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

********************************
* 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


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
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




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

"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

Yes Buddy, I'm back.
I couldn't go either back or forth in time anyway.

Researcher

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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





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

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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





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


OK

Researcher

"Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
Yes Buddy, I'm back.
I couldn't go either back or forth in time anyway.

Researcher




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

"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.
.................................................. ...................

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

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.

:-)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

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

"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 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).