🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 7:50 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 6 fév, 10:52, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 5:33 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 6 fév, 02:34, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
> > > > "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> > > > starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> > > > Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> > > > - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> > > > cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> > > > nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> > > Right.
>
> > > Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
> > > twice the angle observed.
>
> > > Relativistic Newtonian mechanics however predicts the correct
> > > angle since it is now understood that only half a photon's energy
> > > is sensitive to transverse interaction.
>
> > If you wish your analysis to be complete, you should discuss
> > Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light
> > varies with the gravitational potential V. Note that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
> > consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed
> > experimentally:
>
> > 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....
>
> This simply is impossible. From electromagnetic theory and
> confirming observation, when em radiation moves deeper into
> a gravity field, its energy increases but its velocity doesn't
> change, and the opposite when radiation moves away from a
> gravity field, its energy diminishes but its velocity remains
> constant.
>
> Doppler radars would not work even here on earth if this
> was not the case, and they do work perfectly, based on
> the underlying principle that the speed of light is
> constant.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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'=c(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."
>
> > Note also that, by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, you can
> > prove that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to c'=c+v, an equation given by
> > Newton's emission theory and showing how the speed of light varies
> > with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in
> > the absence of a gravitational field.
>
> My analysis is complete. The verified invariance of the speed of
> light has nothing to do with GR or even SR. It is an electromagnetic
> property of em radiation.
>
> Whatever Einstein or anyone else could have said to the contrary
> reveals only partial understanding of electromagnetism at the time
> of statement.

No you cannot just avoid the discussion of the following five points:

(1) Frequency shift in a gravitational field (confirmed experimentally
by Pound and Rebka): f'=f(1+V/c^2)

(2) Speed of light shift in a gravitational field (Einstein's 1911
equation): c'=c(1+V/c^2)

(3) Textbook equation demonstrating consistency between (1) and (2):
(frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)

(4) Newton's emission theory's equation (absence of a gravitational
field): c'=c+v

(5) Einstein's equivalence principle allowing one to PROVE equivalence
between (2) and (4).

If you do not agree with (2) and insist on the speed of light being
constant in a gravitational field, then your should (re)interprete
(1), (3), (4) and (5) accordingly.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com