On Sep 19, 11:32 am, Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> According to the formula:
>
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> either the speed of light or the wavelength varies with the frequency.
> The latter alternative is absurd, as demonstrated by John Kennaugh on
> the forum sci.physics.relativity:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d9c0706da2fb96b0
> "Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away.
> According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now
> change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v
> the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler
> shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
> hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
> changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
> says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
> wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
> of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
> source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
> even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
> avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."
>
> The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
> changes with frequency leads to a universal principle called the
> Redshift Law:
>
> f'/f = c'/c
>
> where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
> reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
> c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
> reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
> moment of emission).
>
> The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
> wavelength also imply that one should look for some reason why the
> more distant galaxies are, the more redshifted light coming from them
> is. If, as it travels, the photon bumps into some much smaller
> particles (this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light
> hypothesis), its speed will decrease proportionally to the distance
> (this reconciles Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe).
> However one can also assume that the effect is virtually zero at small
> distances so, in the Pound-Rebka experiment for instance, the result
> is consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and,
> equivalently, with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
> theory of light.
>
> The assumption that the decrease in the speed of photons is
> proportional to the distance can be expressed as:
>
> c* - c' = kD
>
> where c* is the speed of photons initially modified at the source by
> the movement of the source (relative to the observer) and/or its
> gravitational field, c' is the observed (final) speed, D is the
> distance between the source and the observer and k is a
> proportionality factor. This, combined with the redshift law f'/f = c'/
> c, gives:
>
> f'/f = (c*-kD)/c
>
> If the initial modification of the speed of photons is negligible,
> then c*=c and we obtain:
>
> f'/f = 1 - kD/c
>
> which is a formula for calculating the distance D or the factor k.
>
> Conclusions: Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, there was no
> Big Bang, the universe is static.

The hypothesis that photons (as well as any other flying objects) bump into some much smaller particles and so their speed decreases with distance gets some support from the following texts:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spacecraft visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. Both spacecraft are escaping from the solar system, and are slowing down under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination, however, they are slowing down slightly more than expected."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Einsteiniana: first devising idiocies, then gloriously refuting idiocies, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate saved, dark energy forever:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40362/113/
"Alternate cosmological theory debunked, Earth may not be at center of universe.....A radical alternative theory to the standard cosmological model has been of growing interest in recent years. While physicists have been able to integrate nearly all key components with resounding accuracy, a new study shows that this alternate theory may not be "in the black" after all. A recent scientific article entitled, "Can we avoid Dark Energy?" addresses the alternate theory head-on. In the end, the paper reveals that the Earth is not near the center of the universe, and that theories relating to dark energy are far more likely.....The work was carried out by J.P. Zibin, Adam Moss and Douglas Scott of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia (BC) in Vancouver."

A slightly modified version of Einsteiniana's hymn:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

could be:

"Yes we all believe in dark energy, dark energy, dark dark dark very dark energy".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Needless to say, the greatest idiocies can only be devised at the Perimeter Institute, Einsteiniana's Headquarters:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.1854v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "The cosmological redshift acts to convert a frequency dependent speed of light into a time-dependent speed of light."

Still Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo's Master, can devise an even greater idiocy:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Some day, when the era of Postscientism will be over, the most incredible fact will be the coexistence, in the absence of any serious discussion, of texts worshipping Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, and texts of this kind:

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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Thank you Pentcho, we need your constant reminders. I should advise the anti-non -relativists here of the passage by Al himself, which reads, "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) GPS is operating in that gravitational field where Einstein quite clearly says (Special Relativity is NOT valid)!

Newtonian mechanics Rule!!! HAhahahah!

bob s

Sorry Bob, but the pioneer anomaly doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics.

Re: Cincirob, REDSHIFT LAW, SPEED OF LIGHT, PIONEER ANOMALY November 29 2008, 6:44 PM

Cinci,
"Sorry Bob, but the pioneer anomaly doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics."

Doesn't fit Einsteinian foolishness either...Cinci. That's why it's called an anomaly...go figure!

Say...you never did thank me for that Xmas present!

It does fit with Carl Zappfe.

Curt: It does fit with Carl Zappfe.


cinci: It fits with MOND also. But it's easy to do this if you start with the answer.
***********************************

Cincirob said: "It fits with MOND also. But it's easy to do this if you start with the answer."

You nailed that one. So it seems with all the "relativity experiments." Hafley-Keating is a good example. They cheery-picked the data, using only the clock readings that fit their hypothesis. The clocks they used, needed an order of magnitude more accuracy, to eliminate variations in the data. Just like AAF has stipulated.

Of course, if astronomers were to embrace the Electric Cosmos paradigm as the evidence points more clearly every day, the galactic rotation problem would be solved without the need for MOND type theories, either.

So, exactly what do you mean, "start with the answer?" An anomaly needs to be explained. Are we not supposed to know how much error the anomaly causes? The problem is that the amount of deviation from the predicted is usually known, then a theory is proposed, then the data is cherry-picked to make the theory work, even when the readings are at the threshold of the noise in the readings.

If there are gravitational waves, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed; if there are no gravitational waves, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok
Neil Turok: "If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could see which theory is right."

Similarly, if the speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed; if the speed of light does not vary with position in a gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"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."

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.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational redshift."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Curt: Cincirob said: "It fits with MOND also. But it's easy to do this if you start with the answer."

You nailed that one. So it seems with all the "relativity experiments." Hafley-Keating is a good example. They cherry-picked the data, using only the clock readings that fit their hypothesis. The clocks they used, needed an order of magnitude more accuracy, to eliminate variations in the data. Just like AAF has stipulated.


cinci: AAF is your source of authority? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!!

There are different experiments that demonstrate time dilation that have a lot more accuracy. Why do you ignore those?
**************************


Curt: Of course, if astronomers were to embrace the Electric Cosmos paradigm as the evidence points more clearly every day, the galactic rotation problem would be solved without the need for MOND type theories, either.


cinci: And if it makes sense and does give good predictions, scientists will ultimately use it.
***********************************


Curt: So, exactly what do you mean, "start with the answer?" An anomaly needs to be explained. Are we not supposed to know how much error the anomaly causes? The problem is that the amount of deviation from the predicted is usually known, then a theory is proposed, then the data is cherry-picked to make the theory work, even when the readings are at the threshold of the noise in the readings.


cinci: They know the deviation from Newtonian of relativistic predictions. That's the answer. Your computer probably has the capability to take the data and make an equation out of it. It may not have any physical meaning, but it will probably predict new points along the trajectory.

SR starts with the observation that c is the same for all inertial observers. From that it deduces that length contracts and time is dilated. Length contraction had been speculated based on the MMX but I don't think time dilation was in anybody's mind. In any case, Einstein does not start with length contraction and time dilation and work back to his theory.

GR starts with some simple assumptions and predicts that light will bend around a gravitational source, also something nobody knew about. Einstein didn't work backwards from Eddinton's observations. And don't bother telling me Eddington fudged his data. There are numerous observations of light being bent around galaxies to form Einstein rings and double views of faraway objects that confirm the theory.
******************************

Cincirob said: "There are numerous observations of light being bent around galaxies to form Einstein rings and double views of faraway objects that confirm the theory."

Curt says: Yep, if you are wanting to make the observation fit the theory, that is what you see, Never mind that there are equally plausible explanations for the phenomena. It doesn't confirm the theory unless the observation excludes other equally plausible explanations. Your examples do not exclude.

Cincirob said: "There are numerous observations of light being bent around galaxies to form Einstein rings and double views of faraway objects that confirm the theory."

Curt says: Yep, if you are wanting to make the observation fit the theory, that is what you see, Never mind that there are equally plausible explanations for the phenomena. It doesn't confirm the theory unless the observation excludes other equally plausible explanations. Your examples do not exclude.


cinci: This would make sense if there were equally plausible explanations but there aren't. I'm not surprised when guys like you assume I'm wrong about all this because I'm just some guy posting stuff on the internet. But don't you ever read anything other than these sites? Do you think all the astronomers in the world are dolts and you're smarter than all of them? Isn't it just possible that since astronomers, physicists designing things like the LHC, physicists who concieved and designed the GPS system, and nuclear weapons physicists all believe and use this theory that you might be wrong?
*********************************

I believe that astronomers who believe gravity is the only long distance force in the universe are way behind the times.

I believe the the Big Bang is so thoroughly discredited that to keep inventing mysterious objects and silly scenarios to support it are an exercise in frivolity.

I believe that to base a theory upon logic that is self contradictory, when especially, explanations without the contradiction are readily available, is quite silly.

For an explanation to be plausible, according to you, it has to fit your implausible logic. You have cognitive dissonance.

I think that I am as smart as most posters on this forum. I am sure I have studied things that you haven't and that you have studied things that I haven't. Sometimes disagreements arise because people are seeing the same thing from different views. Sometimes someone comes up with a new paradigm. Sometime ideas are just silly. I have no problem with you defending your understanding. I hope that you have no problem with me defending mine. I have no problem with Max defending his. Just stop with the unnecessary attacks. If you are so self-aggrandizing and feel the need to place yourself above others, you make a good target.

Curt: I believe that astronomers who believe gravity is the only long distance force in the universe are way behind the times.


cinci: and who wold yousay is "ahead of the times"?


Curt: I believe the the Big Bang is so thoroughly discredited that to keep inventing mysterious objects and silly scenarios to support it are an exercise in frivolity.


cinci: Who discredited it?
*************************


Curt: I believe that to base a theory upon logic that is self contradictory, when especially, explanations without the contradiction are readily available, is quite silly.


cinci: Then you have your own theory of the universe then? And does your theory explain the relative abundances of elements, the structure of galaxies, and the cosmic background radiation?
**************************************


Curt: For an explanation to be plausible, according to you, it has to fit your implausible logic. You have cognitive dissonance.


cinci: Now see, you just made that up. There is nothing illogical about relativity or its application to cosmology.
*************************


Curt: think that I am as smart as most posters on this forum. I am sure I have studied things that you haven't and that you have studied things that I haven't. Sometimes disagreements arise because people are seeing the same thing from different views. Sometimes someone comes up with a new paradigm. Sometime ideas are just silly. I have no problem with you defending your understanding. I hope that you have no problem with me defending mine. I have no problem with Max defending his. Just stop with the unnecessary attacks. If you are so self-aggrandizing and feel the need to place yourself above others, you make a good target.


cinci: By attacks do you mean things like: "You have cognitive dissonance."
************************

Cincirob, I am sure that I have from time to time had a case of cognitive dissonance. What the term means to me is that one has a road block in their thinking, usually because something they have been taught, or come to believe, keeps them from seeing something obvious, or at least apparent to others. You know it is very frustrating to have a perfect picture in your own mind of some idea, and in trying to explain it to someone else, have them miss the entire point.

What I do in this situation, is try to use several different approaches. I doubt that you and Max will ever agree completely with Bob S, AAF, Or me. Hell, we don't agree among ourselves on major points. However, we do stop and query each other to see if we have gotten the other guy's idea.

I have looked over posts from you and AAF since the forum started, and I rarely find invectives thrown from either of you. Now, what I am getting at is: don't feel berated about being told you have a case of cognitive dissonance. It's not like being called a two year old, stupid, or any of Max's silly attempts at insults. I look forward to your comments, believe it or not.

The term "cognitive dissonance" conveys no information about the subject, just as correcting grammar and spelling errors or calling names don't.
***********************

Cincirob said: "The term "cognitive dissonance" conveys no information about the subject, just as correcting grammar and spelling errors or calling names don't."

Curt says: Cognitive dissonance does not demean just as ignorant is not necessarily derogatory. Both can be corrected with a little study. Max's tirades are beyond civility. If one is such a crybaby that every little statement is taken as a major pejorative, others will tire of that, too.

If you choose to ignore my references and ideas, fine. Minds are free to think, regardless of the political environment. The open exchange of ideas and information furthers our understanding. Some crazy ideas are just crazy, others become fruitful.

The idea of contracted length and dilated time arise from thinking about a "photon" moving transversely in a frame moving in relation to an observer. This "photon" cannot be seen by the observer, directly. The scenario that I have described enables the wave pulse to be observed from mirrors that are moving with the pulse, as it is generated. If you think this idea is superfluous, fine. I think it is not.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> If there are gravitational waves, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is
> gloriously confirmed; if there are no gravitational waves, Divine
> Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:
>
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok
> Neil Turok: "If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded
> exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-
> time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the
> inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes
> doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could
> see which theory is right."
>
> Similarly, if the speed of light "varies with position" in a
> gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously
> confirmed; if the speed of light does not vary with position in a
> gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more
> gloriously confirmed:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
> "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."
>
> 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.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
> "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
> wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
> Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
> wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
> on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
> to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
> person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
> of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
> frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
> frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z)
> times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z)
> L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is
> called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational
> redshift."
>
> http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
> "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
> constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
> light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
> Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
> Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
> effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
> such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
> But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
> (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
> light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
> is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
> constant." Dr. Eric Christian

More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed; if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Anon: The idea of contracted length and dilated time arise from thinking about a "photon" moving transversely in a frame moving in relation to an observer. This "photon" cannot be seen by the observer, directly. The scenario that I have described enables the wave pulse to be observed from mirrors that are moving with the pulse, as it is generated. If you think this idea is superfluous, fine. I think it is not.


cinci: Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity was published in June. His paper first proposing the photon came in March of 1905. If he had included the photon in the June work nobody would have nkown what he was talking about so I think it's a little strong to say length contraction and time dilation are based on the photon.

I'm not sure what your idea is. Id it described in detail somewhere?
****************************

Sure it's a little strong, but Einstein had the idea of a photon before he published it. My idea id(sic) described in other posts on this forum. Peruse the forum to find it. (Homework 101)

Curt: Sure it's a little strong, but Einstein had the idea of a photon before he published it. My idea id(sic) described in other posts on this forum. Peruse the forum to find it. (Homework 101)

cinci: I don't need any homework. If you don't think it's worth repeating then I don't think it's worth looking for.
***************************

cinci said: "I don't need any homework. If you don't think it's worth repeating then I don't think it's worth looking for."

Curt says: OK, cinci, if you can't lift a finger, why should I? Remain ignorant. You and Iggy should commune.
***************************

cinci said: "I don't need any homework. If you don't think it's worth repeating then I don't think it's worth looking for."

Curt says: OK, cinci, if you can't lift a finger, why should I? Remain ignorant. You and Iggy should commune.

cinci: Oh believe me, I just lifted a finger for you.
******************************

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
> if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
> Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> potential term."

Absolutely glorious confirmations: When Divine Albert abandoned his cosmological constant as nonsensical, Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously confirmed. Now that Einsteinians reintroduce Divine Albert's cosmological constant, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1448817.php/US_scientists_measure_dark_energy_show_Einstein_was_right_
"Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, which he had added to the theory to account for a stable universe, as nonsensical. But as scientists discovered the universe was actually expanding at an accelerating rate, the idea has attracted renewed interest.....David Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, said that the results from the Chandra observatory agree with earlier findings and 'suggest that Einstein is right.'..... 'Putting all this data together gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the cosmological constant, or in other words, that 'nothing weighs something.' A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein's theory is looking as good as ever,' said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Gee anonymous, you're repeating Pentcho. Don't youthink he does that enough?
**********************

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
> > gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
> > c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
> > if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
> > Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:
>
> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> > "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> > can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory
> > of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> > particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> > represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> > of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> > through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> > we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> > vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> > light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> > and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> > which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> > formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> > Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> > gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> > we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> > coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> > equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> > potential term."
>
> Absolutely glorious confirmations: When Divine Albert abandoned his
> cosmological constant as nonsensical, Divine Albert's Divine Theory
> was gloriously confirmed. Now that Einsteinians reintroduce Divine
> Albert's cosmological constant, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even
> more gloriously confirmed:
>
> http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1448817.php/US_scientists_measure_dark_energy_show_Einstein_was_right_
> "Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, which he had
> added to the theory to account for a stable universe, as nonsensical.
> But as scientists discovered the universe was actually expanding at an
> accelerating rate, the idea has attracted renewed interest.....David
> Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, said that the
> results from the Chandra observatory agree with earlier findings and
> 'suggest that Einstein is right.'..... 'Putting all this data together
> gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the
> cosmological constant, or in other words, that 'nothing weighs
> something.' A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein's theory
> is looking as good as ever,' said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian
> Astrophysical Observatory."

Einsteinians know no limits:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUibDTyK-H5q2L9KErKcc-eK1yFw
"Mysterious "dark energy" works simultaneously to expand the universe and shrink objects inside it, astronomers in the United States said Tuesday. By studying how gravity competes with the expansion of galaxy clusters, scientists have found "a crucial independent test of dark energy," said the research compiled by scientists using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. "This result could be described as 'arrested development of the universe,'" said lead researcher Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the northeastern state of Massachusetts. "Whatever is forcing the expansion of the universe to speed up is also forcing its development to slow down." Dark energy makes up about 70 percent of the universe, said the research to be published in the February 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Right on cue.

> > > More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
> > > gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
> > > c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
> > > if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > > accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
> > > Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:
>
> > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> > > "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> > > can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory
> > > of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> > > particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> > > represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> > > of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> > > through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> > > we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> > > vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> > > light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> > > and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> > > which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> > > formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> > > Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> > > gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> > > we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> > > coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> > > equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> > > potential term."
>
> > Absolutely glorious confirmations: When Divine Albert abandoned his
> > cosmological constant as nonsensical, Divine Albert's Divine Theory
> > was gloriously confirmed. Now that Einsteinians reintroduce Divine
> > Albert's cosmological constant, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even
> > more gloriously confirmed:
>
> > http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1448817.php/US_scientists_measure_dark_energy_show_Einstein_was_right_
> > "Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, which he had
> > added to the theory to account for a stable universe, as nonsensical.
> > But as scientists discovered the universe was actually expanding at an
> > accelerating rate, the idea has attracted renewed interest.....David
> > Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, said that the
> > results from the Chandra observatory agree with earlier findings and
> > 'suggest that Einstein is right.'..... 'Putting all this data together
> > gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the
> > cosmological constant, or in other words, that 'nothing weighs
> > something.' A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein's theory
> > is looking as good as ever,' said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian
> > Astrophysical Observatory."
>
> Einsteinians know no limits:
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUibDTyK-H5q2L9KErKcc-eK1yFw
> "Mysterious "dark energy" works simultaneously to expand the universe
> and shrink objects inside it, astronomers in the United States said
> Tuesday. By studying how gravity competes with the expansion of galaxy
> clusters, scientists have found "a crucial independent test of dark
> energy," said the research compiled by scientists using NASA's Chandra
> X-ray Observatory. "This result could be described as 'arrested
> development of the universe,'" said lead researcher Alexey Vikhlinin
> of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the northeastern state
> of Massachusetts. "Whatever is forcing the expansion of the universe
> to speed up is also forcing its development to slow down." Dark energy
> makes up about 70 percent of the universe, said the research to be
> published in the February 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal."

Journalists thank incredibly clever Einsteinians "for sharing this incredible information". Incredibly clever Einsteinians explain how other incredibly clever Einsteinians make superconducting films by using ideas about dark energy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCrIxxk1uRQ

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Edwin Hubble was strong enemy of relativistic fables.

His investigation was abused, velocity dependent in cosmos on distance of bodies is fenomenon right. This fenomenon is concerned particular part of cosmos, having absolutely realistic and material reasons.

Please, it would be wrong, to line our man to rank of "Dionysians"!

Edwin was doubtful of his own "redshift is receding motion" theory to account for the redshift seen in the objects of the cosmos. Halton Arp has proven that most redshift is intrinsic, particularly the high redshift of some QUARSARs. Conventional cosmology refuses to believe it. They are to hung up on the silly theory of the Big Bang.