EINSTEINIANS WILL UNMASK EINSTEIN

**The Ghost In The Machine**

In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:27:51 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.logic, Dirk Van de moortel
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:10:14 GMT
| :
|
| "Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
|
| ********************************
| * Walker's Rating *
| * ---------------------- *
| * *
| * [1] Pertinence : 8 *
| * [2] Content : 6 *
| * [3] Quality : 5 *
| * [4] Fairness : 5 *
| * [5] Utility : 7 *
| * [6] Etiquette : 8 *
| * [7] Accuracy : 6 *
| * [8] Novelty : 7 *
| * [9] Intrigue : 7 *
| * [x] Brilliance : 7 *
| * *
| * Total == 66 *
| * *
| *******************************
|
| Researcher
|
| Hey, I thought you had said Goodbye.
| Luckily I predicted you'd be back in a few weeks:
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...bb93f23067cada
| You are early and you haven't changed your name yet :-)
|
| By the way, we still don't top-post here.
|
| * Anticipated Walker's Rating
| * ----------------------------------
| *
| * [1] Pertinence : 10
| * [2] Content : 1
| * [3] Quality : 10
| * [4] Fairness : 10
| * [5] Utility : 10
| * [6] Etiquette : 10
| * [7] Accuracy : 10
| * [8] Novelty : 10
| * [9] Intrigue : 10
| * [x] Brilliance : 10
| *
| * Total == 91
|
| Dirk Vdm
|
|
|
| Next time would you two please use a monospaced font like Courier?
| The numbers are making me seasick.
|
| :-)

Next time would you please shut the **** up? Your one-liners make
me puke :-)

Oh, the horror of AndroclesPuke(tm). Does it glow a
virulent green and move on its own, or does it just eat
through the floor?

Oh wait... you do for a working week, I'll tolerate your stupidity for
a weekend even if you've forgotten the thread.

Oh, and you failed to notice you control the font. Or perhaps
you can't in Linux (triple whammy - ouch).

Were I to bother I might consider using Pan. Linux doesn't do
newsreaders; it's a kernel. (Of course there's lots of stuff
on top of it, making distros such as Ubuntu, Red Hat, SuSe, Gentoo, etc.
very useful and powerful tools indeed. But that's probably argued
better in comp.os.linux.advocacy.)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

**Androcles**

**Len Gaasenbeek**

"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary altitude --1 pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them accelerated on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be higher, thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high altitude
clock.

Richard Perry
.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. ..............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.
.................................................. ..............

RP

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary altitude --1 pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them accelerated on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be higher, thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high altitude
clock.

Richard Perry
.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry

**Len Gaasenbeek**

"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure
that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition
and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of
variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary altitude --1
pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them accelerated
on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be higher,
thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

.................................................. .....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the
pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the
ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .................
To Richard Perry,

I consider the earth 'fixed' together with its earth's bound observer.
In other words, I am no different from anyone else who writes on the
subject.

Please stop confusing the issue with your silly questions, since my time is
too valuable to waste on irrelevances.

Len Gaasenbeek.
.................................................. ................

RP

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure
that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition
and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of
variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary altitude --1
pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them accelerated
on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be higher,
thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the
pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the
ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry
.................................................. ................
To Richard Perry,

I consider the earth 'fixed' together with its earth's bound observer.
In other words, I am no different from anyone else who writes on the
subject.

Please stop confusing the issue with your silly questions, since my time is
too valuable to waste on irrelevances.

I don't give a damn about your time, and apparently neither do you, or
you wouldn't be here.
If you can't qualify and/or quantify your statements, then please keep
them to yourself so that you aren't wasting everyone elses time.

Richard Perry

**Len Gaasenbeek**

"RP" wrote in message
ps.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the
time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process
Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely
sure
that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial
intuition
and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma?
The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency
shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of
variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves
no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other
hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as
they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct
deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary
altitude --1
pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them
accelerated
on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be
higher,
thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high
altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the
pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the
ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you
assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry
.................................................. ................
To Richard Perry,

I consider the earth 'fixed' together with its earth's bound observer.
In other words, I am no different from anyone else who writes on the
subject.

Please stop confusing the issue with your silly questions, since my time
is
too valuable to waste on irrelevances.

I don't give a damn about your time, and apparently neither do you, or
you wouldn't be here.
If you can't qualify and/or quantify your statements, then please keep
them to yourself so that you aren't wasting everyone elses time.

Richard Perry
.................................................. ....................
To Richard,

"Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now - always."
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)
French Protestant theologian, philosopher, physician, and musician.
Out of My Life and Thought.

Len.
.................................................. ....................

RP

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ps.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the
time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process
Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely
sure
that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial
intuition
and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma?
The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency
shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of
variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves
no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other
hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as
they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct
deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary
altitude --1
pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them
accelerated
on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be
higher,
thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high
altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the
pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the
ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you
assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry
.................................................. ................
To Richard Perry,

I consider the earth 'fixed' together with its earth's bound observer.
In other words, I am no different from anyone else who writes on the
subject.

Please stop confusing the issue with your silly questions, since my time
is
too valuable to waste on irrelevances.

I don't give a damn about your time, and apparently neither do you, or
you wouldn't be here.
If you can't qualify and/or quantify your statements, then please keep
them to yourself so that you aren't wasting everyone elses time.

Richard Perry
.................................................. ...................
To Richard,

"Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now - always."
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)
French Protestant theologian, philosopher, physician, and musician.
Out of My Life and Thought.

The truth of any conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises used
to derive it. Assumptions taken as premises can sometimes lead to true
conclusions, even though as the case may be the premises are false.
Example:

Mary is six feet tall.
People six feet tall must stoop to pass through the doorway leading
into the attic space.
Conclusion, Mary must stoop to pass through the doorway.

As it so happens mary is only 5 feet tall, meaning that the first
premise is false, but the conclusion that she must stoop to pass
through the doorway is nevertheless true, since the door is only 4 feet
high.

The photon is such an assumption, even so, it can be used to derive
correct conclusions, since it has been adjusted in its properties by
theorists to that very end.

Richard Perry

RP

RP wrote:
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ps.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the
time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process
Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor
approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely
sure
that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial
intuition
and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful
intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the
approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma?
The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency
shift
factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of
variability
of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves
no
suspicious approximations at all:

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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
where
the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other
hand,
their
honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as
they
manage
to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct
deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT - FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION - FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

Variable speed of light doesn't produce a Frequency shift.
Try dropping a series of pebbles from an arbitrary
altitude --1
pebble
per second. Wrt you these will strike the ground at the same
frequency,
i.e. at 1 pebble per second, even though each of them
accelerated
on
the way down. Wrt a ground obsever the frequency will be
higher,
thus
requiring a ticking rate offset of his clock wrt the high
altitude
clock.

Richard Perry

.................................................. ....................
To Richard Perry,

Your statement above is not true. The frequency at which the
pebbles
fall
will be the same for the person that dropped them as well as the
ground
observer which receives them.

Len Gaasenbeek.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

Richard Perry
.................................................. .............
To Richard Perry,

Read my Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Len Gaasenbeek.

I read the relevent article on your sight. It was irrelevant. Slower
muons decay faster. This is the conclusion of special relativity and
also your conclusion. The difference is that you are attempting to
relate the faster decay rate to a change in the internal processess
that vary in form with speed of the particle, whereas special
relativity does not relate the faster decay rate to the internal
processes per se, but rather to the change in their rate of
progression. From what frame are you referencing the speed of the
muons? Do these absolute internal processes of yours dissappear wrt an
observer moving at near c wrt the "stopped" muons? Or are you
assuming
motion wrt a fixed aether?

Richard Perry
.................................................. ................
To Richard Perry,

I consider the earth 'fixed' together with its earth's bound observer.
In other words, I am no different from anyone else who writes on the
subject.

Please stop confusing the issue with your silly questions, since my time
is
too valuable to waste on irrelevances.

I don't give a damn about your time, and apparently neither do you, or
you wouldn't be here.
If you can't qualify and/or quantify your statements, then please keep
them to yourself so that you aren't wasting everyone elses time.

Richard Perry
.................................................. ...................
To Richard,

"Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now - always."
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)
French Protestant theologian, philosopher, physician, and musician.
Out of My Life and Thought.

The truth of any conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises used
to derive it. Assumptions taken as premises can sometimes lead to true
conclusions, even though as the case may be the premises are false.
Example:

Mary is six feet tall.
People six feet tall must stoop to pass through the doorway leading
into the attic space.
Conclusion, Mary must stoop to pass through the doorway.

As it so happens mary is only 5 feet tall, meaning that the first
premise is false, but the conclusion that she must stoop to pass
through the doorway is nevertheless true, since the door is only 4 feet
high.

The photon is such an assumption, even so, it can be used to derive
correct conclusions, since it has been adjusted in its properties by
theorists to that very end.

Richard Perry

I didn't finish the above. What I was getting at is that there is a
differnece between deduction and induction. The former, if the premises
are true, will always yeild a true conclusion. The latter will
sometimes yeild true conclusions, and sometimes false conclusions.
Given even a single false premise early on in an extensive logical
chain of arguments, the entirety of the resultant "theory" will become
a tangled web of deciet, even if unintentionally, and though seeming on
the surface to be consistent it will have, if chased far enough,
insurmountable contradictions inherent in it. In the present state of
physics these contradictions are all regarded as simply "open
questions." Sooner or later these will be answered with yet further
assumptions, translated as a continuation of the web of deciet and
obfuscation. Assumptions will increase the likelihood of incorrectness
at a logarithmic rate, literally.

Richard Perry

**Henri Wilson**

On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP" wrote:

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time
dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein
replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that
this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and
sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful intellects
have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the approximation
1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The
inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift factor
1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability of
the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no
suspicious approximations at all:

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<