Contradiction between Einstein's Zombies and Einstein's Hypnotists

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 1:53:09 AM3/22/06

to

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that
Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c
principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of
speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of
Einstein's cult:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, Oh Albert, Oh Giant of Science,
Oh Creature Divine with an infinite power.

Of course both zombies and hypnotists know the formula F=V/L, where F
is the frequency, V is the speed and L is the wavelength. This is the
most horrible formula in the world: on seeing it, both zombies and
hypnotists look for sand, bury their heads, expose other extremities
and remain so until the danger is Why the horror? Pound and Rebka found
that the receiver on the ground will receive the light with frequency
F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo where Fo is the original frequency. The application of
the horrible formula F=V/L unequivocally leads to the result

V = c + v

where V is the speed of light as measured by the receiver and v>0 is
the speed of the receiver (or the light source) in an equivalent setup
where the tower is replaced by an accelerated rocket. So after taking
their heads out of the sand both zombies and hypnotists perform a
special voodoo ritual designed to disconnect the two formulas,
F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo and F=V/L, in the mind of any possible human being. So
far the ritual has proved extremely efficient.

Yet from time to time a human being combines the two formulas and then
a contradiction between zombies and hypnotists becomes evident.
Hypnotists know that the truth of Newton's c+v principle and the
falsehood of Einstein's c principle are the only reasonable
conclusions:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Zombies know nothing, look desperately at the two formulas and
postulate in the end: If the frequency changes, then the wavelength
changes accordingly but the speed of light remains constant. The speed
of light is constant. Constant is the speed of light. The speed of
light does not vary. Velocity may vary (Master said so in Chapter 22 in
his "Relativity") but the speed never etc.

Hypnotists are not happy. They know how silly this "If the frequency
changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly" is.

Pentcho Valev

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 9:00:47 AM3/22/06

to

Pentcho Valev wrote :

See my message:
Potential energy explains the so-called GR effect on satellite clocks
http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c70c78becb216ec3/e06dfeef82810893#e06dfeef82810893

It would be interesting to see the GRists formula giving the frequency
shift for the following more general case:

Two non-rotating celestial objects are orbiting along their common
center of gravity.
The masses and radii of the objects are respectively M1, R1 and M2,R2.
The distance between centers is d.
Object 1 emits a light of frequency Nu1. What is the frequency Nu2
observed on object2 ?

What would be the result of the GR formula when M1 = 1 M* ( =1 solar
mass),
R1 = 5 Km, M2 = 5 M*, R2 = 20 km, d = 50 k.

Marcel Luttgens

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 9:06:54 AM3/22/06

to

Oops, d = 50 Km !

Marcel Luttgens

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 9:13:44 AM3/22/06

to

<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1143036047....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote :

[snip Valev's usual diarrhea]

>
> See my message:
> Potential energy explains the so-called GR effect on satellite clocks
> http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c70c78becb216ec3/e06dfeef82810893#e06dfeef82810893
>
> It would be interesting to see the GRists formula giving the frequency
> shift for the following more general case:
>
> Two non-rotating celestial objects are orbiting along their common
> center of gravity.
> The masses and radii of the objects are respectively M1, R1 and M2,R2.
> The distance between centers is d.
> Object 1 emits a light of frequency Nu1. What is the frequency Nu2
> observed on object2 ?
>
> What would be the result of the GR formula when M1 = 1 M* ( =1 solar
> mass),
> R1 = 5 Km, M2 = 5 M*, R2 = 20 km, d = 50 k.
>
> Marcel Luttgens

What do you care, and even if you would, where on Earth
would you get the brain cells to understand the answer?
From your website:
There is no length contraction, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/sapere.htm
The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
Mathematical Error in the Lorentz Transformation, by Paul Marmet:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html
The Twin paradox falsifies SR:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm

Face it, Marcel, you have a conehead, probably even sharper
than Pentcho Valev's.

Dirk Vdm

Lloyd Parker

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 4:59:02 AM3/22/06

to

In article <1143010389.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
>between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
>Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
>and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
>(the c principle).

The experiment showed a wavelength shift, not a speed change. Doofus.

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Mar 22, 2006, 1:24:23 PM3/22/06

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote :

You are unable to give the GR formula, moron !

Marcel Luttgens

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Mar 23, 2006, 2:58:08 AM3/23/06

to

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <1143010389.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
> >between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
> >Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
> >and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
> >(the c principle).
>
> The experiment showed a wavelength shift, not a speed change. Doofus.

The experiment DID NOT show a wavelength shift. See what Master Tom
Roberts says:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

> Jim Burns wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
> >
> > Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
>
> # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear
> Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This paper proposed the
> experiment.
> # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons, Phys.
> Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first measurement.
> # R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance,
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate measurement with
> Snider.
>
> There is also an Italian measurement using atomic clocks on a mountain
> and in the neighboring valley.
>
> And there is the GPS, for which the satellite clocks would gain ~38
> microseconds per day compared to an earthbound clock, if that were not
> adjusted in the satellites.
>
>
> > I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
> > old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
> > difficult to get that kind of precision.
>
> Pound et al used the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the Moessbauer effect
> to obtain the requisite resolution. The others use atomic clocks.
>
>
> None of the above measured wavelength directly. But we do know that on
> earth the speed of light is c, and in the GPS the speed of light is c
> between satellite and ground.
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Needless to say, you should never forget Master Tom Roberts'
fundamental discovery:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Pentcho Valev

Areader

unread,

Mar 23, 2006, 3:54:08 AM3/23/06

to

Endless repetition of what Tom Roberts wrote in another thread and
which you clearly can't wrap your small brain around, does not mean
squat.

Pound and Rebka reported a frequency shift. Nowhere in their paper did
they equate this to a variable speed of light.

Now I'm going to repeat that statement because you're a determined
ignorant troll:

Pound and Rebka reported a frequency shift. Nowhere in their paper did
they equate this to a variable speed of light.

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Mar 23, 2006, 4:08:36 AM3/23/06

to

Areader wrote:
> Endless repetition of what Tom Roberts wrote in another thread and
> which you clearly can't wrap your small brain around, does not mean
> squat.
>
> Pound and Rebka reported a frequency shift. Nowhere in their paper did
> they equate this to a variable speed of light.

The problem is whether the speed of light is variable in a
gravitational field, independently of what Pound and Rebka found it
suitable to discuss. If it is, the frequency shift can be explained in
this way. So is it variable? Yes? No? Divine Albert says it is in
Chapter 22 in his "Relativity". Master Tom Roberts also says it is:

Areader

unread,

Mar 23, 2006, 5:52:38 AM3/23/06

to

You repeat your misinterpretation of what Tom Roberts wrote, and I will
repeat what I said:

> Pound and Rebka reported a frequency shift. Nowhere in their paper did
> they equate this to a variable speed of light.

When are you going to admit this? Because all I'll do is repeat it
endlessly unless you do or choke on your own bile, whichever is first.

As for Albert Einstein, here is the reference to the "variability" of
light:

"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 result hold only so long as
we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the
phenomena (e.g. of light)."

So what Albert is talking about here, is the invalidity of the special
theory in the case of gravitational fields. If the special theory were
assumed to be true in such cases, Albert says, then light must have a
variable speed in order to account for gravitational lensing.

Right at the end of the chapter Albert writes:

" We are acquainted with space-time domains which behave
(approximately) in a "Galileian" fashion under suitable choice of
reference-body, i.e. domains in which gravitational fields are absent.
If we now refer such a domain to a reference-body K' possessing any
kind of motion, then relative to K' there exists a gravitational field
which is variable with respect to space and time. 2 The character of
this field will of course depend on the motion chosen for K'. According
to the general theory of relativity, the general law of the
gravitational field must be satisfied for all gravitational fields
obtainable in this way. Even though by no means all gravitational
fields can be produced in this way, yet we may entertain the hope that
the general law of gravitation will be derivable from such
gravitational fields of a special kind. This hope has been realised in
the most beautiful manner. But between the clear vision of this goal
and its actual realisation it was necessary to surmount a serious
difficulty, and as this lies deep at the root of things, I dare not
withhold it from the reader. We require to extend our ideas of the
space-time continuum still farther."

In other words, in order to account for gravitational fields and the
speed of light, the nature of spacetime needs to be examined. In that
examination, Einstein draws attention to the fact that spacetime is not
Euclidean in the presence of a variable gravitational field.

Like a lot of cranks, Pentcho spends a great deal of time picking and
choosing random quotations in order to bamboozle the weak-minded and
draw attention to himself.

brian a m stuckless

unread,

Mar 23, 2006, 8:44:01 AM3/23/06

to

$$ Delta fL=(d)fA, light-PATH-deflection.
$$ A "bent" ..or DEFLECTED light ray is an ACCELERATED light ray!.

> Pound and Rebka reported a [LiNEAR] frequency [fL] shift. Nowhere

> in their paper did they equate this to a variable speed of light.

$$ Photon ACCELERATiON (frequency "shift") = CHANGE of VELOCiTY/t.
$$ Photon ACCELERATiON (frequency "shift") = CHANGE of (VECTOR)/t.
$$ A photon PATH's, fL "shift" (defelection) = ANGULAR fA "shift".

> Now I'm going to repeat that statement
> because you're a determined ignorant troll:
>

> Pound and Rebka reported a [LiNEAR] frequency [fL] shift. Nowhere

> in their paper did they equate this to a variable speed of light.

$$ Now I'm going to repeat that statement
$$ because you're a determined ignorant troll:
$$
$$ DEFLECTED light PATH.
$$ A "bent" ..or DEFLECTED light ray is an ACCELERATED light ray!.
$$
$$ Photon ACCELERATiON (frequency "shift") = CHANGE of VELOCiTY/t.
$$ Photon ACCELERATiON (frequency "shift") = CHANGE of (VECTOR)/t.
$$ A PHOTON PATH's fL "shift" (defelection) = ANGULAR, fA "shift".

> Pound and Rebka reported a [LiNEAR] frequency [fL] shift. Nowhere

> in their paper did they equate this to a variable speed of light.
>