PHOTONS AND CANNONBALLS IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
in [Math]
|
Prev: Methods of Proving all of Incompleteness in Logic in Trivially Short Proofs & a Challenge
Next: give myself an A+++ in mechanical engineering today for fixing garage door with torsion spring
From: Pentcho Valev on 30 May 2010 00:28 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 31 May 2010 03:38 In 1911 Einstein says the analogy between the speed of photons and the speed of cannonballs is straightforward - the former varies with the gravitational potential as Newton's emission theory of light predicts. In the final version of Einstein's general relativity the analogy remains - both speeds are variable - but the speed of photons is more variable than the speed of cannonballs. Stephen Hawking, the Albert Einstein of our generation, implicitly rejects Einstein's general relativity by claiming that there can be no analogy between photons and cannonballs because the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (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...)" Hawking goes even further: the speed of light cannot vary with the gravitational potential because the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved it is constant: http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66 Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." One of Hawking's brothers in Einsteiniana, John Norton, implicitly contradicts Hawking by teaching that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the variability of the speed of light as postulated by Newton's emission theory of light: 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." Up until recently Einstein's, Hawking's and Norton's teachings made the scientific community sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Now that it is evident to everybody that theoretical physics is dead, the scientific community does not give a sh-t about any teaching. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 4 Jun 2010 01:34 The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (phi) in accordance with the equation (it is assumed that v>>(v'-v) and air friction is ignored): v' = v(1+(phi)/v^2) 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 5 Jun 2010 00:29 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 7 Jun 2010 02:23
Einsteinians safely discussing the story of Einstein being a Newtonian in 1911 and then becoming an Einsteinian in 1915: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/22/gravity-and-light/ "One of the most interesting predictions of Einstein's new theory of relativity was that gravity would cause light to bend." I think it is worth mentioning that the bending of light due to gravity was NOT a prediction of general relativity. As early as 1704 in his Opticks, Newton predicted the effect. However, the speed of light was not known a the time (or even whether it was finite) so no quantitative prediction could be made. This was rectified by the end of the 18th century and the Newtonian calculation could be made, though experimental limitations forbade any test at the time. In 1911 Einstein applied his early ideas of relativistic gravity to the problem and got the same answer as the Newtonian model. In 1915, when his theory was approaching completion, he realised the earlier calculation was wrong, and the deviation of light should be twice the Newtonian value." Then a very bad person (me) enters the discussion and informs Einsteinans that the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms Einstein the Newtonian and refutes Einstein the Einsteinian: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/22/gravity-and-light/ "In 1911 Einstein said that the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/ c^2), which was in fact a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light. In 1915 he added a factor of two and the equation became c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The problem was (and still is) that the 1911 equation is consistent, and the 1915 equation INCONSISTENT, with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka." However in Einsteiniana drawing the attention to the fact that the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light and incompatible with Divine Albert's Divine Theory always makes Einsteinians exercise themselves in crimestop: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com |