| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2008 02:38:03 AM |
| Object: |
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/c46ce30871328b4a?
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
01 Feb 2008 05:41:22 AM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/c46c=
e30871328b4a?
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
http://www.uni-koeln.de/minkowski/
"Hermann Minkowski's famous lecture held in Cologne on September 21,
1908 was a milestone on the way to our modern understanding of space
and time. In it Minkowski laid bare the mathematical core of the
special theory of relativity - the unification of space and time into
four-dimensional spacetime. Although at first sceptical, Einstein soon
adopted this point of view and constructed with its help his theory of
general relativity, in which gravitation is interpreted as a
manifestation of spacetime geometry. The general theory of relativity
provides the basis of our physical world view at the non-quantum
level, and its applications range from cosmology to everyday life.
However, modifications in our understanding of space and time are
expected to emerge from a more fundamental theory that unifies
gravitation with quantum theory; promising candidates are quantum
general relativity and string theory. In the history of science,
Minkowski's lecture can be interpreted as the end point of a
development in geometry. It marks the transition from space as a
unique concept in the sense of traditional Euclidean geometry to space
as a model. In this new paradigm, many different spaces are
considered, and the most appropriate one is selected. In our
centennial conference, concepts of space and spacetime will be
addressed from the points of views of physics, mathematics, and the
history of science. We aim to do justice to Minkowski's great
contribution. On the one hand, the historical development and in
particular Minkowski's contribution will be discussed; on the other
hand, we shall highlight the concept of spacetime in modern physics
and mathematics as well as possible modifications in future theories,
notably quantum gravity. The conference will be strongly
interdisciplinary and should be attractive, in particular, for
undergraduate and graduate students of the considered disciplines, but
also for more senior scientists."
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/talks/2008esi.pdf
Hermann Minkowski and The Scandal of Spacetime
Scott Walter
"Unlike Poincar=E9, Einstein famously excluded the ether from physics,
and defined time and space coordinates in terms of ideal rods and
clocks in inertial frames. I A clock transported with constant speed v
around a closed
curve would show a lag of 1/2t(v/c)^2 seconds with respect to a clock
at rest, initially sychronized with the mobile clock. For Einstein,
this was just another "peculiar consequence" of his kinematic
assumptions, offering him no further insight to the theory of space
and time (Einstein, 1905, p. 904)."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity
Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver
Those "scandal of spacetime", "glorious non-entity" and numerous hints
at abandoning Minkowski's idiocy clearly show that now all
Einsteinians know that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false.
However the 100 years old verbiage developed in Einstein criminal cult
will continue to be perfect camouflage, perhaps forever.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
05 Feb 2008 12:40:57 AM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 1:41 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/minkowski/
"Hermann Minkowski's famous lecture held in Cologne on September 21,
1908 was a milestone on the way to our modern understanding of space
and time. In it Minkowski laid bare the mathematical core of the
special theory of relativity - the unification of space and time into
four-dimensional spacetime. Although at first sceptical, Einstein soon
adopted this point of view and constructed with its help his theory of
general relativity, in which gravitation is interpreted as a
manifestation of spacetime geometry. The general theory of relativity
provides the basis of our physical world view at the non-quantum
level, and its applications range from cosmology to everyday life.
However, modifications in our understanding of space and time are
expected to emerge from a more fundamental theory that unifies
gravitation with quantum theory; promising candidates are quantum
general relativity and string theory. In the history of science,
Minkowski's lecture can be interpreted as the end point of a
development in geometry. It marks the transition from space as a
unique concept in the sense of traditional Euclidean geometry to space
as a model. In this new paradigm, many different spaces are
considered, and the most appropriate one is selected. In our
centennial conference, concepts of space and spacetime will be
addressed from the points of views of physics, mathematics, and the
history of science. We aim to do justice to Minkowski's great
contribution. On the one hand, the historical development and in
particular Minkowski's contribution will be discussed; on the other
hand, we shall highlight the concept of spacetime in modern physics
and mathematics as well as possible modifications in future theories,
notably quantum gravity. The conference will be strongly
interdisciplinary and should be attractive, in particular, for
undergraduate and graduate students of the considered disciplines, but
also for more senior scientists."
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/talks/2008esi.pdf
Hermann Minkowski and The Scandal of Spacetime
Scott Walter
"Unlike Poincar=E9, Einstein famously excluded the ether from physics,
and defined time and space coordinates in terms of ideal rods and
clocks in inertial frames. I A clock transported with constant speed v
around a closed
curve would show a lag of 1/2t(v/c)^2 seconds with respect to a clock
at rest, initially sychronized with the mobile clock. For Einstein,
this was just another "peculiar consequence" of his kinematic
assumptions, offering him no further insight to the theory of space
and time (Einstein, 1905, p. 904)."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity
Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver
Those "scandal of spacetime", "glorious non-entity" and numerous hints
at abandoning Minkowski's idiocy clearly show that now all
Einsteinians know that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false.
However the 100 years old verbiage developed in Einstein criminal cult
will continue to be perfect camouflage, perhaps forever.
Einsteinians really know no limits in camouflaging the falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/montreal.html
From:
Subject: Re: 2008 June 13 - 15, Montreal
Date: 2008 February 02 1:12:24 AM EST
To:
Dear Richard,
On behalf of the Program Committee of the Third International
Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime to be held on June
13-15, 2008 in Montreal I would like to inform you that your proposed
paper has been accepted for poster presentation.
I look forward to meeting you in Montreal,
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8
Tel.: 514-848-2424 ext 2572
Fax: 514-848-2573
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/
Here is my Extended Abstract, as submitted:
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy The Johns Hopkins
University
"There is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did
introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered
special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one
concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!)
did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a
development from relativity--the discovery of the implication that E =3D
mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But
the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's
equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not
know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle
Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman
numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more
advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching
special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but
historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as
"Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning
students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all
have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g.
relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course
the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of
texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's
second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs
to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski. I feel that
the time has come to relegate the "two postulates" to the dustbin of
history, and to teach special relativity to undergraduates (or indeed,
to middle school students) the Minkowski way."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
06 Feb 2008 02:50:18 AM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 10:38=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/c46=
ce30871328b4a?
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
=A0 A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
=A0 B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
=A0 C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
French verbiage used when the variability of the speed of light in a
gravitational field should be camouflaged:
http://listes.univ-rennes1.fr/wws/arc/theuth/2008-02/msg00014.html
S=E9minaire d'histoire de l'astronomie/S=E9minaire d'histoire de la
relativit=E9
Observatoire de Paris
Salle de l'Atelier
Mercredi 13 f=E9vrier 2008, 14h.
David Valls-Gabaud, GEPI/CNRS, Observatoire de Paris.
"Une histoire conceptuelle des mirages gravitationnels"
R=E9sum=E9 : "Nous examinons de fa=E7on critique l'histoire conceptuelle des=
premi=E8res id=E9es concernant la d=E9flexion de la lumi=E8re produite par
l'action de la gravitation dans le contexte des mirages
gravitationnels, d=E9couverts en 1979. Contrairement a l'id=E9e fort
r=E9pandue qui consid=E8re Newton comme le pr=E9curseur, une lecture
attentive de son traite "Opticks" d=E9montre que la premi=E8re "Query" ne
concerne pas la d=E9flexion gravitationnelle. Nous tra=E7ons l'histoire de
cette l=E9gende qui perdure jusqu'=E0 nos jours et montrons les r=F4les de
Voltaire, Marat, Cavendish et Soldner dans la caract=E9risation du
ph=E9nom=E8ne. Les premiers calculs de l'effet de lentille
gravitationnelle apparaissent dans les carnets d'Einstein en 1912 et
ne furent jamais publi=E9s. Le court article de Chwolson en 1924 montre,
sans calculs, le concept de formation d'images par une lentille
gravitationnelle et passa inapercu, tout comme les estimations
d'Eddington. Le v=E9ritable, mais oubli=E9, pionnier du sujet fut
Frantisek Link qui non seulement publia les premiers calculs d=E9taill=E9s
de l'effet (neuf mois avant l'article "fondateur" d'Einstein dans la
revue Science en 1936), mais aussi pr=E9dit les effets produits par des
lentilles binaires, des sources doubles, et la taille finie des
sources. Link pr=E9dit =E9galement que l'effet de microlentille
gravitationnelle serait plus facile =E0 d=E9tecter dans les champs denses
d'=E9toiles, ce qui fut confirm=E9 experimentalement en 1993. Les calculs
de Link sont bien plus d=E9taill=E9s que ceux r=E9alis=E9s par Tikhov et
Bogorodsky pendant ces m=EAmes ann=E9es. Nous discuterons =E9galement les
articles des ann=E9es 1960-1970 qui marqu=E8rent le renouveau de ce sujet
purement th=E9orique avant la d=E9couverte de la premi=E8re lentille
gravitationnelle en 1979, ainsi que les travaux, publi=E9s ou pas, des
ann=E9es 1980 sur la d=E9tection d'objets sombres dans les halos de
galaxies par l'effet de microlentille gravitationnelle."
Entr=E9e de l'Observatoire de Paris : 77, Avenue Denfert-Rochereau Paris
14=E8me.
N.B Les programme des s=E9minaires 2007-2008 sont en ligne sur:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/~jee/
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
31 Jan 2008 09:33:12 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 12:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com>:
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xxein" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
31 Jan 2008 06:15:47 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 3:38=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
=A0 A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
=A0 B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
=A0 C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein: Yeah. The obfuscation never ends for those who cannot find
the physic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
01 Feb 2008 06:07:57 AM |
|
|
"xxein" <xxein@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:525be557-b0a5-4a7f-8284-ca410931719b@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 3:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
: xxein: Yeah. The obfuscation never ends for those who cannot find the
physic.
Happily, some DO "get" it. See for example:
Okun et al, AJP 68, Feb.2000, p.115.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ockham" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
31 Jan 2008 06:29:44 PM |
|
|
"xxein" <xxein@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:525be557-b0a5-4a7f-8284-ca410931719b@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 3:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein: Yeah. The obfuscation never ends for those who cannot find
the physic.
You can't find the physic, geez you stupid *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND RELATIVISTIC VERBIAGE |
31 Jan 2008 11:08:22 PM |
|
|
Ockham wrote:
"xxein" <xxein@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:525be557-b0a5-4a7f-8284-ca410931719b@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 3:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
human rationality in this way:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...
Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
"There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
the gravitational field.
C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
differ).
All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
not change with height.
At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
(inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
this last situation." Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein: Yeah. The obfuscation never ends for those who cannot find
the physic.
You can't find the physic, geez you stupid *****.
This from someone who can't find the method for correctly showing quotation.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
