| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2007 01:31:00 AM |
| Object: |
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
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' =3D 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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"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."......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'=3Dc(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."
The essential conclusion is: The speed of light does vary with the
gravitational potential (all hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult
confirm this, although some of them reject Einstein's equation
c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)) and therefore the frequency shift is due to the
variability of the speed of light, not to any change in wavelength, in
accordance with the equation
frequency =3D (speed of light)/(wavelength)
Hypnotists who have already confirmed the variability of the speed of
light in a gravitational field should consider the following text:
http://www.so.stfc.ac.uk/gow/Sm/grls.asp?cx=3D01&sc=3D0&in=3D429&nv=3D0102&=
dp=3D2297&so=3Doa
Dynamical Studies of Galaxy Evolution
Principal investigator: Professor MR Merrifield
Period: 31/03/2006 - 30/03/2009
=A3118,692
"Thus, the motions of the stars are as important as their spatial
distribution: a theory of galaxy formation that predicts the wrong
velocities for the stars fails as categorically as one that predicts
the wrong spatial arrangement. Although galaxies are generally too
distant to see individual stars move within an astronomer's lifetime,
we can still measure their velocities along the line of sight by the
Doppler shift: just as the change in pitch of a fir engine's siren
tells us whether it is approaching or receding, so the shift in
WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT from stars tells us their speed. Thus, but
splitting the light from the stars in a galaxy into a spectrum and
studying whether the light has been shifted toward the red or blue,
one can study the stars' motions."
Reasoning by analogy with the case where the speed of light varies
with the gravitational potential, hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult
should urge Professor MR Merrifield to change the text in the
following way:
"Thus, the motions of the stars are as important as their spatial
distribution: a theory of galaxy formation that predicts the wrong
velocities for the stars fails as categorically as one that predicts
the wrong spatial arrangement. Although galaxies are generally too
distant to see individual stars move within an astronomer's lifetime,
we can still measure their velocities along the line of sight by the
Doppler shift: the shift in SPEED OF LIGHT from stars tells us their
speed. Thus, but splitting the light from the stars in a galaxy into a
spectrum and studying whether the light has been shifted toward the
red or blue, one can study the stars' motions."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Abby Normal" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
04 Aug 2007 01:41:37 AM |
|
|
GOOGLE-POSTING CAPS-LOCK *****-WIT II.
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186209060.510108.128070@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, I'm a big poo-poo head with a keyboard."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
04 Aug 2007 01:33:38 AM |
|
|
On Aug 3, 10:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip crap]
Please stop. We don't care.
You changed nobody's mind by ranting against thermodynamics.
You will change nobody's mind by ranting about relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
04 Aug 2007 03:22:12 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug, 09:33, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip crap]
Please stop. We don't care.
See this:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f43bd437bc899633?
Master Steve Carlip: "In special relativity, the speed of light is
constant when measured in any *inertial* frame. In general
relativity, the appropriate generalization is that the speed of light
is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small
enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein
is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame
at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed
of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity
(spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.
Master Tom Roberts in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev asked:
CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
Master Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
Now do you care? By the way, when you say "we don't care", what do you
mean by "we"? Only zombies? Both zombies and hypnotists? If you mean
"both zombies and hypnotists" you are wrong and should apologize to
your masters because they all care. Haven't you noticed that Master
Steve Carlip and Master John Baez have not said anything about
relativity, speed of light etc. for a long time? A Google search would
show that other hypnotists are also silent. Even Master Tom Roberts
has reduced its activity to empty speculations and fighting aether
theories.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
05 Aug 2007 03:33:02 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug, 10:22, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 4 Aug, 09:33, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip crap]
Please stop. We don't care.
See this:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f43bd437bc899633?
Master Steve Carlip: "In special relativity, the speed of light is
constant when measured in any *inertial* frame. In general
relativity, the appropriate generalization is that the speed of light
is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small
enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein
is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame
at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed
of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity
(spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.
Master Tom Roberts in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev asked:
CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
Master Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
Now do you care? By the way, when you say "we don't care", what do you
mean by "we"? Only zombies? Both zombies and hypnotists? If you mean
"both zombies and hypnotists" you are wrong and should apologize to
your masters because they all care. Haven't you noticed that Master
Steve Carlip and Master John Baez have not said anything about
relativity, speed of light etc. for a long time? A Google search would
show that other hypnotists are also silent. Even Master Tom Roberts
has reduced its activity to empty speculations and fighting aether
theories.
I made a mistake. Insead of:
"Even Master Tom Roberts has reduced ITS activity to empty
speculations and fighting aether theories."
I should have written, of course,
"Even Master Tom Roberts has reduced HIS activity to empty
speculations and fighting aether theories."
However "ITS" is not very far from the truth. Most of the so-called
hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult can be defined as zombies that
have managed to become professors. For instance, the following wisdom
can only be devised by a mindless zombie:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
In this case even "devised" is a wrong word because Tom Roberts just
plagiarized the wisdom:
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse
limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le
"second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-
meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais,
pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus
solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier
postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond."
Can a wisdom according to which special relativity will remain intact
even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform" be referred to as HIS or HER wisdom? No. It is ITS
wisdom par excellence.
Another example: The speed of light is constant BY DEFINITION, says
another "hypnotist":
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition!"
Although Steve Carlip is officially a professor and a distinguished
hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, the speed-of-light-is-constant-by-
definition wisdom cannot be referred to as HIS wisdom. It is ITS
wisdom par excellence.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
05 Aug 2007 07:49:26 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Another example: The speed of light is constant BY DEFINITION, says
another "hypnotist":
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition!"
Although Steve Carlip is officially a professor and a distinguished
hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, the speed-of-light-is-constant-by-
definition wisdom cannot be referred to as HIS wisdom. It is ITS
wisdom par excellence.
Pentcho Valev
Seems to get your goat, when others are right and you are wrong, Pentcho.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
04 Aug 2007 01:50:54 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The essential conclusion is: The speed of light does vary with the
gravitational potential (all hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult
confirm this, although some of them reject Einstein's equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2)) and therefore the frequency shift is due to the
variability of the speed of light, not to any change in wavelength, in
accordance with the equation
You have to realize that Einstein rejected this c'=c(1+V/c^2) foolishness
and moved on. It is not part of relativity theory. Why do to keep posting
about it? You've got the wrong formula Pentcho... it's wrong!
See: Shapiro Effect
Consider the time delay of signal passing between the earth and Mars
due to the curvature of space time by the Sun. Then
delta T_max = (4G M/c^3)*[ln(4 r_mars r_earth/r_sun^2) +1 ]
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Asp Explorer" |
|
| Title: Re: GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT |
04 Aug 2007 04:10:23 AM |
|
|
Ta gueule
Pentcho Valev a écrit :
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
....
--
C'est à l'heure du repas
qu'on voit les boules du chat
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
