Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
transformation.
But such equivalence exists only for massive bodies, not for
light, as the frequency shift due to a constant gravitational field
is slightly different from the shift due to a corresponding uniform
acceleration. Then, effects of gravity cannot be removed by
a simple coordinate transformation.
Cf. http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence.htm
Marcel Luttgens
karand...@yahoo.com
<repeated imbecilities snipped>. Then, effects of gravity cannot be
removed by
> a simple coordinate transformation.
>
Einstein never said such an idiocy, he stated exactly the opposite,
that one cannot remove the gravity effects through a simple coordinate
transformation.
> Cf.http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence.htm
>
> Marcel Luttgens
But I showed you the errors in your above "paper", have you forgotten?
Or you thought that if you don't answer and you come back two months
later you will not be challenged?
karand...@yahoo.com
Cretin,
It was explained to you that the principle of equaivalence is LOCAL,
multiple times. So, why do you write this cretinoid shit:
"This is the case of light from the Sun's surface
observed on the Earth.
By replacing M and R by the mass and the radius of the
Sun, one gets a red shift of 2.12 * 10^-6.
(cf. Steven Weinberg, Gravitation & Cosmology, 1972)"
So, you apply mindlessly some formulasfrom a mainstream text hoping
to give credibility to your errors? The Sun-Earth system is NOT local.
You cannot apply your silly calculations for this giant version of the
Pound Rebka experiment where the light source is the Sun and the
receiver is on Earth.
Even in your distorted mind, you still get agreement to the first
order term. You don't get agreement to the second order you twisted
imbecile. You wonder why? Because the STATEMENT of your problem
VIOLTES the PoE.
karand...@yahoo.com
Dear cretin
Are you still trying to apply PoE to an elevator 150*10^9m long?
And you wonder why you get disagreement to the second order term of
the tayloe expansion?
What an imbecile!
Eric Gisse
> Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
What, because you say so?
>
> Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
> a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
> is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
> So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
> transformation.
No, stupid. That is not what the equivalence principle states.
>
> But such equivalence exists only for massive bodies, not for
> light, as the frequency shift due to a constant gravitational field
> is slightly different from the shift due to a corresponding uniform
> acceleration. Then, effects of gravity cannot be removed by
> a simple coordinate transformation.
Nice strawman - start off with a stupid assumption [gravity can be
transformed away] and arrive at a stupid conclusion, then beat on that
stupid conclusion as if it were relativity rather than the product of
someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
>
> Cf.http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence.htm
Still comparing first and second order equations then getting irate
when they do not agree?
>
> Marcel Luttgens
PD
Poor understanding of the equivalence principle. The equivalence only
holds *locally*, where locality is determined by gravitational
variations over the spatial domain are smaller than can be detected
experimentally. The more sensitive the measurement, the more
restricted the domain over which the equivalence principle applies.
Poor understanding of perturbative expansions. Two perturbative
expansions can sum to *exactly* the same result, even though first-
order terms may disagree, second-order terms may disagree, third-order
terms may disagree, and so on.
I thought this had been explained to you repeatedly. It sounds like
you've had a reboot, only to end up in the same error state as before.
PD
PD
>
> Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
> a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
> is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
> So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
> transformation.
>
> But such equivalence exists only for massive bodies, not for
> light, as the frequency shift due to a constant gravitational field
> is slightly different from the shift due to a corresponding uniform
> acceleration. Then, effects of gravity cannot be removed by
> a simple coordinate transformation.
>
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Poor understanding of the equivalence principle. The equivalence only
holds *locally*, where locality is determined by gravitational
variations over the spatial domain being smaller than can be detected
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177444625....@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You seem to want others to hallucinate you have knowledge when
in fact you are a transparent fuckwit. Face it, moron, Einstein was a kook
and so are you.
Tom Roberts
> Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
This is plain and simply not true. But one does need to understand the
equivalence principle, and you apparently do not. <shrug>
> Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
> a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
> is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
> So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
> transformation.
Only to lowest order. _HE_ knew that, but you apparently don't.
Tom Roberts
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember Einstein's thought experiment:
"We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from
stars and other appreciable masses that we have before us
approximately the conditions required by the fundamental law
of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galileian
reference-body for this part of space (world), relative to
which points at rest remain at rest and points in motion
continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion.
As reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a
room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus.
Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer. He
must fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwise the
slightest impact against the floor will cause him to rise
slowly towards the ceiling of the room.
To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a
hook with rope attached, and now a "being" (what kind of a
being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at this with a
constant force. The chest together with the observer then
begin to move "upwards" with a uniformly accelerated motion.
If he (the observer) releases a body which he previously
had in his hand, the acceleration of the chest will no longer
be transmitted to this body, and for this reason the body will
approach the floor of the chest with an accelerated relative
motion. The observer will further convince himself that the
acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is
always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may
happen to use for the experiment.
Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it
was discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest
will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in
a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time."
Conclusively, Einstein claimed:
"We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity
to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect
to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument
for a generalised postulate of relativity."
But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
valid
for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
of
relativity doesn't 'generally' apply to light, as the effect of
a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
Such difference should not be neglected when (2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H)
is not 'small'.
I don't think that amateur GR experts can grasp it.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Remember Einstein's thought experiment:
Conclusively, Einstein claimed:
I don't think that amateur GR experts can grasp it!
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1177513524....@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Conclusively, Einstein claimed:
>
> "We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity
> to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect
> to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument
> for a generalised postulate of relativity."
Here's a better argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1LIRqfyFIQ
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Conclusively, Einstein claimed:
"We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity
to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect
to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument
for a generalised postulate of relativity."
But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
valid
for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
of
relativity doesn't strictly apply to light, as the effect of
a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
Such difference should not be neglected, especially when
(2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H) is not 'small'.
Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Remember Einstein's thought experiment:
karand...@yahoo.com
No cretin, is valid for any frame of reference that is LOCAL. The
space between Sun and Earth does not qualify as local, profound
imbecile.
As you demonstrated to yourself, the Pound Rebka experiment coincides
with the elevator experiment to the SECOND order approximation, petit
cretin.
When you , in your ignorance, increase the height of the tower in the
Pound Rebka experiment to be equal to the distance Sun-Earth, you ONLY
get agreement to the first order term. And then , you wonder why?
What a species of idiot!
karand...@yahoo.com
You posted the same shit twice, so you are twice the cretin.
Eric Gisse
Hm. You posted the same message 7 times - do I win a prize if I
respond to the real one?
[....]
>
> But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
> valid
> for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
> of
> relativity doesn't strictly apply to light, as the effect of
> a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
> effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
> Such difference should not be neglected, especially when
> (2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H) is not 'small'.
The equivalence principle is a local, not global, statement.
Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
correction gets big!
Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
corrections?
>
> Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
What about folks with actual degrees in physics who are saying you are
wrong? What about people with _doctorates_ in physics who are saying
that you are wrong?
What makes you so damn sure of yourself that you ignore _everything_
you are told? You have had your confusions explained to you countless
times in countless different ways, and yet you say the same shit over
and over.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
> On Apr 25, 9:22 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> Hm. You posted the same message 7 times - do I win a prize if I
> respond to the real one?
>
> [....]
Sorry, I had a "googling" problem!
> > But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
> > valid
> > for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
> > of
> > relativity doesn't strictly apply to light, as the effect of
> > a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
> > effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
> > Such difference should not be neglected, especially when
> > (2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H) is not 'small'.
>
> The equivalence principle is a local, not global, statement.
The Sun environment is local, in GR!
> Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
> correction gets big!
This is your main argument, but it is scientifically wrong!
>
> Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
> something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
> continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
> principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
> corrections?
The principle locally applies (according to GR). You can't neglect the
corrections, even very small. If Einstein had used light instead of
a "ball" in his thought experiment, he would have been more careful,
and made clear that his principle was only valid for "massive" bodies.
> > Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
>
> What about folks with actual degrees in physics who are saying you are
> wrong? What about people with _doctorates_ in physics who are saying
> that you are wrong?
>
I think that those doctors are more careful as you believe. They would
think first, and not reject new approaches beforehand.
> What makes you so damn sure of yourself that you ignore _everything_
> you are told? You have had your confusions explained to you countless
> times in countless different ways, and yet you say the same shit over
> and over.
>
Who is shitting instead of thinking? The answer is evident, the
brainwashed pseudo GR experts!
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
> On Apr 23, 11:30 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
>
> > Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
> > a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
> > is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
> > So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
> > transformation.
>
> > But such equivalence exists only for massive bodies, not for
> > light, as the frequency shift due to a constant gravitational field
> > is slightly different from the shift due to a corresponding uniform
> > acceleration. Then, effects of gravity cannot be removed by
> > a simple coordinate transformation.
>
> > Cf.http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence.htm
>
> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> Poor understanding of the equivalence principle. The equivalence only
> holds *locally*, where locality is determined by gravitational
> variations over the spatial domain are smaller than can be detected
> experimentally. The more sensitive the measurement, the more
> restricted the domain over which the equivalence principle applies.
>
To the point that the principle finally applies only to you and your
seat!
> Poor understanding of perturbative expansions. Two perturbative
> expansions can sum to *exactly* the same result, even though first-
> order terms may disagree, second-order terms may disagree, third-order
> terms may disagree, and so on.
>
I used the Newtonian binomial only to easily get an approximate
result.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Tom, don't quibble! I presume that you are well aware that if Einstein
had only used light instead of his ball, he would not have derived his
principle, at least in the same form. As you are a GR theorist, you
could perhaps ponder a little on this.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
> <mluttg...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in messagenews:1177513524....@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
A good one!
Marcel Luttgens
PD
> On Apr 24, 9:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:30 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
>
> > > Einstein showed with his thought experiment ("let us imagine
> > > a spacious chest...", that a *constant* gravitational field
> > > is equivalent to uniform acceleration.
> > > So, effects of gravity can be removed by a simple coordinate
> > > transformation.
>
> > > But such equivalence exists only for massive bodies, not for
> > > light, as the frequency shift due to a constant gravitational field
> > > is slightly different from the shift due to a corresponding uniform
> > > acceleration. Then, effects of gravity cannot be removed by
> > > a simple coordinate transformation.
>
> > > Cf.http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence.htm
>
> > > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > Poor understanding of the equivalence principle. The equivalence only
> > holds *locally*, where locality is determined by gravitational
> > variations over the spatial domain are smaller than can be detected
> > experimentally. The more sensitive the measurement, the more
> > restricted the domain over which the equivalence principle applies.
>
> To the point that the principle finally applies only to you and your
> seat!
If your instrumentation is sensitive to gravitational field variations
on a spatial scale larger than me and my seat, yes. That's what
defines "local". That's exactly what the equivalence principle
(properly quoted) states.
>
> > Poor understanding of perturbative expansions. Two perturbative
> > expansions can sum to *exactly* the same result, even though first-
> > order terms may disagree, second-order terms may disagree, third-order
> > terms may disagree, and so on.
>
> I used the Newtonian binomial only to easily get an approximate
> result.
My point stands.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
>
>
> > I thought this had been explained to you repeatedly. It sounds like
> > you've had a reboot, only to end up in the same error state as before.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 26, 10:50 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 9:22 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > Hm. You posted the same message 7 times - do I win a prize if I
> > respond to the real one?
>
> > [....]
>
> Sorry, I had a "googling" problem!
>
> > > But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
> > > valid
> > > for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
> > > of
> > > relativity doesn't strictly apply to light, as the effect of
> > > a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
> > > effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
> > > Such difference should not be neglected, especially when
> > > (2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H) is not 'small'.
>
> > The equivalence principle is a local, not global, statement.
>
> The Sun environment is local, in GR!
No. It isn't. Furthermore, the equation you are using is to first
order - when H is big the correction gets big and you CAN NOT USE IT.
You continue to compound your mistakes.
>
> > Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
> > correction gets big!
>
> This is your main argument, but it is scientifically wrong!
No - it has the virtue of being scientifically and mathematically
correct. sin(x) = x for small x - when x gets big, the approximation
is nolonger valid and you have to take the second order correction.
Isn't that easy?
>
>
>
> > Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
> > something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
> > continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
> > principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
> > corrections?
>
> The principle locally applies (according to GR). You can't neglect the
> corrections, even very small. If Einstein had used light instead of
> a "ball" in his thought experiment, he would have been more careful,
> and made clear that his principle was only valid for "massive" bodies.
Yes, and a region millions of miles long is not even remotely "local".
>
> > > Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
>
> > What about folks with actual degrees in physics who are saying you are
> > wrong? What about people with _doctorates_ in physics who are saying
> > that you are wrong?
>
> I think that those doctors are more careful as you believe. They would
> think first, and not reject new approaches beforehand.
Well you already have Paul and Tom telling you that you are wrong, and
they have doctorates in physics.
>
> > What makes you so damn sure of yourself that you ignore _everything_
> > you are told? You have had your confusions explained to you countless
> > times in countless different ways, and yet you say the same shit over
> > and over.
>
> Who is shitting instead of thinking? The answer is evident, the
> brainwashed pseudo GR experts!
As opposed to the guy who doesn't understand anything about
approximation theory or what it means to be local?
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Eric Gisse
Tell us - what condition must hold for sqrt(1+x) = 1+x/2 to be true?
karand...@yahoo.com
No cretin, PoE is valid for any frame of reference that is LOCAL. The
space between Sun and Earth does not qualify as LOCAL , profound
karand...@yahoo.com
<Marcel's cretinisms snipped>
> The Sun environment is local, in GR!
Cretin, 150*10^9 m is local for YOU, the biggest imbecile EVER!
DvM, nail this despicable piece of shit.
<remainder of shit snipped>
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
> On Apr 26, 8:04 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 10:50 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 25, 9:22 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > Hm. You posted the same message 7 times - do I win a prize if I
> > > respond to the real one?
>
> > > [....]
>
> > Sorry, I had a "googling" problem!
>
> > > > But, according to his thought experiment, his conclusion is only
> > > > valid
> > > > for 'massive' bodies, not for light. Iow, his generalized postulate
> > > > of
> > > > relativity doesn't strictly apply to light, as the effect of
> > > > a gravitational field on the light frequency is different from the
> > > > effect due to a corresponding acceleration.
> > > > Such difference should not be neglected, especially when
> > > > (2GM/Rc^2) * H/(R+H) is not 'small'.
>
> > > The equivalence principle is a local, not global, statement.
>
> > The Sun environment is local, in GR!
>
> No. It isn't. Furthermore, the equation you are using is to first
> order - when H is big the correction gets big and you CAN NOT USE IT.
>
> You continue to compound your mistakes.
g = GM/R(R+H)
"gravitational" shift = gH/c^2
"acceleration" shift = 1 - sqrt(1 - 2gH/c^2)
>
> > > Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
> > > correction gets big!
>
> > This is your main argument, but it is scientifically wrong!
>
> No - it has the virtue of being scientifically and mathematically
> correct. sin(x) = x for small x - when x gets big, the approximation
> is nolonger valid and you have to take the second order correction.
> Isn't that easy?
I used an approximation to easily get an idea of the shift difference.
But the real difference is 1 - sqrt(1 - 2gH/c^2) - gH/c^2.
> > > Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
> > > something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
> > > continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
> > > principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
> > > corrections?
>
> > The principle locally applies (according to GR). You can't neglect the
> > corrections, even very small. If Einstein had used light instead of
> > a "ball" in his thought experiment, he would have been more careful,
> > and made clear that his principle was only valid for "massive" bodies.
>
> Yes, and a region millions of miles long is not even remotely "local".
Local in GR has nothing to do with distance!
> > > > Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
>
> > > What about folks with actual degrees in physics who are saying you are
> > > wrong? What about people with _doctorates_ in physics who are saying
> > > that you are wrong?
>
> > I think that those doctors are more careful as you believe. They would
> > think first, and not reject new approaches beforehand.
>
> Well you already have Paul and Tom telling you that you are wrong, and
> they have doctorates in physics.
This is a poor argument.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Here is a specialist view of locality:
arXiv: gr- qc/ 9308007 v2 17 May 1994
Quantum Gravitation, and Locality *
D. V. Ahluwalia
Admittedly, deviations from locality are exceedingly negligible for
measurement processes that involve energies E << m(pl)c^2, where
m(pl) = sqrt((h/2pi)*c/G).
Marcel Luttgens
>
karand...@yahoo.com
<Marcel's weaseling snipped>
>
> Here is a specialist view of locality:
>
> arXiv: gr- qc/ 9308007 v2 17 May 1994
> Quantum Gravitation, and Locality *
> D. V. Ahluwalia
>
> Admittedly, deviations from locality are exceedingly negligible for
> measurement processes that involve energies E << m(pl)c^2, where
> m(pl) = sqrt((h/2pi)*c/G).
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Cretin, 150*10^9 m means local only for YOU, the biggest imbecile
Eric Gisse
For 2gH/c^2 << 1, you can use the binomial theorem to expand the
acceleration shift - sqrt(1+x) ~= 1 + x/2.
1 - sqrt(1 - 2gH/c^2) ~= 1 - [1 - 1/2 * 2gH/c^2] = gH/c^2
They agree - to first order. They disagree in higher orders because
your gravitational shift equation is only true to first order.
>
>
>
> > > > Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
> > > > correction gets big!
>
> > > This is your main argument, but it is scientifically wrong!
>
> > No - it has the virtue of being scientifically and mathematically
> > correct. sin(x) = x for small x - when x gets big, the approximation
> > is nolonger valid and you have to take the second order correction.
> > Isn't that easy?
>
> I used an approximation to easily get an idea of the shift difference.
> But the real difference is 1 - sqrt(1 - 2gH/c^2) - gH/c^2.
Duh. When the shift is small, that term is equal to zero to many
decimal places. When the shift is big, it diverges. Then you can't use
approximations anymore.
This is a surprise to nobody but you.
>
> > > > Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
> > > > something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
> > > > continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
> > > > principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
> > > > corrections?
>
> > > The principle locally applies (according to GR). You can't neglect the
> > > corrections, even very small. If Einstein had used light instead of
> > > a "ball" in his thought experiment, he would have been more careful,
> > > and made clear that his principle was only valid for "massive" bodies.
>
> > Yes, and a region millions of miles long is not even remotely "local".
>
> Local in GR has nothing to do with distance!
Since you are so sure, define local in the general relativistic
context of local.
>
> > > > > Seemingly, amateur GR experts don't grasp it!
>
> > > > What about folks with actual degrees in physics who are saying you are
> > > > wrong? What about people with _doctorates_ in physics who are saying
> > > > that you are wrong?
>
> > > I think that those doctors are more careful as you believe. They would
> > > think first, and not reject new approaches beforehand.
>
> > Well you already have Paul and Tom telling you that you are wrong, and
> > they have doctorates in physics.
>
> This is a poor argument.
True - I hate arguments from authority. I was merely pointing out that
folks with doctorates _already did_ reject your ideas.
Eric Gisse
Are you fundamentally incapable of understanding the concept of
"approximation" ?
>
> Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
"My" gravitational shift equationis the same as GR's in the weak field
limit, which is the case of the Sun environment.
But my acceleration shift equations is different from that o GR, which
only applies to massive bodies, not for light.
> > > > > Furthermore, you can't use a first order equation when the first order
> > > > > correction gets big!
>
> > > > This is your main argument, but it is scientifically wrong!
>
> > > No - it has the virtue of being scientifically and mathematically
> > > correct. sin(x) = x for small x - when x gets big, the approximation
> > > is nolonger valid and you have to take the second order correction.
> > > Isn't that easy?
>
> > I used an approximation to easily get an idea of the shift difference.
> > But the real difference is 1 - sqrt(1 - 2gH/c^2) - gH/c^2.
>
> Duh. When the shift is small, that term is equal to zero to many
> decimal places. When the shift is big, it diverges. Then you can't use
> approximations anymore.
>
> This is a surprise to nobody but you.
Not at all. I used approximations because the shift is small.
> > > > > Why do you continue to misunderstand, Marcel? You are tripping over
> > > > > something so dominatingly trivial it boggles the mind - how can you
> > > > > continue to misunderstand where and when you can apply the equivalence
> > > > > principle as wwell as misunderstand when and where to use first order
> > > > > corrections?
>
> > > > The principle locally applies (according to GR). You can't neglect the
> > > > corrections, even very small. If Einstein had used light instead of
> > > > a "ball" in his thought experiment, he would have been more careful,
> > > > and made clear that his principle was only valid for "massive" bodies.
>
> > > Yes, and a region millions of miles long is not even remotely "local".
>
> > Local in GR has nothing to do with distance!
>
> Since you are so sure, define local in the general relativistic
> context of local.
Ask the "doctors", and you will get different definitions.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Do you unsderstand the term "mathematically"?
And especially in physics, you can't ignore the difference between
sqrt(1+x) and 1+x/2. Theoretically, it means something.
Marcel Luttgens
karand...@yahoo.com
> The Sun environment is local, in GR!
Cretin, 150*10^9 m is local for YOU, the biggest imbecile EVER!
karand...@yahoo.com
karand...@yahoo.com
> Do you unsderstand the term "mathematically"?
> And especially in physics, you can't ignore the difference between
> sqrt(1+x) and 1+x/2. Theoretically, it means something.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Cretin, in your case x= 150*10^9 , you are the biggest imbecile EVER!
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 27, 4:40 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 4:54 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 8:04 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
YES, they are only true to FIRST ORDER.
> But my acceleration shift equations is different from that o GR, which
> only applies to massive bodies, not for light.
That's because you continue to compare an exact solution to an
approximate solution.
[...]
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 27, 4:46 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 4:58 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
Given that I _study_ physics [you know, at an actual university] and
given that I _use_ that approximation on a regular basis, the
difference _DOES NOT MATTER_ which is the whole goddamn point.
If the difference matters, the approximation is invalid. Which is
_exactly_ what you are finding.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
How many times should I repeat that an approximation is not
necessary in this case? One could as well use the original formula,
which
shows that light doesn't behave as a massive object in an accelerated
frame. This is the goddam point.
Marcel Luttgens
karand...@yahoo.com
Still trying to apply Taylor expansion to x= 150*10^9 ?
You are the biggest imbecile EVER, Marcel
karand...@yahoo.com
> shows that light doesn't behave as a massive object in an accelerated
> frame.
> Marcel Luttgens
Of course it doesn't , massive imbecile. What gave you that idiotic
idea in first place?
Still trying to apply Taylor expansion in the case x= 150*10^9 ?