🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 18, 11:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>

Eddington's expedition is of historical interest only. He could have
made it all up and it still doesn't affect the more recent - more
accurate - measurements.

>
> > 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>

...and when all is said and done, you are the one stuck posting on
USENET under a pseudonym because you are completely impotent in
effecting the change you believe is required.