info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEINIANA: 1 = 0 = 2
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Apr 24, 2012, 10:53:38 AM4/24/12
to
Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-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.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-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.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tonico
Apr 24, 2012, 12:14:09 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 5:55 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs:
>
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
> Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
>
> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS...
> Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs:
>
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
> Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
>
> 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.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
> Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
> Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
> Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
>
> http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Idiot
>
> http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
> Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
> Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
> Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
>
> http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Apr 25, 2012, 2:58:47 AM4/25/12
to
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_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..."
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "They [Pound and Rebka] sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."
So the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Did it confirm the speed of light shift predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory? There are three Divine Predictions: a speed of light shift of gh/c^2 (many Einsteinians claim that this Divine Prediction of 1911 is false), no speed of light shift at all (most Einsteinians teach this although it has nothing to do with the original version of the Divine Theory), and a speed of light shift of 2gh/c^2 (in accordance with the original version of the Divine Theory).
Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment gloriously confirmed the three Divine Predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. It also confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light but in an insignificant and even despicable manner.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
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..."
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "They [Pound and Rebka] sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."
So the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Did it confirm the speed of light shift predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory? There are three Divine Predictions: a speed of light shift of gh/c^2 (many Einsteinians claim that this Divine Prediction of 1911 is false), no speed of light shift at all (most Einsteinians teach this although it has nothing to do with the original version of the Divine Theory), and a speed of light shift of 2gh/c^2 (in accordance with the original version of the Divine Theory).
Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment gloriously confirmed the three Divine Predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. It also confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light but in an insignificant and even despicable manner.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Apr 25, 2012, 8:29:26 AM4/25/12
to
In the period 1907-1915 Einstein was only able to plagiarize Newton's emission theory of light insofar as the speed of light in a gravitational field was concerned:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein: "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)."
The formula c=c0(1+phi/c^2) implies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. This interpretation, confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, is so obviously correct that some Einsteinians teach it even nowadays:
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... (...) ...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.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein: "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)."
The formula c=c0(1+phi/c^2) implies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. This interpretation, confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, is so obviously correct that some Einsteinians teach it even nowadays:
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... (...) ...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.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
0 new messages