|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SPEED OF LIGHT AFFECTED BY GRAVITY
http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein (having in mind Newton's emission theory of light): "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)." http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html "In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all - even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed of light." 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." Crimestop question: A massive celestial body emits light with initial speed c0 (relative to the emitter) which then leaves the gravitational field. Then, all along, the light will travel through space where the gravitational potential is constant but different from the potential at the point of emission. Does this mean that, all along, the light will travel through field-free space with speed c constant but different from c0? http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SPEED OF LIGHT AFFECTED BY GRAVITY
Einstein's general relativity predicts that light emitted from a
massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). Newton's emission theory of light predicts that light emitted from a massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2). In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured that the frequency varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians all over the world sincerely believe that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Yet Tom Roberts exercises himself in doublethink sometimes: 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." 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." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SPEED OF LIGHT AFFECTED BY GRAVITY
On Dec 31 2010, 11:13*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's general relativity predicts that light emitted from a massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). Newton's emission theory of light predicts that light emitted from a massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2). In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured that the frequency varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians all over the world sincerely believe that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Yet Tom Roberts exercises himself in doublethink sometimes: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/44abc7dbb30... 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." 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." Pentcho Valev Its trhe same speed but slower in slower time. Mitch Raemsch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SPEED OF LIGHT AFFECTED BY GRAVITY
Karl Popper's ignorance or dishonesty:
http://poars1982.files.wordpress.com...efutations.pdf Karl Popper: "With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance - Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the findings of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), PRECISELY AS MATERIAL BODIES WERE ATTRACTED. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distances on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect. Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted." It is Newton's emission theory of light that "had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), PRECISELY AS MATERIAL BODIES WERE ATTRACTED". Einstein's gravitational theory predicted a greater deviation of starlight: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html "With the technology then available, measuring the deviation of starlight was very challenging. Newtonian physics predicted a bit of bending too, so the matter hinged on an exact measurement of star positions. The results were conflicting, and some have claimed that Eddington ignored the data that showed little bending (thus supporting Newton), and instead concentrated on the data that matched Einstein's prediction." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einstein's general relativity predicts that light emitted from a massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). Newton's emission theory of light predicts that light emitted from a massive celestial body slows down with distance. The speed of the light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2). In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured that the frequency varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of observation, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians all over the world sincerely believe that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Yet Tom Roberts exercises himself in doublethink sometimes: 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." 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." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is speed of sound higher then the speed of light??? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 9th 08 12:48 AM |
Gravity Waves Faster-Than-Light Speed? | SuperCool Plasma | Misc | 3 | August 13th 05 08:18 PM |
Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity field? | Asimov | Astronomy Misc | 6 | February 27th 05 12:32 AM |
speed of light asymptotic in higher gravity? | David Dalton | Research | 0 | November 17th 03 11:07 AM |
Electrostatic Gravity&Light Speed | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 15 | September 16th 03 06:06 PM |