http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

Pentcho Valev

xxein; Some day they will understand. You cannot force belief. It
has to be nutured.

But nature/physic is not exactly a belief, although most treat it as
such.

Intense Cretinoid Pentcho Valev wrote:
snipped
Pentcho Valev

Get thy to a mental asylum.

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
| " Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
| Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
| theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
| relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
| well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
| it might break down." "
|
| 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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
| front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
| wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
| light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
| 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 / c2 )
| where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
| speed of light c0 is measured. "
|
|
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
| " Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
| which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
| about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
| "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
| 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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
| with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
| the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
| that he did mean so. "
|
| http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
| " Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
| modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
|
| Pentcho Valev
|
| xxein; Some day they will understand.

You reckon?
Some people would rather die than think; and they do.

| You cannot force belief. It has to be nutured.

Even that is futile. History is written by opinion, not fact.
2000 years ago a political upstart was nailed to a tree. Now
they worship him and begged to be "saved".
Man is a curious animal, he wants to know. Finding out tickles
his brain, but he's also lazy. Anyone that provides the answer
is revered, no matter whether the answer is valid or not.
"It is written", therefore it is.

| But nature/physic is not exactly a belief, although most treat it as
| such.

Nature is. I believe that. How she works is for us to discover,
but I can say with 100% certainty that Einstein had no more
of a clue than anyone else, and he lied.

Androcles.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...speed_of_light
..html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start "light" isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds. It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember right.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:42:58 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:

...........
Nature is. I believe that. How she works is for us to discover,
but I can say with 100% certainty that Einstein had no more
of a clue than anyone else, and he lied.

Androcles.


But he had friends who helped him to do LIMES calculations.
Nobody will help you?

For Androcles, the SAUCERER, considers limes calculation
as invalid divisions by zero. He obviously has no clue.

Help him as an act of pity.
Here are a few LIMES examples, especially for SAUCERER:


lim[f(x+h) +f(x))/h] = 1 at h = 0

lim[x /(e^x - e^-x)] 1/2 at x = 0

lim [sin(x) / x] = 1 at x = 0

lim[ (6x^2-5x+1)/(8x^2-2x-1)] at x = 1/2 is 1/6

lim[ lg(x^3-3) / (x^2+3x-10)] at x = 2 is 4/7

lim[(1-sin(x))*tan(x) at x = Pi/2 is 0 (zero)

Androcles the SAUCERER thinks he can out-think Einstein,
but does not know the most simple elementary math.
Androcles the SAUCERER knows NOTHING.

what a waste of time......
w.
--


"Aren't you Mr. Lehman, the guy with 15 children?"
"No, I am his assistant"

"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
| On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:42:58 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
| ...........
| Nature is. I believe that. How she works is for us to discover,
| but I can say with 100% certainty that Einstein had no more
| of a clue than anyone else, and he lied.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| But he had friends who helped him to do LIMES calculations.
| Nobody will help you?
|
| For Androcles, the SAUCERER, considers limes calculation
| as invalid divisions by zero. He obviously has no clue.
|
| Help him as an act of pity.
| Here are a few LIMES examples, especially for SAUCERER:
|
|
| lim[f(x+h) +f(x))/h] = 1 at h = 0


ROFLMAO! Not even Dork Van de merde could make that much
of a blunder, including the two left parentheses and three right.


Androcles

Orator wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...speed_of_light
.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start "light" isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds. It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember right.

No, you do not remember right.

--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...speed_of_light
.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start "light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds. It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanionding is that it is the Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift. The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching you from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the doppler
effect

Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red has the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5 billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving away from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least being no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then become a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same time as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect could
not exist.

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...speed_of_light
.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .]
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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
suggests
that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start "light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds. It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanionding is that it is the Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift. The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Correct up to here.


Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching you from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the doppler
effect

Correct up to here.


Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red has the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5 billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving away from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

Correct up to here.


As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least being no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then become a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same time as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect could
not exist.

No, this is all bolluxed up.

Several comments:
1. There is no limit to how low or high a frequency can be, nor can you
stretch it so much that it "ceases to exist".
2. The shifting has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling.
Redshifted light from a star is still traveling toward your eye at c
(the speed of light), at the same speed that it would have if the star
were not receding and the light unshifted.
3. If light from a star is redshifted, then *all* the frequencies of
light from that star are shifted by the same ratio, whether the
original light was red, green, or blue. Recall that the light from a
star is an entire spectrum, not just a particular color, and all
frequencies in that spectrum are shifted.
4. A blue part of the spectrum that is shifted into the green is still
lower in frequency and so we still call it red-shifted, even though it
is not red.
5. The shift is due to the relative motion of the *star*, not the
light. The red light from a star doesn't shift differently than the
blue light from the same star, nor does it travel at a different speed
than the blue light from that star.

Does this help?