"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:q7ve14-pfc.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.logic, Dirk Van de moortel
| <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| wrote
| on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:10:14 GMT
| <a6%0h.154704$6n6.2588713@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
| >
| > "Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:45444cb1$0$12131$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
| >>
| >> ********************************
| >> * Walker's Rating *
| >> * ---------------------- *
| >> * *
| >> * [1] Pertinence : 8 *
| >> * [2] Content : 6 *
| >> * [3] Quality : 5 *
| >> * [4] Fairness : 5 *
| >> * [5] Utility : 7 *
| >> * [6] Etiquette : 8 *
| >> * [7] Accuracy : 6 *
| >> * [8] Novelty : 7 *
| >> * [9] Intrigue : 7 *
| >> * [x] Brilliance : 7 *
| >> * *
| >> * Total ==> 66 *
| >> * *
| >> *******************************
| >>
| >> Researcher
| >
| > Hey, I thought you had said Goodbye.
| > Luckily I predicted you'd be back in a few weeks:
| > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/c4bb93f23067cada
| > You are early and you haven't changed your name yet :-)
| >
| > By the way, we still don't top-post here.
| >
| > * Anticipated Walker's Rating
| > * ----------------------------------
| > *
| > * [1] Pertinence : 10
| > * [2] Content : 1
| > * [3] Quality : 10
| > * [4] Fairness : 10
| > * [5] Utility : 10
| > * [6] Etiquette : 10
| > * [7] Accuracy : 10
| > * [8] Novelty : 10
| > * [9] Intrigue : 10
| > * [x] Brilliance : 10
| > *
| > * Total ==> 91
| >
| > Dirk Vdm
| >
| >
|
| Next time would you two please use a monospaced font like Courier?
| The numbers are making me seasick.
|
| :-)

Next time would you please shut the ***** up? Your one-liners make
me puke :-)

Oh wait... you do for a working week, I'll tolerate your stupidity for
a weekend even if you've forgotten the thread.

Oh, and you failed to notice you control the font. Or perhaps
you can't in Linux (triple whammy - ouch).

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162130420.472815.32750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162122940.473062.126660@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor

approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful

intellects

have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the

approximation

1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift

factor

1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability

of

the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave

front,

taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront

at

different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to
derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand,

their

honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they

manage

to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT -> FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION -> FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary altitude --1 pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same

frequency,

i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them accelerated on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be higher, thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

......................................................................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the pebbles

fall

will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry

...............................................................
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.