🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 26, 10:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:33 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/c7eddf24b59b0840
> > > Steve Carlip: "In special relativity, the speed of light is constant
> > > when measured in any *inertial* frame.  In general relativity, the
> > > appropriate generalization is that the speed of light is constant in
> > > any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that
> > > tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not
> > > talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest
> > > relative to a source of gravity.  In such a frame, the speed of light
> > > can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity
> > > (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers."
>
> > > Honest Carlip, is the gravitational frequency shift, e.g. that
> > > measured by Pound and Rebka, caused by the fact that "the speed of
> > > light can differ from c"? Your sillier brothers teach the
> > > gravitational frequency shift is consistent with variable wavelength
> > > while the speed of light remains constant, in accordance with the
> > > formula:
>
> > > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > > Why don't you teach your sillier brothers, Honest Carlip? Is this
> > > ambiguity the fundamental task of Einsteiniana?
>
> > Brother Paul Davies wants to confuse you, Honest Carlip, but you will
> > not be taken in, will you:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/apr/10/spaceexploration.comment
> > Paul Davies: "Then, in 1960, the third test was finally conducted with
> > reasonable accuracy. Physicists at Harvard University measured a small
> > shift in the frequency of gamma rays directed vertically up a tower,
> > confirming that gravity slows time."
>
> Unlike silly brother Paul Davies, somewhat cleverer brother Tom
> Roberts could help you a lot, Honest Carlip. See how brother Tom
> Roberts has almost solved the problem:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2

Honest Carlip, brothers responsible for the Encyclopedia are even
sillier than silly brother Paul Davies:

http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. The only way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered--- if clocks at
different points had different rates."

Why don't you try to do something, Honest Carlip? Are you happy with
the idiocies your silliest brothers teach so fiercely?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com