Einstein offered two equations showing how the speed of photons moving radially with respect to a spherical mass varies with the gravitational potential V:
Equation A is consistent with the Pound-Rebka experiment and also (through the application of Einstein's equivalence principle) with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source relative to the observer). It is not clear what equation B is consistent with.
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 24 2008, 5:47 AM
Criminal liars at the Perimeter Institute:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Explore_Our_Universe/Why_Does_Gravity_Slow_Time?/1/
Perimeter Institute: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth’s gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 24 2008, 6:04 AM
The Perimeter Institute sell Einstein's dead science:
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 24 2008, 5:45 PM
> Einstein offered two equations showing how the speed of photons moving
> radially with respect to a spherical mass varies with the
> gravitational potential V:
>
> (A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)
>
> (B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)
>
> ( see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm )
>
> Equation A is consistent with the Pound-Rebka experiment and also
> (through the application of Einstein's equivalence principle) with the
> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the
> speed of the light source relative to the observer). It is not clear
> what equation B is consistent with.
Equation A has a simple derivation. The gravitational frequency shift confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka is:
f' = f(1+V/c^2)
This should be combined with the textbook formula:
f' = c'/L' ; f = c/L
where L is the wavelength. So we obtain:
c' = c(1+V/c^2) ; L' = L (Einstein 1911)
or:
c' = c ; L' = L/(1+V/c^2) (anti-Einstein 1911)
Einstein 1911 is reasonable but fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Anti-Einstein 1911 is absurd but it is the only salvation.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 24 2008, 8:27 PM
In 1911, Einstein had not worked out eh general theory of reltivity. The equatin you seem to dote on was an early attempt todetermine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation?
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 25 2008, 4:25 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong?
Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 25 2008, 7:36 PM
> Einstein offered two equations showing how the speed of photons moving
> radially with respect to a spherical mass varies with the
> gravitational potential V:
>
> (A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)
>
> (B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)
>
> (see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm )
>
> Equation A is consistent with the Pound-Rebka experiment and also
> (through the application of Einstein's equivalence principle) with the
> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the
> speed of the light source relative to the observer).
This is part of the answer to the "unresolved questions" formulated by Eric Baird:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/c_speedoflight.html
"Towards the end of his life, Einstein wrote that he no longer considered the decision to construct general relativity as a two-stage model, with "curvature" arguments built on top of a flat-spacetime "SR" foundation, as justifiable. It had been the best that could be achieved at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it didn't deem to be defensible. [9] Quite what Einstein may have meant by this, what the alternative might have been, and what the implications might be of having a general theory that didn't have a forced reduction to special relativity, still seem to be unresolved questions."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 25 2008, 11:53 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong?
Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
cinci: Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics.
Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors.
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 26 2008, 12:40 AM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Cincirob: “Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors”.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930s about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 26 2008, 6:36 PM
Cincirob: ¡§In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation¡¨?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
cinci: Actually I just read the site your friend Pentcho posted in the first message in this string. It says this: "In geometrical units we define c0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c = 1 + ƒÚ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory."
I know you and Pentcho don't believe the things that i post, but now it's clear you don't believe the things you post yourself. Being disingenuous is not a good characteristic. You shold try to improve yourself.
******************************
Cincirob: ¡§Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors¡¨.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930s about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
cinci: So now you're a disciple of early Einstein. Funny, all this time you've been telling me he never got anything right and now you're saying he got it all right. Your secret is out. I'll bet you have an early photo of Albert tacked up on a secret room in your house with a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero.
Just a little clarification. You have a nasty habit of twisting things I say until they are barely recognizable. He never said that uniting relativity and quantum mechanics was impossible and niether did I. I just said he failed to do it. I know it's difficult for you to give honest responses, but you really should try.
*********************************
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 26 2008, 7:36 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Cincirob: “Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors”.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930 about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
Cincirob: “Actually I just read the site your friend Pentcho posted in the first message in this string. It says this: "In geometrical units we define c0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c = 1 + ƒÚ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. I know you and Pentcho don't believe the things that i post, but now it's clear you don't believe the things you post yourself. Being disingenuous is not a good characteristic. You should try to improve yourself”.
AAF: Does this mean calling you a 'man of science' is disingenuous and bogus, Cincirob? How many times I told you that 'ingenuousness', 'sincerity', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and newly wed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers? Besides, Joe has given you good diagnosis of your 'cyberspace character' and very hard lessons in moral issues like these; and I see no need for me to rehash them and repeat them to you on this board. So try to be kind and easygoing and take things as they come at face value unless proven to be otherwise!
Cincirob: “So now you're a disciple of early Einstein. Funny, all this time you've been telling me he never got anything right and now you're saying he got it all right. Your secret is out. I'll bet you have an early photo of Albert tacked up on a secret room in your house with a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero. Just a little clarification. You have a nasty habit of twisting things I say until they are barely recognizable. He never said that uniting relativity and quantum mechanics was impossible and neither did I. I just said he failed to do it. I know it's difficult for you to give honest responses, but you really should try”.
AAF: As I said above, 'secret room', 'a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero', 'ingenuousness', 'the secret is out', 'sincerity', 'an early photo of Albert', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and cultists in love and newly wed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Doctor Joe; and I am not going here to second guess him!
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 27 2008, 12:01 AM
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD July 26 2008, 7:36 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Cincirob: “Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors”.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930 about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
Cincirob: “Actually I just read the site your friend Pentcho posted in the first message in this string. It says this: "In geometrical units we define c0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c = 1 + ƒÚ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. I know you and Pentcho don't believe the things that i post, but now it's clear you don't believe the things you post yourself. Being disingenuous is not a good characteristic. You should try to improve yourself”.
AAF: Does this mean calling you a 'man of science' is disingenuous and bogus, Cincirob?
cinci: Yes. Since you tell me everyting I believe about science is wrong.
******************************
AAF: How many times I told you that 'ingenuousness', 'sincerity', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and newly wed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers? Besides, Joe has given you good diagnosis of your 'cyberspace character' and very hard lessons in moral issues like these; and I see no need for me to rehash them and repeat them to you on this board. So try to be kind and easygoing and take things as they come at face value unless proven to be otherwise!
cinci: And this trash talk IS scientific?
****************************
Cincirob: “So now you're a disciple of early Einstein. Funny, all this time you've been telling me he never got anything right and now you're saying he got it all right. Your secret is out. I'll bet you have an early photo of Albert tacked up on a secret room in your house with a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero. Just a little clarification. You have a nasty habit of twisting things I say until they are barely recognizable. He never said that uniting relativity and quantum mechanics was impossible and neither did I. I just said he failed to do it. I know it's difficult for you to give honest responses, but you really should try”.
AAF: As I said above, 'secret room', 'a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero', 'ingenuousness', 'the secret is out', 'sincerity', 'an early photo of Albert', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and cultists in love and newly wed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Doctor Joe; and I am not going here to second guess him!
cinci: Are you saying you'd like to bond with Albert...it's worse than I thought. He's dead, you know.
*********************************
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 27 2008, 5:53 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Cincirob: “Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics.
Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors”.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930 about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
Cincirob: “Actually I just read the site your friend Pentcho posted in the first message in this string. It says this: "In geometrical units we define c0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c = 1 + ƒÚ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. I know you and Pentcho don't believe the things that i post, but now it's clear you don't believe the things you post yourself. Being disingenuous is not a good characteristic. You should try to improve yourself”.
AAF: Does this mean calling you a 'man of science' is disingenuous and bogus, Cincirob? How many times I told you that 'ingenuousness', 'sincerity', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers? Besides, Joe has given you good diagnosis of your 'cyberspace character and very hard lessons in moral issues like these; and I see no need for me to rehash them and repeat them to you on this board. So try to be kind and easygoing and take things as they come at face value unless proven to be otherwise!
Cincirob: “Yes. Since you tell me everything I believe about science is wrong. And this trash talk IS scientific? Are you saying you'd like to bond with Albert...it's worse than I thought. He's dead, you know. So now you're a disciple of early Einstein. Funny, all this time you've been telling me he never got anything right and now you're saying he got it all right. Your secret is out. I'll bet you have an early photo of Albert tacked up on a secret room in your house with a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero. Just a little clarification. You have a nasty habit of twisting things I say until they are barely recognizable. He never said that uniting relativity and quantum mechanics was impossible and neither did I. I just said he failed to do it. I know it's difficult for you to give honest responses, but you really should try”.
AAF: You are the father of all trash talk! Everybody knows that Cincirob is bonding with Albert very strongly. Being wrong, as you are, about everything in science, does not make you nobody in science; and your Albert is the proof! As I said before, 'secret room', 'a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero', 'ingenuousness', 'the secret is out', 'sincerity', 'an early photo of Albert', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and cultists in love and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and are not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Dr. Joe; and I am not going here to second-guess him!
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
July 27 2008, 11:11 PM
Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD July 27 2008, 5:53 PM
Cincirob: “In 1911, Einstein had not worked out the general theory of relativity. The equation you seem to dote on was an early attempt to determine the effect of gravity on light. 5 years later he published the complete work. Does it agree with the 1911 equation”?
AAF: So, you do entertain the possibility that Einstein is not infallible and he can be way way way wrong? Well, good! His entire work (STR + GTR) is in fact wrong and baseless.
Cincirob: “Nobody I know except you talks about the infallibility of Einstein. He was wrong in 1911 and he was wrong in the 1920s about quantum mechanics and wrong in the 1930s about the existence black holes and failed to ever find a comprehensive theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics.
Apparently your (il)logic is that if he could be wrong about anything, then he is wrong about everything. So by your own reckoning you are also wrong about everything because I have caught you in any number of errors”.
AAF: You are a man of science, Cincirob; you're a man of science; And I mean it!
However, it surprises me a great deal that you think that Einstein got wrong exactly and precisely the few things that he actually was right about. Einstein was right in 1911 about the variability of speed of light due to gravitational fields.. He was right in the 1920s about the absurdities of Quantum mechanics. He was right in the 1930 about the unrealistic and non-physical nature of black holes. And certainly, he was right about the impossibility of uniting Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
Cincirob: “Actually I just read the site your friend Pentcho posted in the first message in this string. It says this: "In geometrical units we define c0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c = 1 + ƒÚ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. I know you and Pentcho don't believe the things that i post, but now it's clear you don't believe the things you post yourself. Being disingenuous is not a good characteristic. You should try to improve yourself”.
AAF: Does this mean calling you a 'man of science' is disingenuous and bogus, Cincirob? How many times I told you that 'ingenuousness', 'sincerity', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers? Besides, Joe has given you good diagnosis of your 'cyberspace character and very hard lessons in moral issues like these; and I see no need for me to rehash them and repeat them to you on this board. So try to be kind and easygoing and take things as they come at face value unless proven to be otherwise!
Cincirob: “Yes. Since you tell me everything I believe about science is wrong. And this trash talk IS scientific? Are you saying you'd like to bond with Albert...it's worse than I thought. He's dead, you know. So now you're a disciple of early Einstein. Funny, all this time you've been telling me he never got anything right and now you're saying he got it all right. Your secret is out. I'll bet you have an early photo of Albert tacked up on a secret room in your house with a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero. Just a little clarification. You have a nasty habit of twisting things I say until they are barely recognizable. He never said that uniting relativity and quantum mechanics was impossible and neither did I. I just said he failed to do it. I know it's difficult for you to give honest responses, but you really should try”.
AAF: You are the father of all trash talk! Everybody knows that Cincirob is bonding with Albert very strongly.
cinci: You really shouldn't exaggerate. There isn't anything that everybody knows about cincirob.
****************************
AAF: Being wrong, as you are, about everything in science, does not make you nobody in science; and your Albert is the proof!
cinci: Aren't you getting confused? Just above here you said you weren't disingenuous about calling me a man of science and now you say I'm wrong about all of it. You know, if you're going to trash talk you have to keep track of it, otherwise you just sound foolish.
**********************************
AAF: As I said before, 'secret room', 'a couple of candles and incense burners as a little shrine to your hero', 'ingenuousness', 'the secret is out', 'sincerity', 'an early photo of Albert', and similar humbug of this sort, are for male bonding and cultists in love and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and are not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Dr. Joe; and I am not going here to second-guess him!
cinci: My, my! Such denial. I must have hit a soft spot. It was just a lucky guess about the Einstein shrine but apparently you do have one. As the Bard of Avon said, "Methinks he protesteth too much."
As far as being the "father of trash talk" goes, thanks for the compliment. Or are you bein disingenuous again? In any case I can discuss science or I can trash talk. Discussing science with you is a waste of time. Trash talking keeps you too busy to spread your nonsense science so it's a win for good science.
Current Topic - VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD