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."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience essentially the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.

Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

This effect was measured by Mossbauer.
This one of the most beautiful experiment of the whole physics, together with the Stern and Gerlach and the Alain Aspect experiments, I think.

The cause of this effect is obviously the gravitational potential itself.
PV doesn't understand WHY the gravitational potential could be the cause of this effect.
Therefore he concludes there is no cause.

This is new physics indeed: since 1905- time and space need to be understood.
Before SR and GR, time and space were absolute, ready to use without more thinking.
Now, physics is a bit more difficult, and Sarah Palin Valev doesn't like that.
That's why he will reject any good reading on the topic: he would preffer to eat the book instead of reading it.

the issue is whether one is going to assign to varying lightspeed, because the potential is connected to that.

.....In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

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."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience essentially the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.

Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"... the issue is whether one is going to assign to varying lightspeed, because the potential is connected to that ..."

No there is no such issue.
The speed of light at the level of the sea or on the top of the everest is exactly the same.
Yet, the Mossbauer experiment, shows that clocks do not tick at the same rate.

Both facts above have been checked experimentally.
Both fact are also correctl represented by the theory of General Relativity.
For example, in the GR theory, the speed of light near a black hole is the same as the speed of light in Paris.

Poor PV.

"... the issue is whether one is going to assign to varying lightspeed, because the potential is connected to that ..."

Cement head: No there is no such issue.

you are an idiot.

speed of light is variable in GR.

you don't understand relativity.

you are an idiot.

speed of light is variable in GR.

you don't understand relativity.

______________________________________________________________________________

Can you only explain what you mean by "speed of light is variable in GR"?
If you have any competence in the field, you should be able to explain.
Otherwise you are just a follower of Sarah Palin the angry bookworm.

Hint
Consider special relativity to begin with.
Show that when changing coordinates from an inertial frame to a rotating frame,
the speed of light in the rotating frame is given by:

c'² = c²-w²r²

Does that mean that the speed of light is also variable in SR?
Next analyse the situation in GR.

2 points

In the era of Postscientism the slogan "Relativity is false" sounds like "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it reasonable to react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in the luxury of being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's version of "There is no gravitational time dilation":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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 wrote:

Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

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."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience essentially the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.

Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Cement Head SAID: "Both fact(SIC) are also correctl(sic) represented by the theory of General Relativity. For example, in the GR theory, the speed of light near a black hole is the same as the speed of light in Paris."

Poor Cement Head! Black Holes are imaginary. Clocks when brought back together are still regulated the same, if they are good clocks. No clock has ever been placed experimentally near a black hole.

Poor Cement Head! Black Holes are imaginary. Clocks when brought back together are still regulated the same, if they are good clocks. No clock has ever been placed experimentally near a black hole.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
My statement was about GR, not about the existence of BH.
I simply considered the BH as an extreme example of what BH says about clock.
This is just to stress my point and stress the mistake of the variable speed of light.
This mistake is mainly by people who just can't even define what they are talking about.

Concerning clocks brought back together, you are right that their rate would be the same again.
However, these clocks would not indicate the same time anymore.
No clock has been placed near a black hole, indeed, but clocks at different altitude have been show to disynchronize.

If you want to challenge my claims, then do challenge my actual claims, and do not challenge the caricature you make of them.
Otherwise, you would miss your goal and suggest you actually have no argument.

Believe me, if you deserve it I will take your seriously.
Good luck.

cement head: My statement was about GR, not about the existence of BH.
I simply considered the BH as an extreme example of what BH says about clock.

idiot, by considering BH you were supposedly dealing with in context of GR

It is quite normal to use the context of GR when discussing a statement about GR!

The point was not about the existence of BH or the validity of GR.
The point about a statement, variable c in General Relativity, which I claim is wrong (or undefined).

On a second level of discussion, the wrong statement (variable c in GR) made about GR was intended, by a fuzzy mind, to prove that GR is inconsistent.
Since I explained why the claim is wrong, it cannot be used to prove the inconsistency of GR.

Generally speaking, to prove a mistake or an inconsistency in a theory, a good understanding of the said theory is a prerequisite.

So, if you want to prove that GR is wrong on the premise that GR is wrong, don't be surprised if I question your logic.

I stress it again: if you claim that c is variable in GR, then you need to explain what you mean by that statement.
If you don't explain it, I will assume you don't understand your own words.

idiot: The point about a statement, variable c in General Relativity, which I claim is wrong

well you are just an idiot because general relativity does have variable lightspeed

What is really idiot is to make a statement and not being able to explain its meaning!
This is a special feature of cranks: claiming without being able to explain.
I expect you soon to write your claim in bold and red fonts, trying to be more convincing!

I will mimick here below your stupid claim, by making another similar claim which is even more striking.
I will also illustrate how you could explain this other claim and even how to prove it.
The proof is perfectly correct.
Actually, this proof explains the meaning of the statement.
This meaning is not the conventional meaning.
This is why this statement is utterly wrong unless it is more precisely defined or explained.
Therefore I show why it is important to explain the meaning of a statement.
Without this explanation, we can only guess the meaning and we likely understand the statement based on usual definitions.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

My claim:
The speed of light is variable in Special Relativity

The meaning:
Consider first two inertial reference frames (I) and (I') related by a given Lorentz transform.
In this case, the distance between close events is given by:

ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - c²dt² = dx'² + dy'² + dz'² - c²dt'²

As the equation of light rays is simply ds=0, you get that the speed of light is the same (c) in both frame.
The lorentz transformation was precisely build to get this result.

Consider next, the same inertial frame (I) and a second frame (R) rotating with respect to (I) at an angular frequency w. In this case, the distance between close events is given by:

ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - c²dt² = dr² + r²dq² + dz² + 2wr²dqdt - (c²-w²r²)dt²
(where the rotating coordinates are {r,q,z,t})

From the light ray equation, you can see that:

- rays propagating along the r axis have a speed given by: c'² = c²-w²r²
- rays propagating along the z axis have a speed given by: c'² = c²-w²r²
- rays propagating along the q axis have a speed given by: c' = c - wr
- light rays can have velocities between (c-wr) and (c+wr) depending on their direction
- generally light rays do not propagate on straigth lines

From this my statement is proven since:

- the speed of light changes with the angular frequency of the rotating frame
- the speed of light is not even the same in all directions
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

What would you conclude from this proof?
My own conclusion is that you are an idiot, as you may guess.

In GR, it is always possible to define locally a set of "inertial frames".
In these frames the speed of light is constant and its value is 299792.458 km/s.

To pay for your idiocy, could you try to figure out how these frames could be idenfied experimentally?

idiot:---My claim: The speed of light is variable in Special Relativity

idiot. try reading some relativity books before spouting nonsense like this

Congratulations!

You just understood why you claim is wrong: "speed of light is variable in GR".
In addition, you also discovered your cure.
Unfortunately, you could not understand my complete post.
This is why you reacted only on one sentense.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

idiot: You just understood why you claim is wrong: "speed of light is variable in GR".

you are mental, relativity texts say speed of light variable in GR, its your claim that is nonsense

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In 1999 a young and still honest Bulgarian philosopher, Vesselin Petkov, made a discovery equivalent to "2+2=4": the gravitational redshift is due to the variation of the speed of light in accordance with Einstein's 1911 eqation given by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fe26baf9ccdc0040
Vesselin Petkov: "This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In general relativity the speed of light depends on the diference of the gravitational potentials (delta Phi) of the source and observation points:

c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)

However, in 1911 this formula lead Einstein to a wrong value of the deflection angle of a light ray being deflected by the Sun. In 1916 Einsten got it right using the coordinate velocity of light. Since then formula (1) has been neglected. But it is this velocity that is involved in any calculations verifying the principle of equivalence."

Only the highest priests in Einsteiniana knew how dangerous this discovery was so Tom Roberts immediately brainwashed Vesselin Petkov:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/eec57b72201d6522
Vesselin Petkov wrote:
> This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In general relativity the
> speed of light depends on the diference of the gravitational potentials
> (delta Phi) of the source and observation points:

> c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)

Tom Roberts: "This depends upon what you mean by "velocity of light". Normally when that phrase is used, one implicitly or explicitly means using standard coordinates, and under inertial conditions, or in a local region, or some similar restrictions. In GR, an unconstrained "velocity of light" can have any value whatsoever, and is not very interesting."

At present Vesselin Petkov does not remember at all the problem he had in 1999. He is himself a high priest in Einsteiniana, organizes conferences and regularly sings "Yes we all believe in relatyivity, relativity, relativity" ("Two and two make five, five, five").

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In the era of Postscientism the slogan "Relativity is false" sounds like "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it reasonable to react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in the luxury of being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's version of "There is no gravitational time dilation":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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."

Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

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."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience essentially the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.

Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Silly Einsteinians subconsciously feel (clever ones know) that identical clocks experiencing the same gravitational field cannot run at different rates (that is, their subconsciousness rejects Einstein's 1911 camouflage), so they teach that gravitational time dilation is due to clocks experiencing DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05EED81E3EF932A35752C0A9629C8B63
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving relative to one another, or EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, tick off time at different rates."

Clever Einsteinians faithful to the camouflage teach that gravitational time dilation is due to clocks possibly experiencing the SAME GRAVITATIONAL FIELD but placed at different gravitational potentials.

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."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience essentially the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.

Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com