🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Oct, 12:14, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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."

Professor John Ellis may have refuted Einstein's relativity 10 years
ago but I think the Nobel prize will nevertheless go to Lee Smolin who
knows something Professor John Ellis does not know:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons. The effect is very small, but it amplifies
over time. Two photons produced by a gamma-ray burst 10 billion years
ago, one redder and one bluer, should arrive on Earth at slightly
different times. The time delay predicted by the theory is large
enough to be detectable by a new gamma-ray observatory called GLAST
(for Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope), which is scheduled for
launch into orbit in 2006. We very much look forward to the
announcement of the results, as they will be testing a prediction of a
quantum theory of gravity. A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, HOW DRASTICALLY SHALL WE BE FORCED TO MODIFY
EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IF THE PREDICTED EFFECT IS
OBSERVED?

Now if you ask Professor John Ellis to answer the question he would
say "JUST A LITTLE DRASTICALLY" and would leave it at that. Professor
John Ellis simply does not know that Einstein's special relativity
should have been abandoned in 1907, when Einstein discovered that the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
"Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin:
"Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few
people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories
of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that
the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that
the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how
the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that
theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
"What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there
is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The
constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect
homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a
special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same
velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to
general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of
light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Pentcho Valev