http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Two points:

1. The insignificant difference in field strength is irrelevant for the effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation). That is, the two watches can be regarded as placed in EXACTLY THE SAME physical conditions and yet one of them proves slower than the other. Effect without cause.

2. The effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation) implicitly presupposes that the speed of light is CONSTANT in a gravitational field. Yet all clever Einsteinians, even Divine Albert, teach that the speed of light is VARIABLE in a gravitational field. The scientific world is unable to see any contradiction.

It should also be noted that the scientific world sees as entirely rational consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to which the long train is short (if trapped inside a short tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long barn and Einsteinians have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly"), the bug is both dead and alive etc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho: Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Two points:

1. The insignificant difference in field strength is irrelevant for the effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation). That is, the two watches can be regarded as placed in EXACTLY THE SAME physical conditions and yet one of them proves slower than the other. Effect without cause.

cinci: It's just a thought example Pentcho. Of course wrist watches aren't accurate enough to actually do this experiment. But it is happening right now above your head in GPS satellites where the rate of satellite clocks is adjusted for the difference in gravity. Grow up!
**************************

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> will show more time elapsed."
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. The insignificant difference in field strength is irrelevant for
> the effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation).
> That is, the two watches can be regarded as placed in EXACTLY THE SAME
> physical conditions and yet one of them proves slower than the other.
> Effect without cause.
>
> 2. The effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation)
> implicitly presupposes that the speed of light is CONSTANT in a
> gravitational field. Yet all clever Einsteinians, even Divine Albert,
> teach that the speed of light is VARIABLE in a gravitational field.
> The scientific world is unable to see any contradiction.
>
> It should also be noted that the scientific world sees as entirely
> rational consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to
> which the long train is short (if trapped inside a short tunnel), the
> 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long barn and
> Einsteinians have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
> quickly"), the bug is both dead and alive etc:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

Philosopher John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian) trying to resurrect dead rationalism. Note that the reference to Newton-Leibniz debate is more or less a red herring in this case - Norton's main concern is the rationality devastation caused by Einstein's "theory":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

When it comes to destroying human rationality, Einsteinians know no limits. They continue to do so even when they are trying to abandon Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/About-Time.5027196.jp
"....time travel, once dismissed as pulp fiction by serious scientists, has become "something of a cottage industry in the theoretical physics community", according to Professor Paul Davies, physicist, astrobiologist and award-winning science writer, who a few years ago published a book with the engagingly no-nonsense title of How To Build A Time Machine. In it, Davies makes it clear that travelling into the future is entirely allowable, according to Einsteinian laws of physics....Coming back, however, is a different matter. It is one for which Davies and others have speculated on the possibility of harnessing the power of "wormholes". Remember those fearsome tunnels through time and space down which Jodie Foster hurtled in the film Contact? That was Hollywood's vision, but the concept of wormholes originally called "Einstein-Rosen bridges" has been speculated on since the 1930s, as tunnel-like shortcuts through space and time, because the unimaginably powerful gravitational forces within them could be harnessed to warp the space-time continuum....It has been speculated that the LHC, once it starts functioning properly, could possibly form Einstein-Rosen bridges. "There is a ghost of a chance, but no more than that in my opinion, that it could create microscopic wormholes," says Davies. Such thinking involves what he describes as "rather speculative, non-standard theories of gravitation. If we go with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which attributes gravity to the curving of space and time), which is what most of the discussion in my book was based on, then it's not going to happen. But in recent years there has been increasing attention given to alternatives to Einstein's theory, and one of those involves additional dimensions of space.".....Much of the research pertaining to this ever-intriguing topic takes us out of the relatively solid world of classical physics and Einsteinian theory and into the realms of quantum mechanics, with scientists questing after the "holy grail" of 21st-century physics, an overall theory of quantum gravity, which would supersede Einstein's and be applied to everything in the cosmos. Among those working towards this are Dr Charles Wang, reader in physics at the University of Aberdeen. "If we have a breakthrough in quantum gravity, then time travel would stand a better chance. We certainly expect some interesting result to come out soon although we can't really promise a time machine," he laughs."

A few years ago the salfsame Paul Davies explained why Divine Albert's Divine Theory should be abandoned:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Other creators of quantum gravity, the theory "which would supersede Einstein's and be applied to everything in the cosmos", clearly state their most important task: ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light'':

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

http://roychristopher.com/joao-magueijo-frontier-cosmology
"Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einsteins most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesnt buy it. His VSL (Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that hes out of his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London. Hes a MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST WHOSE MIND IS BEGINNING TO WANDER."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light.''

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Harvey Brown, the President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, is also trying to resurrect dead rationalism:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/36825712.DOC
"Einstein compared his development of the special theory of relativity with that of thermodynamics. In both cases the theory was based on a small number of principles or laws from which everything followed. Such a 'principle theory' may be contrasted with 'constructive theories', such as statistical mechanics in which macroscopic behaviour is derived from the physics of interactions of atoms and molecules they comprise.....This project will aim to develop a microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction based on relativistic quantum mechanics. Professor Harvey Brown at Oxford University has indicated that if the project is successful it will be the first constructive theory of the special theory of relativity."

Needless to say, the "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction", in the light of the fact that, according to Einstein's special relativity, this contraction is RECIPROCAL, can only aggravate the absurdity. A much more reasonable project would involve independent verification of the "small number of principles or laws from which everything followed" (true or false?) and also logical verification of the arguments in the deductive chains (valid or invalid?) allowing "everything" to follow from "a small number of principles or laws".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho: Needless to say, the "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction", in the light of the fact that, according to Einstein's special relativity, this contraction is RECIPROCAL, can only aggravate the absurdity.

cinci: Perhaps you'd like to show us your "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction".
****************************

The "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction" is due to a relativist at: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/36825712.DOC

So you should direct your question to them. As its all just nonsense, what you will be asking them is to explain their nonsense in terms of the existing nonsense. Since you enjoy that sort of thing, I'm sure you will lap it up.

Anon: The "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction" is due to a relativist at: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/36825712.DOC

So you should direct your question to them. As its all just nonsense, what you will be asking them is to explain their nonsense in terms of the existing nonsense. Since you enjoy that sort of thing, I'm sure you will lap it up.

cinc: The site proposes a project to study the issue. Unlike Pentcho and yourself, these gentlemen don't assume they already know everything. Pentcho declared the study absurd before it has even commenced which must mean that he already knows the outcome based on his own "microscopic explanation of the Lorentz contraction". So it's fair to ask him about it.
**********************************

cinc: The site proposes a project to study the issue.

A site that proposes to study nonsense that you have a question about; so ask them.

> > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> > Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> > concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> > that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> > top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> > on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> > you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> > will show more time elapsed."
>
> > Two points:
>
> > 1. The insignificant difference in field strength is irrelevant for
> > the effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation).
> > That is, the two watches can be regarded as placed in EXACTLY THE SAME
> > physical conditions and yet one of them proves slower than the other.
> > Effect without cause.
>
> > 2. The effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation)
> > implicitly presupposes that the speed of light is CONSTANT in a
> > gravitational field. Yet all clever Einsteinians, even Divine Albert,
> > teach that the speed of light is VARIABLE in a gravitational field.
> > The scientific world is unable to see any contradiction.
>
> > It should also be noted that the scientific world sees as entirely
> > rational consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to
> > which the long train is short (if trapped inside a short tunnel), the
> > 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long barn and
> > Einsteinians have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
> > quickly"), the bug is both dead and alive etc:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> > the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> > instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> > contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
>
> Philosopher John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian) trying to
> resurrect dead rationalism. Note that the reference to Newton-Leibniz
> debate is more or less a red herring in this case - Norton's main
> concern is the rationality devastation caused by Einstein's "theory":
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
> "Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space
> and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share
> Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things
> and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."

Philosopher John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, is leaving the sinking ship in the most subtle way. Unfortunately he and his brothers Einsteinians have been destroyng human rationality so fiercely and so long that his present hints, even if they were explicit declarations, would reach nobody. Rationalism is dead not because science is irrational but because nobody cares about science being irrational:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The coexistence of the following two texts, without the scientific community being able to see any contradiction, proves that rationality has been irreversibly destroyed in Einstein's world:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/relativity_worldbook.html
NASA: "Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment to measure expected differences in the speed of light relative to their laboratory. Although light travels extremely rapidly, their experiment could measure tiny differences in speed. Surprisingly, Michelson and Morley found no difference at all. This result was a great puzzle. Physicists tried without success to determine how light could act in a manner consistent with both Galilean relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment."

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."

If some day scientists somehow come to the conclusion that scientific rationality should somehow be restored, a conference will be organized and the rallying cry will be:

"Physicists are trying without success to realize why, although light acted in a manner consistent with both Galilean relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment, a protective belt (Lakatos' terminology) for the ether theory, later successfully shielding Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, was built by FitzGerald, Lorentz, Poincare: 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

Pentcho, the real question is "When are you going to become rational?"
*****************************

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/EBms.pdf
Einsteiniana's guru teaching brothers Einsteinians: "The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational fieldor, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational fieldshould not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines."

For brothers Einsteinians the expression "...should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but..." could only mean:

"The speed of light in a gravitational field may have been variable in the past but now it is constant."

Then brothers Einsteinians teach the new truth to the rest of the world:

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

The rest of the world used to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "Divine Einstein" but now there is a financial crisis and the rest of the world does not give a sh-t about relativity, constant speed of light, variable speed of light etc. Still brothers Einsteinians get their salaries regularly and are quite optimistic.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

PV confuses rationalism and naïvism.