🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 18, 7:37 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:35 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:03 pm, Dieter Heidorn wrote:

> > > In his 1911 work "Über den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
> > > des Lichtes", Annalen der Physik 35 (1911); translated: "On the
> > > Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light" Einstein uses the
> > > equivalence principle to derive the relation for gravitational red-shift
>
> > > nu_1 = nu_2 (1 + V/c^2)
>
> > >  From this he concluded that the speed of light must vary according to
>
> > > c = c_0 (1 + V/c^2)
>
> > > Using this equation Einstein derives a relation for the deflection angle
> > > for light passing the sun (1911):
>
> > > alpha = 2 GM / (c^2 R)
>
> > > This is wrong by a factor 2. Experimentally is found
>
> > > alpha = 2 GM / (c^2 R)
>
> > You mean the very liberal interpretation of the data from the solar
> > eclipse of 1919.  It was already decided to be the following even
> > before Eddington set out his quest.
>
> > alha = 4 G M / c^2 / R
>
> > > > In other words Roberts Roberts, the
> > > > equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is CORRECT, NOT APPROXIMATE:
>
> > > This equation is not correct, because it leads to a wrong prediction for
> > > the deflection of light.  The reason for the error was: In 1911 Einstein
> > > used "curved time" and "flat space", not curved space-time.
>
> > The equation is correct for gravitational redshift.  <shrug>
>
> > > > any different
> > > > equation (that may seem correct to you) would be inconsistent with the
> > > > redshift factor.
>
> > > The gravitational red-shift is not caused by a variable speed of light.
>
> > > In his 1916 work "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie",
> > > Annalen der Physik 49 (1916) Einstein shows:
>
> > > * Space-time is described with the metric
>
> > >    ds^2 = g_mu,nu dx^mu dx^nu
>
> > > * The gravitiational red-shift depends on the metric:
>
> > >    nu_B / nu_A = sqrt(g_00(r_A)/g_00(r_B))
>
> > > * In weak fields the following approximation holds:
>
> > >    nu_B / nu_A = 1 + Delta V/c^2
>
> > > * Speed of light:
> > >    - In a local inertial frame of reference the speed of light
> > >      is constant c
> > >    - In general, global coordinates the speed of light varies
> > >      (in weak fields) according to
>
> > >      c_A = c ( 1 + 2 V/c^2)
>
> > This equation will lead to a wrong value of the gravitational
> > redshift.  This is another example where GR is contradictory of itself
> > because it does not agree with the metric derivation as you have shown
> > above.
>
> Another assertion without proof.

Anyone can do a little bit more research into Eddington's expedition
to find out the truth.  <shrug>

> Do you really expect people to take
> you at your word that what you say is true?

I still do expect Einstein Dingleberries to deny facts and logic.
They continue to twist logic around and distort history so they can
proudly be Einstein Dingleberries.  The question is that "does it get
old after a while?"  After all, the study of physics demands the truth
and 100% logical reasoning that Einstein Dingleberries lack.  <shrug>