its
flashes are compared at the ceiling of the lift to another clock.
Because there is no way to tell gravity and acceleration apart the
same will hold true in a gravitational field, in other words the
greater the gravitational pull experienced by a clock, or the closer
it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will tick."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...asurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

The "gravitational time dilation" is an idiocy devised by Einstein in
1911: somehow he had to camouflage the fact that, in dealing with the
behaviour of light in a gravitational field, he was using Newton's
emission theory of light:

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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein managed to definitively get rid of Newton's emission
theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/
c^2), which is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5:

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."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho-bot strikes, again!

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of

read more »...

thus:
five points determine a conic. initially,
I asked about the regularness, because
you can't really tell by looking at it.

http://sites.google.com/site/tommy1729/home/eggs-prob

thus:
the best odometer for relativity is quaternions,
where the imaginary part is the "vector," and
the real part is the "scalar" in Hamilton's lingua;
see the work-up by Lanczos, _Variational Mechanics_.

Death to the lightcone!

thus:
don't top-post!...
what exactly is not analogous about doppler shifts
of frequency of light waves & sound waves?
presumably, there are no "photonic booms," because
nothing emits light that is going at over "warp factor one."

thus:
sea-level is not rising, globally --
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...ornerInterview...
-- and warming is mostly equatorial. however,
there is loss of soil,
and that might change *relative* sea-level
in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea!

thus quoth:
Let’s take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the
polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived
both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago),
when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole.
Clearly, polar bears have adapted to the changing environment,
as evidenced by their presence today.
(This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and
the other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar
bear survived the last Interglacial because it did not
have computer climate models that said,
polar bears should not have survived!)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...l_Warming.html

thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.

Nude Scientist said:
Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2010/1...sts_sudan.html

On Feb 19, 11:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:42:22 -0800:

"Gravitational time dilation" is just one of Einsteiniana's panicky
reactions to a great threat: the frequency of light the receiver
(observer) measures is often different from the frequency the emitter
measures, that is, light is often redshifted or blueshifted. In
accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the only reasonable explanation of the measured frequency shift is that
the speed of light relative to the receiver is different from the speed
of light relative to the emitter, that is, the speed of light is
VARIABLE, not constant. "Gravitational time dilation" misleads the
public into believing that the frequency shift is due to a miraculous
time dilation dependent on the gravitational potential, not to a
variation of the speed of light:

You got all plain wrong again. In fact textbooks in GR give expressions as

c(r) = c(1 + 2phi/c^2)

which are used in the tests of "Gravitational time dilation" and the result
agrees with GR predictions

Two points. First, you don't know but clever Einsteinians do know that
c(r)=c(1+2phi/c^2) (Einstein's 1915 equation) is inconsistent with the
gravitational redshift factor 1+phi/c^2 confirmed experimentally. It
is c(r)=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light (known
as Einstein's 1911 equation) which is consistent with the
gravitational redshift factor 1+phi/c^2 confirmed experimentally.

Second, both variable-speed-of-light equations, c(r)=c(1+2phi/c^2) and
c(r)=c(1+phi/c^2), are somewhat secret. Most Einsteinians simply teach
that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is constant 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.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

Steve Carlip even teaches that, although the speed of light is
variable in a gravitational field, lately it has become constant and
that's it:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!....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."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 19, 1:25 am, spudnik wrote:
a hundred dollars for some "clean math?"

US$100 for contributions on the expression of electromagnetics within
the context of polysign numbers.


the best odometer for relativity is quaternions,
where the imaginary part is the "vector," and
the real part is the "scalar" in Hamilton's lingua;
see the work-up by Lanczos, _Variational Mechanics_.

Yes, so many are tuning in to the quaternion. I've spent some time at
it but still fail to see that there is anything more to it than
standard emag. There are so many avenues to explore it's ridiculous.
Gauge theory is another thing that I dismissed awhile ago, but still
it lingers. Thanks for this advice. I'll try to access Lanczos.


Death to the lightcone!

We know that such a radical move is required to shuffle the deck.

Consider the tensor in 3D, as in usual mechanics. The reason for
considering the tensor as a pre-relativity tool was to strictly
enforce the idea that any reference frame will suffice to perform
physics or mechanics from. Here the isotropic notion of space takes a
fairly sensible platform.

Prior to this development we see convenient choice of reference
frames. A phenomenon is reduced to a one dimensional problem by
carefully choosing an axis along which the object's motion is
constrained. For instance the usage of 'x' for a railroad car
travelling a track.

The initial purpose of the tensor was to abstract this requirement.
The essential meaning is that the objects of the problem can exist
within mathematics without the preferential frame, so long as the
track and the car are cleanly defined within the tensor framework.

A measuring rod is an even simpler object, and I shift down to this
level of simplicity to introduce the time dimension. Embed the rod
into a tensor, and let's now enter time into the tensor as a fourth
dimensional component. Already we have a tremendous puzzle that
Einstein managed to avoid. We can see that for a given projection
we'll see the rod's diameter and its length (the critical component),
but now what is the extent in the time dimension, and further why must
we distinguish the time dimension from the others? Having entered the
tensor we just wiped away that distinction. No acceleration or
velocity is necessary to portray this conflict. No usage of light is
necessary. This is simply a conflict of the mathematical construction.

There are multiple routes to attempt. I'll try one: the rod is granted
an existence for a fixed length of time, say one year; a fairly short
time in the life of man-made objects here on Earth. It is clear that
rotations through the frame now bring the longest length of the rod to
one light year, and potentially shrink its existence in time down to a
moment, depending upon the diameter of the rod. Entering time into the
tensor format forces rotational invariance including that time
dimension. Rotations which the rod can take must be extended into the
fourth dimension. There is no exception. Thus the framework of the
problem is flawed, for we see no ability to draw the length of the
measuring rod to a length of one light year via rotation, thus making
it disappear in a moment. In hindsight the atomic structure of the
measuring rod is likewise offended by the construction. Time has no
degree of freedom as spatial dimensions do.

Numerous conflicts exist already at the outset of the construction.
How did he manage to get results? It must be that what he was seeing
is something quite different from the tensor interpretation. I suggest
that structured spacetime is the paradigm rather than isotropic
spacetime; hence the contorted metric which forms yet another tensor
conflict in the context of arbitrary reference frames.

I have found arithmetic support for spacetime with unidirectional zero
dimensional time by generalizing the sign of the real number:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
For some reason this math is challenging to the human mind. I suggest
that the cartesian thought of this and the last century is in the way
of progress. The concept of orthogonality as inherently dimensional
need not be. There is a subtle conflict of the notion of independence
in the graphical sense to the informational sense whereby I am caught
using a phrase 'informationally orthogonal' to portray a more true
independence, for if frames must be perpendicular then that is a
dependency. That's a frazzled statement because it is at the edge of a
new paradigm. These details lay in the subtleties of the fundamentals
of mathematics where just a small shift implicates itself throughout
the entire body.

- Tim

what exactly is not analogous about doppler shifts
of frequency of light waves & sound waves?

a hundred is not enough for such sophistry to be taken-up, dood --
rotating your yardstick to be "a lightyear's duration?"

quaternions already takes care of this "problem," because
time is a "0d" -- as you say -- scalar;
*all* of "4d" vector mechanics is in Hamilton's quaternions.

anyway, orthogonality is indeed generalized to Nd in various ways, but
it just does not mean the same thing as in "(x,y,z)."

* *http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
For some reason this math is challenging to the human mind. I suggest
that the cartesian thought of this and the last century is in the way
of progress. The concept of orthogonality as inherently dimensional
need not be. There is a subtle conflict of the notion of independence
in the graphical sense to the informational sense whereby I am caught
using a phrase 'informationally orthogonal' to portray a more true
independence, for if frames must be perpendicular then that is a
dependency. That's a frazzled statement because it is at the edge of a
new paradigm. These details lay in the subtleties of the fundamentals
of mathematics where just a small shift implicates itself throughout
the entire body.

thus:
death to the lightcone!

I rather like this term, "funky functional."

thus:
so, Fermatttt could not have done it, either?... try working it
in space, using ellipsoids (and either a)
eleven around one, or b)
13 around one, a la Newton's go-around of Harriot/Kepler's problem).

thus:
ah, the old exploded planet hypothesis;
even Kepler could have been wrong about *some* thing (although,
he was not, about most things: http://wlym.com .-)

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Ricw & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

I meant, as in (x,y,z;t). so,
how is it handled with Clifford algebras?

polysigned is a rather fuzzy stretch, considering that
"real" numbers (and scalars) do not actually need negatives,
either (which leads to p-adics .-)

thus:
well, it occurs to me,
that the impossibility -- though I suppose it was solved --
of the "thirteen balls around one" problem was that
it was an odd number; so, maybe trying ten or 14 is better,
given the symmetry of the ellipsoids. qua ellipses,
how about 4 aroound one?

in space, using ellipsoids (and either a)
eleven around one, or b)
13 around one, a la Newton's avoidance of the Harriot/Kepler's problem).

thus:-
rotating your yardstick to be "a lightyear's duration?"

quaternions already takes care of this "problem," because
time is a "0d" -- as you say -- scalar;
*all* of "4d" vector mechanics is in Hamilton's quaternions.

anyway, orthogonality is indeed generalized to Nd in various ways, but
it just does not mean the same thing as in "(x,y,z;t)."
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned

thus:
death to the lightcone!
I rather like this term, "funky functional."

thus:
ah, the old exploded planet hypothesis;
even Kepler could have been wrong about *some* thing (although,
he was not, about most things: http://wlym.com .-)

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Ricw & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a
long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can
be trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and
alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev