🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 6:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Premise: Einstein's equivalence principle
>
> Conclusions:
> If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by
> Newton's emission theory of light, then the speed of light varies with
> the speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
> given again by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, Einstein's
> 1905 light postulate is false.
>
> If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), then the
> speed of light varies with the speed of the light source v in
> accordance with the equation c'=c+2v, that is, Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate is false.

Nonsense, Pentcho. The variation of light speed as observed across a
gravitational potential is clearly a statement made in a non-inertial
frame.
The second postulate explicitly refers to the speed of light being
invariant in *inertial* reference frames.

I don't know why this simple distinction is lost on you.

>
> If the speed of light does not vary with the gravitational potential V
> (Einstein would not agree but nowadays silly Einsteinians do teach
> so), then the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light
> source v either, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> Compare with John Norton's reasoning (the TEXT IN CAPITALS is wrong):
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com