🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Oct, 07:59, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 20:35, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
> > The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
> > (2000)
> > "In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
> > "miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
> > Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
> > pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
> > diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
> > have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
> > as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
> > stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
> > upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
> > detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
> > effect."
>
> > So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
> > light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
> > the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
> > "the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
> > question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
> > c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
>
> Einsteinians (both zombies and hypnotists) who wish to solve the
> problem could also see this:
>
> http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
> "The stationary physicists operating the experiment aren't qualified
> to judge the relative motion between source and detector because they
> experience gravity, which can be mimicked by accelerated motion of the
> ground and cliff. These physicists call the change in the light's
> frequency a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT rather than a Doppler effect."
>
> 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....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."
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
> in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
> as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
> were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
> field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
> calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
> Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> Einsteinians may discover that the problem can be formulated in the
> following way: Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, confirmed
> experimentally by Pound-Rebka, consistent with the equations c'=c+v
> and c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicting a VARIABLE speed of light, or is it
> consistent with Einstein's light postulate c'=c? Of course, the final
> solution will be found in the new version of Tom Roberts' FAQ. The old
> version
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> is silly, uninformative and misleading but in the new version all
> experimental confirmations of Einstein's relativity will be explained
> clearly and unambiguously.

Einsteinians are very very close to the truth:

http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/10/10/ScienceTech/Space.Discovery.May.Challenge.Einsteins.Theory-3022842.shtml
"In August, an international team of scientists made a discovery that
could radically change our view of the universe....The MAGIC team
discovered that high-energy photons emitted from a black hole more
than 300 million years ago arrived four minutes later than the low
energy photons. This discovery casts doubt on Einstein's theory of
relativity, which has been the basis of modern physics for many
years....The new results suggest that our old view of space is
incorrect and that space behaves more like a material than an empty
vacuum...."If photons are genuinely slowed down in vacuum, this effect
would mean the breakdown of relativity," Ferenc said."

The only problem will remain the authorship and the future Nobel
prize: it will turn out that some Einsteinians have refuted Einstein's
relativity 10 years ago, others 15 years ago etc.:
"And what's even more amazing is the delay of four minutes precisely
matched a theoretical prediction made before the observation by
Professor John Ellis 10 years ago."

Pentcho Valev