Henri Wilson wrote:
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
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.

This is too hard for a relativists to understand, Len. They rely on fairies to
eat up the missing pebbles.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for observers
at the origin and on the ground.

The frequency is constant for both observers, but they don't measure
the same frequency.

The distance between pebbles increases as they
accelerate.
However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number of
crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble speed

Sure, but the two observers will not measure the same frequency of
crystals passing by.
Light is a series of waves whose maxima are not mechanically coupled
together, and the pebble frequency is thus a better analogy. In the
case of the individual crystals of the pebble, there are
electromagnetic binding forces to consider. The tendency of gravity is
to stretch the crystal along the vertical direction, because the
gravitational force is slightly greater on the bottom of the pebble
than the top. The electromagnetic forces prevent the separation of the
crystals within the pebble. That's too hard for you to understand
though.


Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at a rate
of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per second.
However because the pulses accelerate slightly on the way down, the frequency
of the individual photons that make up the pulses will also be slightly
blue-shifted.

In which case there would be no gravitational clock ticking rate
offset. Just because relativists in general tend to ascribe the
gravitational redshift to a decrease in the energy of the photons on
their way out of a gravitational well, this doesn't make it an actual
prediction of the theory. Light is massless, and thus has no
gravitational potential to alter.

My theory says that, as with the pebbles, the photons themselves do not stretch
although the average 'spacing between photons' increases.

My theory says that there are no photons to stretch. The wavelength
will increase. A simple model can be formulated using sound waves
propagating upward or downward through the atmosphere. If the detector
is at rest wrt the source, the latter of which is at a high altitude
and the former on the ground, then the wavelength will change over
their course, but no frequency shift will be detected. Thus the only
way to get a frequency shift wrt the two observers in this situation is
to have the observers clocks tick at different rates. They will then
measure different frequencies of the same wave.

Richard Perry




Richard Perry


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP" wrote:
| Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?
|
| The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for
observers
| at the origin and on the ground. The distance between pebbles increases as
they
| accelerate.
| However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number of
| crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble
speed.
|
| Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at a
rate
| of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per
second.

****ing nonsense.
Rate of emission is not rate of reception or there would be no shift,
****ing stupid wabo, and in any event what you describe would
be blue shift.

On 1 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "RP" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
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
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.

This is too hard for a relativists to understand, Len. They rely on fairies to
eat up the missing pebbles.

Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?

The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for observers
at the origin and on the ground.

The frequency is constant for both observers, but they don't measure
the same frequency.

In your ****ing dreams.

The distance between pebbles increases as they
accelerate.
However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number of
crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble speed

Sure, but the two observers will not measure the same frequency of
crystals passing by.

Who said?

Light is a series of waves whose maxima are not mechanically coupled
together, and the pebble frequency is thus a better analogy. In the
case of the individual crystals of the pebble, there are
electromagnetic binding forces to consider. The tendency of gravity is
to stretch the crystal along the vertical direction, because the
gravitational force is slightly greater on the bottom of the pebble
than the top. The electromagnetic forces prevent the separation of the
crystals within the pebble. That's too hard for you to understand
though.

It's too negligible to worry about.

Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at a rate
of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per second.
However because the pulses accelerate slightly on the way down, the frequency
of the individual photons that make up the pulses will also be slightly
blue-shifted.

In which case there would be no gravitational clock ticking rate
offset.

It doesn't exist.

Just because relativists in general tend to ascribe the
gravitational redshift to a decrease in the energy of the photons on
their way out of a gravitational well, this doesn't make it an actual
prediction of the theory. Light is massless, and thus has no
gravitational potential to alter.

Whether it is massless or not, it accelerates down a a gravity well like
anything else.

My theory says that, as with the pebbles, the photons themselves do not stretch
although the average 'spacing between photons' increases.

My theory says that there are no photons to stretch. The wavelength
will increase. A simple model can be formulated using sound waves
propagating upward or downward through the atmosphere.
]
so you think light is like sound, eh?


If the detector
is at rest wrt the source, the latter of which is at a high altitude
and the former on the ground, then the wavelength will change over
their course, but no frequency shift will be detected.


There will be no frequency shift in the case of a generated radio signal but
individual photons that make up a light beam WILL accelerate and therefore show
a frequency increase.....frequency being the rate at which the intrinsic
'nodes' of the photon pass the observer.


Thus the only
way to get a frequency shift wrt the two observers in this situation is
to have the observers clocks tick at different rates. They will then
measure different frequencies of the same wave.

Clocks are not affected by velocity changes and any change in rate in different
gravity potentials is an indication that the clock has actually physically
changed.


Richard Perry




Richard Perry


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:51:29 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP" wrote:
| Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?
|
| The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for
observers
| at the origin and on the ground. The distance between pebbles increases as
they
| accelerate.
| However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number of
| crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble
speed.
|
| Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at a
rate
| of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per
second.

****ing nonsense.
Rate of emission is not rate of reception or there would be no shift,
****ing stupid wabo, and in any event what you describe would
be blue shift.

Oh!

Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:51:29 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP" wrote:
| | Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?
| |
| | The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for
| observers
| | at the origin and on the ground. The distance between pebbles increases
as
| they
| | accelerate.
| | However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number
of
| | crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble
| speed.
| |
| | Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at
a
| rate
| | of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per
| second.
|
| ****ing nonsense.
| Rate of emission is not rate of reception or there would be no shift,
| ****ing stupid wabo, and in any event what you describe would
| be blue shift.
|
| Oh!
|
| Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?

Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
between you ever will.
Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling back.
Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
is slowed.
****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
You DO understand v = at?
It doesn't get more basic than that.
Androcles

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:51:29 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP" wrote:
| | Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?
| |
| | The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for
| observers
| | at the origin and on the ground. The distance between pebbles increases
as
| they
| | accelerate.
| | However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the number
of
| | crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble
| speed.
| |
| | Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground at
a
| rate
| | of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1 per
| second.
|
| ****ing nonsense.
| Rate of emission is not rate of reception or there would be no shift,
| ****ing stupid wabo, and in any event what you describe would
| be blue shift.
|
| Oh!
|
| Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?

Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
between you ever will.
Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling back.
Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
is slowed.

Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling towardsa
a planet.

****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
You DO understand v = at?
It doesn't get more basic than that.

You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]


Clocks are not affected by velocity changes and any change in rate in different
gravity potentials is an indication that the clock has actually physically
changed.

Hafele-Keating, retard.

[...]

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:51:29 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On 29 Oct 2006 06:00:20 -0800, "RP"
wrote:
| | | Then how would you explain the gravitational red shift?
| | |
| | | The number of pebbles reaching the ground per second is the same for
| | observers
| | | at the origin and on the ground. The distance between pebbles
increases
| as
| | they
| | | accelerate.
| | | However, if the pebbles have a distinct 'crystaline grain', the
number
| of
| | | crystals reaching the GO per second increases with individual pebble
| | speed.
| | |
| | | Thus, if a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards the ground
at
| a
| | rate
| | | of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at the same rate of 1
per
| | second.
| |
| | ****ing nonsense.
| | Rate of emission is not rate of reception or there would be no shift,
| | ****ing stupid wabo, and in any event what you describe would
| | be blue shift.
| |
| | Oh!
| |
| | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
|
| Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| between you ever will.
| Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling back.
| Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| is slowed.
|
| Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
towardsa
| a planet.

Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of the
line.
But anyway, we agree light falls.
Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
and
the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?

| ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| You DO understand v = at?
| It doesn't get more basic than that.
|
| You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..

You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
Measured speed of light:
299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.
Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all relativists
do.
Tell him I said so.
Androcles

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"



| |
| | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
|
| Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| between you ever will.
| Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling back.
| Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| is slowed.
|
| Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
towardsa
| a planet.

Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of the
line.

The computer did that, not I.

But anyway, we agree light falls.
Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
and
the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?

Not much, actually.

| ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| You DO understand v = at?
| It doesn't get more basic than that.
|
| You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..

You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
Measured speed of light:
299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.

The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10. It is mesurable.

Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all relativists
do.
Tell him I said so.

Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS clock
in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how to
perform simple integrations.

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

To all,

The rate (frequency) at which the pebbles are dropped and the rate at which
they reach their target remains the same as long as all the pebbles are
exposed to the same gravitational force over the same path length.

However the speed at which they hit the earth gets greater the higher the
distance from which the pebbles are dropped. But since whatever happens to
any one pebble happens to all the others, the frequency at which they hit
the target remains the same. That is to say, if one pebble is released each
second, one pebble will hit the earth each second.

The above is based on simple logic, 'relativity' doesn't come into it.

Len Gaasenbeek.
..............................................
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"



| |
| | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
|
| Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| between you ever will.
| Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
back.
| Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| is slowed.
|
| Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
towardsa
| a planet.

Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
the
line.

The computer did that, not I.

But anyway, we agree light falls.
Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
and
the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?

Not much, actually.

| ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| You DO understand v = at?
| It doesn't get more basic than that.
|
| You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..

You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
Measured speed of light:
299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.

The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10. It is mesurable.

Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
relativists
do.
Tell him I said so.

Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
clock
in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how to
perform simple integrations.

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.