Prev: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
Next: $Wholesale Sports Shoes Clear Air Force One AAA++quality
From: G. L. Bradford on 30 May 2010 06:44

"Brad Guth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e59eae8-a25f-45cf-8ba7-21821e2a8a4d(a)u20g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 9:26 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> The speed of light and the speed of cannonballs vary with the
> gravitational potential in exactly the same way. This principle
> established by Newton's emission theory of light was adopted by
> Einstein in 1911:
>
> 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. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "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 results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
> In 1960 Pound and Rebka proved experimentally that the gravitational
> redshift factor is 1+V/c^2: a result that unequivocally confirms the
> equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> However in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world "confirming Newton's
> emission theory of light" unavoidably becomes "gloriously confirming
> Divine Albert's Divine Theory". Similarly, in 1887, the Michelson-
> Morley experiment confirmed the variability of the speed of light as
> postulated by Newton's emission theory of light but later the same
> experiment gloriously confirmed the constancy of the speed of light as
> postulated by Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

So, what's the maximum velocity of light?

~ BG

======================

Probably the best question you ever asked. What speed would you give a
2-dimensional single-sided only photo-entity? A flat message / messenger
that all by itself tells you, or any other thing it interacts with, about
its proprietary property, "Measure me here-now flatly c, the built-in
integral space-time of my built-in 1-dimensional string of universe. Vacuum?
I am my own space-time horizon (the universe at c)."

These people think they are dealing in, observing, as a whole no less,
something far deeper than 1-dimensional strings of universe embedded within
flat 2-dimensional single-sided only photo-entities. The sole universe it
(the 2-dimensional photo-e) will ever be observed, detected, to travel is
that [built-in] 1-dimensional string of informational universe. An embedded
1-dimensional photo-string whose whole space-per-time universe picture
within reduces to a naked singularity of c.

Neither Velev nor anyone else observes anything at a distance beyond the
surface of the eye. No instrumentation detects anything at a distance beyond
its own surface. All information exists -- is brought -- in a very, very,
local interaction. Every 'very local interaction' everywhere measures the
[very local speed of light] to be flatly c. Gravity's curvatures might as
well be the straightest of lines to the very local universes of c. The
constant of motion-time's seeming curves -- the perception of them of
course -- is much more likely to present physics with the [appearance] of
strings of light constantly in the process of curving -- of bending -- this
way and that everywhere and at all times throughout the universe. A traveler
accelerating straight toward, straight at, some distant point of light in
the universe would always find itself accelerating into an ever tightening
curve its mass eventually could not hold to. The best bet for travelers
would be to pick a space-time coordinate point figured to be out front and
ahead of the distant destination light-point and shoot for it cutting the
curve; thus having the distant destination point of light itself
[apparently] accelerate through a curvature toward the picked rendezvous
point the traveler is heading straight toward (relatively speaking, that
is).

The distant pots of gold at all the ends of all those rainbows of light
aren't nearly as straight away as they appear to be. Not even close. And,
again, it isn't gravity that is the cause of those particular kinds of
curvatures and appearances of strings of light curving this way and that
(again impossible of any sustaining acceleration into), it's the
Universe-wide constant of motion (the Universe wide constant of movement (of
travel)). The universe of unobserved (herein more current / more futuristic)
positions. Positions ever further off the beam from the 2-dimensional
single-sided only marked positions [in the 1-dimensional straight away] the
ever farther out and away they are from observers or any kind of
instrumentations.

GLB

=======================

From: G. L. Bradford on 5 Jun 2010 02:50

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f53ec38-c9be-4aca-aa7a-0b6c753cf666(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Is the Pound-Rebka experiment compatible with Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate? The speed of photons moving towards the source of gravity
> varies with the gravitational potential (phi) in accordance with the
> equation c'=c(1+(phi)/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> Einstein's equivalence principle converts this scenario into another
> scenario where the photons experience no gravitational field but move
> from the front end (emitter) to the back end (both receiver and
> observer) of an accelerating rocket. It is easy to see that
>
> (phi) = cv
>
> where v is the speed of the emitter (at the moment of emission)
> relative to the observer (at the moment of reception). So the equation
> c'=c(1+(phi)/c^2) becomes c'=c+v, the Newtonian antithesis of
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate. By confirming the equation c'=c(1+
> (phi)/c^2), the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms the equation c'=c+v
> given by Newton's emission theory of light and REFUTES Einstein's 1905
> light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to
> the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (phi) in
> accordance with one of the following equations:
>
> (1) c' = c(1+(phi)/c^2): Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's
> emission theory of light.
>
> (2) c' = c(1+2(phi)/c^2): Einstein's 1915 equation - the final version
> in Einstein's general relativity.
>
> (3) c' = c: Hawking's equation - the speed of light does NOT vary with
> the gravitational potential.
>
> The frequency of light emitted downwards with initial frequency f
> varies with the gravitational potential (phi) in accordance with the
> equation:
>
> f' = f(1+(phi)/c^2)
>
> This equation is compatible with (1) and incompatible with (2) and
> (3). It was confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960.
>
> Generally Einsteiniana presents the Pound-Rebka experiment as a
> glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory but sometimes
> Einsteinians make fun of believers by teaching confusing ideas:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2
>
> John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
> AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
>
> Tom Roberts (an Einsteinian famous on sci.physics.relativity): "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."
>
> Pentcho Valev

=========================

\/
>c<
/\
|
|
\/ \/ \/
>c<-->c<-->c<
/\ /\ /\
|
|
\/
>c<
/\

GLB

========================

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
Next: $Wholesale Sports Shoes Clear Air Force One AAA++quality