🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 5:46 am, Dieter Heidorn wrote:
> Koobee Wublee schrieb:

> > The equation is correct for gravitational redshift.  <shrug>
>
> Of course, because Einstein derived the c-equation in his 1911 work from
> the correct equation for gravitational red-shift. The sequence of his
> steps was:
>
>      equivalence principle
>
> --> red-shift: nu_1 = nu_2 (1 + V/c^2)
>
> --> varying speed of light: c = c_0 (1 + V/c^2)
>
> --> deflection angle for bending of light: alpha = 2 GM / (c^2 R)

Einstein did not derive anything.  In this case, he merely stated
them.  <shrug>

There are at least two ways to state what the speed of light is as a
gradient.

**  c = c_0 (1 - U)
**  c = c_0 / (1 + U)

Where

**  U = G M / c^2 / r

Both cases are the same if (1 >> U).  However, at the extreme
boundaries, they are drastically different.

> > 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.
>
> You can take this as contradiction only, if gravitational red-shift
> would depend on a variable speed of light. In fact this is not correct
> in GR. Gravitational red-shift depends on the metric, so I wrote a few
> lines above:
>
> 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

In physics in general, we have

C = nu lambda

Where

**  nu = frequency
**  lambda = wavelength

There is no way you can get away with the red-shift not dependent on
the speed if the speed does indeed vary.  Thus, I stand by my
conclusion that the subject of gravitational redshift is one instance
where this interpretation to the field equations is contradicting
itself.  <shrug>

> You can find this in Einsteins 1916 work:
>
> Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie.
> AdP 49, 769 (1916)
> (§22, pp 818 - 820)http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1916_49_769-...
>
> (Sorry, but I don't know where to find an english translation of this work.)

Sorry, ich lese nicht Deutsch.