🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 17, 3:12 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:55 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 1:53 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > sci.physics:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
> > > > (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
> > > > faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
>
> > > > According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> > > > award winning book. The explanation is related to
> > > > what Mitchell said that when object moves from
> > > > low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and
> > > > reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength
> > > > and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as
> > > > a result of this by causing influences on the atoms.
> > > > This is a newtonian explanation against the pure
> > > > spacetime concept where time slows down because
> > > > of the geometry distortion.
>
> > > > IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be
> > > > falsified by empirical data?
>
> > > > Danny
>
> > > There is a textbook formula:
>
> > > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > > that both relativists and anti-relativists accept. According to this
> > > formula, if the frequency decreases in a gravitational field, then
> > > either the wavelength increases and the speed of light remains
> > > constant, or the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains
> > > constant. Which alternative is physically more reasonable?
>
> > > Pentcho valev
> > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > There may be more alternatives:
>
> > L = wavelength
> > c = speed of light
>
> > 1. Both L and c decrease, but L decreases
> >    at lower rate.
> > 2. Both L and c increase, but L increases
> >    at higher rate.
>
> > The above cases complete yours,
>
> > 3. L remains constant and c decreases.
> > 4. c remains constant and L increases.
>
> A simultaneous analysis of the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka
> experiments would show that (3) is the only reasonable case. That is,
> the speed of light decreases (varies with the gravitational potential
> V) in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while the
> wavelength remains constant. Equivalently, in the absence of a
> gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the
> light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by
> Newton's emission theory of light. There is neither gravitational nor
> any other time dilation.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Well, I was just pointing out that there may be more
alternatives to the relation

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

I was not arguing which one is more reasonable.

OTOH, the Equivalence Principle seems to ensure that
equations

          c'= c(1+V/c^2)
          and
          c'= c+v

are actually equivalent. Say, that an accelerated
frame is indistinguishable from gravity g. Then,
we can express acceleration is equivalent to
gravity

           a = g,

           dv/dt = dV/dr,

but, dr = c*dt, which means that any perturbation
of gravitational potential propagates at speed c.
Thus,

           dv/dt = dV/c*dt,
           dv = dV/c.

Integrating on both sides,

           v = V/c.

Now, from c'= c+v, we can get the equivalent

           c' = c + V/c,
           c' = c(1 + V/c^2).

One question arises, is Newton's emission theory of light,
expressed by the equation c'= c+v, only an approximation
of a more accurate emission theory?
IMHO, yes, it is an approximation to first order of v/c.
There is a more accurate emission theory other than Newton's.

Regards