EINSTEINIANA: ANYTHING GOES

[Pentcho Valev]

Truth (light accelerates in a gravitational field like cannonballs):

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."

Camouflage (it is true but irrelevant that the speed of light "stays
the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it
pass by"):

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html
Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed
exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just
increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local'
speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and
watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what
relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

Blatant lie (light falls but does not accelerate in a gravitational
field):

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."

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a
reason why truth, lie and camouflage should not be taught
simultaneously.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The top of a tower of height h emits light towards an observer on the
ground. In a unit time, the number of wavecrests which reach the
observer are those in a distance:

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

where c' is the final speed of the light (relative to the observer), L
is the wavelength, f' is the frequency as measured by the observer, f
is the frequency as measured by the source and c is the initial speed
of the light (relative to the source). The equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2) has
been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein shows how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

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)."

Einsteiniana's zombies sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe
in relativity, relativity, relativity". This is "perfectly valid and
makes good physical sense", explains Steve Carlip, "but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
"...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Einsteiniana's zombies know nothing more consistent than Steve
Carlip's explanation. The ecstasy gets uncontrollable - zombies tumble
to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/29/12 1/29/12 8:15 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein shows how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
> potential:
> 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)."

LOOK AT THE DATE. This was written in 1911, long before Einstein had formulated
GR. This statement is wrong in GR. Or rather, it is too poorly worded because he
did not yet understand the local vs global distinction; it implicitly assumes a
local measurement, and with that caveat it is wrong in GR.

As I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, in GR a local measurement of the
speed of light always obtains c, independent of the gravitational potential of
either source or apparatus.

Einstein learned quite a lot between 1911 and 1916. You have learned NOTHING
since you started posting nonsense to the 'net.

In the context of this 1911 theory, with knowledge of GR, it's easy
to see his mistake here: he assumes that clocks are affected by
gravitational potential. In GR they are not affected, and the
gravitational redshift and deflection he is grappling with are
actually GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIPS, not any "change" in the clocks
(or rulers, which he does not discuss because in 1911 he had not
yet applied semi-Riemannian geometry).

The primary points of this 1911 article are given in its opening paragraph: to
correct a previous paper and to derive the deflection of light by the sun. As is
well known to all except Pentcho Valev, this paper got it wrong by a factor of
2. His theory of General Relativity (1916) got it right, and EXPLAINED the
errors in this paper (which include not only the deflection, but also the
velocity equation Valev quotes so frequently).

Unlike Einstein, Pentcho Valev is not interested in correcting his own errors.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Jan 29, 6:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Einstein learned quite a lot between 1911 and 1916. You have learned NOTHING
> since you started posting nonsense to the net.
>
>         In the context of this 1911 theory, with knowledge of GR, it's easy
>         to see his mistake here: he assumes that clocks are affected by

>         gravitational potential. In GR they are not affected...

Consider this, Honest Roberts:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Is David Morin lying when he says that "when you take the watch down
and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time
elapsed"?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/29/12 1/29/12 11:33 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Jan 29, 6:03 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Einstein learned quite a lot between 1911 and 1916. You have learned NOTHING
>> since you started posting nonsense to the net.
>>
>> In the context of this 1911 theory, with knowledge of GR, it's easy
>> to see his mistake here: he assumes that clocks are affected by
>> gravitational potential. In GR they are not affected...

> http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
> David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> will show more time elapsed."

[Note he is discussing the equivalence principle, and has not
yet arrived at GR. In some sense this opening section is
analogous to Einstein's 1911 paper, not GR.]

Yes, some textbooks, especially elementary ones like this, use rather loose
language (i.e. "to get a flavor of the subject", as he EXPLICITLY says). Such
books prefer to give a QUALITATIVE description of the theory, using simple
language, rather than including all the caveats, conditions, and subtleties of
the actual theory. General Relativity is SUBTLE, COMPLICATED, and DIFFICULT.
There is no escaping this. But many books, such as this, give an approximately
correct account in a few pages, rather than a fully accurate and correct account
that would take many more chapters and require more mathematical sophistication
in the students than they have.

Teaching has been described as giving the students a succession
of ever more sophisticated lies. This is an example of that
-- this textbook is aimed at students who simply are not ready
for the full-blown theory. AND IT SAYS SO, EXPLICITLY.

In GR, every clock that is designed to tick at 1 Hz has a proper time interval
between ticks of 1 second, regardless of its motion or location in a
gravitational field. That is, it always ticks at its usual (design) rate. The
MATHEMATICS is quite clear on this, even if some descriptions (such as the
above) describe it differently.

If you want to test a theory, or apply it to the world we inhabit, or even
understand it, you must use the ACTUAL theory, and not some elementary
description of it that has traded off accuracy and completeness for conciseness
and simpler mathematics.

> Is David Morin lying when he says that "when you take the watch down
> and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time
> elapsed"?

No. That part is correct. But claiming "higher clocks run faster than lower
clocks" is overly simplistic -- the clocks THEMSELVES don't actually run
differently, but a COMPARISON OF SIGNALS from them will display gravitational
redshift.

But don't naively conclude that the signals are "changed" --
they aren't. What happens is the geometrical relationships
between signals and clocks depend on the geometry. Just
like "time dilation" and "length contraction" in SR, these
are rotations in spacetime rather than "changes" to anything.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

Correct, Honest Roberts. Einsteiniana's teaching can indeed be
characterized as "giving the students a succession of ever more
sophisticated lies". Peter Hayes explains in more detail:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of
thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds
that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics
held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to
discredit their technical objections to relativity as being
scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative
possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of
Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an
ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how
relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it
scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make
the theory ideologically powerful. (...) The prediction that clocks
will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the
problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the
principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox,
however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been
raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much
of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent
contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is
rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by
professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a
general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by
asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain
why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the
argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified,
highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the
theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a
shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading
popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity
reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious
inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's
claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are
overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right
for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a
potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice
wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept
relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an
understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears
illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are
necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not
approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their
expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on
popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are
youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts?
Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with
true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed
to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument
of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join
the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend
disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail
to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the
inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this
merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The
gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research
institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises
problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

> http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
> David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> will show more time elapsed."

Pentcho Valev asked: "Is David Morin lying when he says that "when you

take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will

show more time elapsed"?

Tom Roberts replied: "No. That part is correct. But claiming "higher

clocks run faster than lower clocks" is overly simplistic -- the
clocks THEMSELVES don't actually run differently, but a COMPARISON OF
SIGNALS from them will display gravitational redshift."

Bravo, Honest Roberts. "The clocks THEMSELVES don't actually run
differently" and yet "when you take the watch down and compare it to
the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed"! Sounds like
another wisdom of yours: "Length contraction is merely a geometrical
projection and yet sometimes brothers Einsteinians manage to trap an
80m pole inside a 40m barn". I think even zombies do not believe you
anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[underante]

On Jan 30, 5:27 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20...

so this fellow who lugged 3 clocks and 3 kids to the top of a
mountain was misled by the results that he got? well, this is what
happens i guess when you buy old atomic clocks off ebay. caveat emptor
and all that.
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/index.htm

[underante]

On Jan 30, 5:27 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20...

is it just einstein theories you object to, or the whole notion that
two clocks might run at different rates depending on how high up a
mountain one was?

[Pentcho Valev]

Anonymous Einsteinians enthusiastically prove that, in a gravitational
field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[underante]

oh dear! but to be fair, the guy does say at the end this was not a
rigorous derivation!

but it was really about the clock business i was a little curious to
know your views!

(though of course the real question is, does an electrically charged
wotnot radiate when in free-fall!)

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/31/12 1/31/12 - 4:08 PM, underante wrote:
> (though of course the real question is, does an electrically charged
> wotnot radiate when in free-fall!)

This depends on what you mean by "radiate", and which coordinates you use. To an
observer free falling with the charge, no radiation is observed, using any
reasonable meaning of "radiation". To a distant inertial observer using her
local coordinates extended to where the charge is located, there is radiation in
the sense that the radiation term in the Lienard-Wiechert potential is nonzero.

This last is not as general as it sounds, because in general
her coordinates cannot be extended to the charge's location;
but it is true in the Schw. manifold for charged test particles.

A related physical situation is also interesting: does a charge at rest on the
surface of a massive planet radiate? The answer is similar: to an observer also
at rest on the surface, and co-located with the charge (hence co-accelerating
with the charge), no radiation is observed. But a distant observer does observe
radiation in the above sense. As does an observer in freefall near the charge.

I'm pretty sure these are correct, but I have lost track of
how rigorous they are.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential exactly
as the speed of cannonballs does, could that effect be the cause of
the gravitational redshift? Of Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift"?
Einsteinians? Einsteinians ready to reply:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg