🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, shay...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 29, 12:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 12:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...you will have to give a straightforward answer to
> > the following question: Are the "strongest validations of GR"
> > consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) or are they
> > consistent with Einstein's final equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2)?
>
> This was already answered last week. Here's the answer again.
>
> On Oct 24, 12:20 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V and
> > Einstein has given two respective equations: c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's
> > 1911 equation, and c'=c(1+2V/c^2), his final decision.
>
> The link you cited clearly explains that, in the completed theory of
> general relativity, when expressed in terms of Schwarzschild
> coordinates near a spherically symmetrical mass, the speed of light is
> 1 + 2V in the radial direction and 1 + V in the tangential direction.
>
> In 1911 Einstein was working on a theory with a scalar potential that
> gave a speed of light that depended only on position, given by 1 + V,
> but by 1915 he had realized this doesn't work. It's necessary for the
> speed of light to depend not just on the location, but also on the
> direction. This means instead of a "scalar potential" he needed a
> "tensor potential". It so happens that the scalar formula he gave in
> 1911 was correct for the tangential direction, but not for the radial
> direction.
>
> > Both hypnotists and zombies in Einstein criminal cult should stop
> > repeating "Not variable locally" (a rather silly red herring)...
>
> That isn't exactly a "red herring", it's just stated rather sloppily.
> The point is that, in general relativity, the coordinate system can be
> chosen arbitrarily (the field equations are generally covariant), so
> the "speed of light" depends on the choice of coordinate system. This
> is also true in special relativity, but in that case there is a
> natural "best" choice of coordinate systems, namely, the inertial
> coordinate systems, and in terms of those coordinates the speed of
> light is always c.  In general relativity there is no longer a
> natural
> best choice of coordinate systems, because it isn't possible to define
> a global inertial coordinate system (due to the curvature of
> spacetime). It's like trying to define a Cartesian coordinate system
> over the whole surface of the Earth. So we have to use some other
> coordinate systems, like Schwarzschild coordinates, in terms of which
> the speed of light is 1+2V radially and 1+V tangentially. Note that
> the Schwwarzschild coordinates are NOT an inertial coordinate system.
> The point of the "red herring" as you call it, is that we can always
> define a LOCAL inertial coordinate system, in terms of which the speed
> of light is c, just as in special relativity. This is essentially just
> another way of expressing the Equivalence Principle. So it isn't a red
> herring at all.
>
> On Oct 29, 12:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...you will have to give a straightforward answer to
> > the following question: Are the "strongest validations of GR"
> > consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) or are they
> > consistent with Einstein's final equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2)?
>
> The best measurements today are based on the tensor potential that
> gives a speed of light (in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates) that
> varies both as a function of position and as a function of direction.
> The two formulas you gave are just two special cases, corresponding to
> the speed of light in the tangential and radial directions. In
> general, the direction of a light pulse may be neither purely radial
> nor purely tangential, so the actual speed is more complicated than
> either of those formulas.

At what stellar gravity does the amount of photons noticeably/
measurably redshift before getting past 2r?

Would a 10x solar mass be sufficient?

How about them photons leaving a gravity packing little white dwarf,
like Sirius B?

 ~ BG