Faster than Light

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,

Let me guess that you meant may when you wrote my. Let me explain to those who are not as proficient in English as you that doctor is not just a title, in particular of a physician but to doctor something has the meaning of deliberately changing it, usually in order to deceive people.

Peter,

I share Akinbo's distrust in your explanation. Given you are correct, then you are not in position to logically present your reasoning step by step. Instead you wrote e.g. "wave peak one slows at point A while wave peak has not before reaching A, so the wavelength decreases" and "harmonic absorption effects".

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,

"Much theory is inconsistent with observation, so as observation gives us a consistent blue shift..."

I am unaware of any observation of frequency of light being increased as it approaches increasing gravity.

Perhaps, I should repeat my quote of Einstein here, pg.97 "the rate of a clock is accordingly slower the greater is the mass of the ponderable matter in its neighbourhood". [The corollary to which is that the rate of a clock is faster, the lesser is the mass of the ponderable matter in its neighbourhood]. I doubt anyone questions that gravity enhances and increases the amount of ponderable matter in its neighbourhood (including plasma density).

Eckard,

Yes you are right. What I meant is what you said. But perhaps I would change the word "deceive" to "impress in order to be acclaimed in Einsteiniana". I think this time Pound and Rebka must have made a typographical error typing increase instead of decrease. But in the euphoria no one seems to have noticed the contradiction between what Einstein's theory said and what Pound and Rebka wrote. It is strange there is no modern repeat of that experiment. I thought science was founded on replicability. Or is there a repeat I am unaware of?

Einstein's theory proposes time dilation directly proportional to amount of gravity, which as I mentioned before implies an increased period and thus a reduced frequency (redshift). Thats why in hypothesized black holes with intense gravity, time is infinitely dilated and slowed.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

The following model can explain the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment:

A javelin graduated in centimeters is thrown downwards from the top of a tower of height h. Initially the centimeter marks pass an observer at the top of the tower with frequency f, speed c (not the speed of light of course) and "wavelength" L (1cm):

f = c/L

What are the frequency f', speed c' and wavelength L' as measured by an observer on the ground? Newton's theory gives a straightforward answer (it is assumed that c>>c'-c):

f' = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L

c' = c(1+gh/c^2) = c+v

L' = L

where v=c'-c is the increase in speed.

Pentcho Valev

Thomas Ray

I have to commend you, Pentcho, for posting something of your own, and not cut-and-paste spamming.

Your solution is relativity's version of Zeno's arrow paradox.

Best,

Tom

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

Reformulate your model thus:

A javelin graduated in centimeters is thrown UPwards from the BOTTOM of a tower of height h. Initially the centimeter marks pass an observer at the BOTTOM of the tower with frequency f, speed c (not the speed of light of course) and "wavelength" L (1cm):

What are the frequency f', speed c' and wavelength L' as measured by an observer at the TOP?

When you do this, you find a blueshift is always measured by the observer, either at top or bottom of tower because the frequency shift you are focusing on is that due to approaching objects not the gravitational one under consideration in my post. With the one you are focused on there will be blueshift as you said, which is a Doppler effect. This differs from the gravitational shift. Probably, that's why you said the "...increase in frequency as light falls" that was stated in Pound and Rebka's paper was not an unintended Erratum which contradicts Einstein's theory (that frequency decreases due to gravity) which that paper written by Pound and Rebka was meant to buttress.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Brilliant Lectures in Divine Albert's World

If initially you advance the lie that, according to Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is the same for all observers - a constancy that Einstein adopted in his special relativity - then you could derive all sorts of breathtaking miracles and the gullible audience would reach any degree of ecstasy, up to tumbling to the floor, starting tearing their clothes and going into convulsions:

"Brian takes an audience, with the help of celebrity guests, on a journey into the wonderful universe of The Doctor, in a specially recorded programme from the lecture theatre of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Brian reveals the science behind the spectacle and explains the physics that allows Doctor Who to travel through space and time. Fun, but filled with real science, it's a special night for Who fans as well anyone with a thirst for understanding."

Imagine that Brian Cox had started his lecture in the following truthful way:

"According to both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory, the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the observer relative to the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c±v. Yet in Einstein's special relativity the speed of light became constant, independent of the speed of the observer (c'=c), and now I am going to derive the breathtaking consequences of this constancy..."

Would the lecture have been very successful without the initial lie?

Pentcho Valev

There are two fundamental lies in Divine Albert's world:

1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer.)

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.)

For some reason Brian Cox did not use the second lie in his brilliant lecture but in his brilliant bestseller he did:

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

99% of the Einsteinians fiercely teach the two fundamental lies:

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

Only 1% of the Einsteinians teach the truth about Maxwell's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations."

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Questions that keep Einsteinians up at night

Sabine Hossenfelder: "And then there are the night-time questions. (...) Does the past exist in the same way as the present? Does the future? Does a younger version of yourself still exist, just that you're not able to communicate with him (her), or is there something special about the present moment?"

If Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, the future already exists:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

As for the "younger version of yourself", Thibault Damour teaches that he/she exists as well but Sabine Hossenfelder is looking for more evidence:

Thibault Damour: "Or, en physique, au moins depuis Einstein, le passage du temps est une illusion. Nous pouvons, de façon quasi instantanée, voyager dans le temps ; faire par exemple un saut de millions d'années dans le "futur". Cette prédiction de la théorie de la relativité a été vérifiée expérimentalement en mettant des horloges dans des avions volant autour de la Terre ; à leur retour, elles ne marquaient pas la même heure que celles restées à terre. C'est ce qui explique aussi pourquoi nous recevons sur Terre des particules élémentaires à la durée de vie si courte qu'elles ne devraient jamais parvenir jusqu'à nous. Si le temps n'existe pas, comme le suggère la science, cela peut changer notre façon d'appréhender la mort... Bien sûr, cela n'évacue pas la réalité phénoménologique des traces du passage du temps, car, dans l'espace-temps einsteinien intemporel, il existe des copies de nous jeunes et des copies de nous vieux. On peut estimer que la science ne nous donne pas accès à "la réalité", mais seulement à un modèle mathématique de la réalité, mais on peut aussi (ce que je préfère) suivre ses suggestions quand elles indiquent une nouvelle vision philosophique de la réalité. La science, loin d'évacuer le mystère existentiel, ne fait que l'approfondir."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

If you are honest you should abstain from declaring Einstein a liar and his ideas wrong. You seem to believe that the experiments by Michelson and by Pound/Rebka are sufficient support for the emission theory.

You wrote: "If Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, the future already exists".

While I agree with you on that the future does not evidently exist in advance, I see no reason to question the constancy of the speed of light. I would like to remind you again on the endnotes of my last essay where I gave a definition of that speed which does not at all refer to velocities of either emitter or observer but only to relative to their each other belonging positions in space and to the time elapsed. So far you didn't deal with this definition which I consider also consistent with Michelson's null result.

What about P&R, Akinbo made us aware of a possibly wrong sign. I would appreciate a clarification. Anyway, I found a rather appealing calculation:

"Accelerometers placed at the top and bottom of the tower will measure an upward acceleration of 9.807m/s2 at the bottom and 9.806307 m/s2 at the top. The photons in this depiction all move at exactly C within the same inertial reference frame common to all other photons. The accelerometers clearly show that in the time (7.5052x10-8s) that it takes for the photons to travel between source and observer, both observers have accelerated upward to a velocity of .000000736m/s. This relative velocity between source and observer causes the descending photons to be measured with shorter wavelengths and the ascending photons to be measured with longer wavelengths by the amount of 2.455x10-15. This value rounds off to the 2.5x10-15 shifts measured by Pound and Rebka. ...

acceleration exists where it can't be measured (falling bodies) and it is measured where it doesn't exist (earth's surface)".

BTW, malheureusement je ne pas parle Francais. Could you please post English translations instead?

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

The two fundamental lies in Divine Albert's world in Brian Greene's bestseller:

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same."

1. There was no "variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s" and confirming the constancy of the speed of light. Rather, in 1887 (prior to the advancement of the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis by Fitzgerald and Lorentz) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

James H. Smith, "Introduction à la relativité", édition française dirigée par Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source. (...) Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT INDÉPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPÉRIMENTALE."

2. Maxwell's theory did not predict that "even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less". Rather, this theory predicted that the speed of light as measured by the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Pentcho Valev

Deserters from Einsteiniana's sinking ship:

What If Einstein Was Wrong? Brian Clegg, Jim Al-Khalili: "It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Einstein could get it wrong, because science is not about absolute truth..."

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..." ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein." "C'est pas la vôtre?" ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

Leaving the sinking ship is not easy.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard, Pentcho et al,

For your enjoyment... English translation of Einstein's 1911 paper, On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light which was used as the basis for Pound and Rebka's experiment...

Excerpts, pg.903 [link:www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf]"...If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates CO, then the velocity of light C at a location with the gravitation potential will be given by the relation[/link]

C = CO(1 + ф/C2)

...where ф the gravitational potential is -GM/r

Therefore as a FACT in Einsteiniana, notwithstanding wrong interpretation of Divine Albert,

1. C is not equal to CO.

2. The "velocity of light at a location (read our planet Earth) with the gravitational potential -GM/r will be given by C (299792458m/s as measured).

3. CO is more than C.

4. The velocity of light is not the same everywhere but depends on ф.

5. What is the value of CO?

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, by A. Einstein. Annalen der Physik, 35, pp. 898-908, 1911: "...If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c_o, then the velocity of light c at a location with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c = c_o(1+phi/c^2)."

Einstein had plagiarized this (correct) equation from Newton's emission theory of light - his purpose in the 1911 paper was to camouflage this fact and confuse the whole issue by introducing his idiotic "gravitational time dilation".

Then in the final 1915 version of general relativity the speed of light in a gravitational field became two times more variable than the speed of ordinary matter - the correct equation c = c_o(1+phi/c^2) was replaced by the absurd equation c = c_o(1+2phi/c^2). This greater variability of the speed of light predicted by general relativity is a grand secret between knowledgeable Einsteinians - I have found only a few references on internet, e.g. this one:

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Most Einsteinians neither know nor care about the greater variability of the speed of light predicted by Einstein's general relativity. They just teach that the speed of light in a gravitational field is constant and that's it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

Stephen Hawking, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Looking at the issues...

1."Einstein had plagiarized this (correct) equation from Newton's emission theory of light - his purpose in the 1911 paper was to camouflage this fact and confuse the whole issue by introducing his idiotic "gravitational time dilation"

Newton also claimed to have stood on the shoulder of giants so lets not crucify Einstein with plagiarism. One other reason is that Newton's ideas of gravitation did not include the possibility that gravity redshifts light in proportion to the amount of gravity. Redshift means frequency reduction. And frequency reduction means increased period, as f = 1/T. So time dilation by gravity (GR) is not idiotic as redshift has been experimentally verified, notwithstanding any typo/error in Pound and Rebka's experiment. Here, I am not talking of the time dilation of SR, which may be idiotic.

2.Then on the factor of two in later equations, I think this arose when both sides of the equation are squared. Usually, time t in remote gravitationally flat space and time tф where the gravitational potential is ф is used and

t = tф(1 + ф/C2)

becomes

t2 = tф2(1 + 2ф/C2 + ф2/C4).

The term, ф2/C4 is very tiny, so we can write

t2 = tф2(1 + 2ф/C2.

From this you can re-arrange and substitute with frequency and light velocity.

3. Even though, Einstein shared Newton's particle/corpuscular/emission theory he was not as dogmatic. In the paper we are discussing you will see on pg. 903/904 that in discussing gravitational bending, he says, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location, we may easily infer, by means of Huygens's principle, that light-rays propagated across a gravitational field undergo deflection. For let ε be a wave front of a plane light-wave at the time t,..."

4. On Steve Carlip, Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, etc. These are disciples. Let us concentrate on what "Divine" Albert actually had in mind and said. He was also who was ready to reverse himself if need be and did so occasionally.

Albert himself in his lifetime disowned what many of his followers were misinterpreting and I think in one of your posts you provided a link to a write up where Lee Smolin mentioned this.

5. Since there seems to be agreement that the equation, [ C = CO(1 + ф/C2)], is correct, and we know for earth, G, M and r (ф = -GM/r), what is the velocity of light, CO where the slowing effect of gravity is negligible? I give a figure 299792458.2087m/s.

6. Further developments of this theme lead us to the fact that the value 299792458m/s is local. If you remember Galileo's ship you will eventually deduce that in a ship, the frame of motion of the ship does not affect the arrival times within the ship. That is Galilean relativity.

7. Rather than being idle talk, when you send a two-way signal from earth to a space ship in distant space, the signal will be returning to you faster than you envisaged with the local value of C, because it must increasingly travel at a speed nearer and nearer CO. If you do a rough calculation you find that this effect corresponds quantitatively to the Pioneer Anomaly, which in frustration has been written off as due to thermal heat loss. It will always be there, even when heat loss is taken care off.

8. It is my take that since the dogma over C permeates the Quantum and Classical domains, once this dogma is gotten rid off, unification should be in sight which is why physicists should for a moment leave their domains, resolve this then get back to work in their specialties.

Regards,

Akinbo

[deleted]

Akinbo,

Thank you for further confusing me. Einstein wrote:

"a light-ray passing by a heavenly body suffers a deflection to the side of the diminishing gravitational potential, that is, to the side directed toward the heavenly body"

but he also wrote

"A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection ... "The angular distance of the star from the center of the Sun appears to be increased".

Isn't the gravitational potential diminishing with increasing distance from the sun? Can (attractive) deflection toward the sun increase the angular distance?

I noticed that Einstein quoted already observed redshift.

How reliable is the translation? I noticed Radioac and Electronik.

With negative gravitational potential c is smaller than c_0. Pentcho is wrong.

Eckard

[deleted]

Eckard,

"A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection ... "The angular distance of the star from the center of the Sun appears to be increased".

"Can (attractive) deflection toward the sun increase the angular distance?"

I should think so. The line of sight or apparent position of the star would be higher up than its real position due to the bending.

"Isn't the gravitational potential diminishing with increasing distance from the sun?"

Yes, you are correct. Taking together with the remaining part of the sentence and all the other statements, we can interpret Einstein as meaning "a light-ray passing by a heavenly body suffers a deflection to the side of the increasing gravitational potential, that is, to the side directed toward the heavenly body".

If your German is good you can take a look and compare with the translation.

"With negative gravitational potential c is smaller than c_0. Pentcho is wrong".

I don't think Pentcho has considered the issues concerning what he himself has called in his statement, "...this (correct) equation" and where this equation must lead. I will try to post soon my view on Pentcho's preferred emission theory and the further implications of "...this correct equation".

To me this must lead to "physics being local" as Tom Ray frequently states even though having said this in the next breadth he wants the local C to be a global value. I then wonder what Tom will say to Einstein's categorical claim "that the velocity of light in the gravitational field IS a function of the location". Also in a way, this supports Peter J who says light speed becomes localized, even if he labors too hard to explain this by a mechanism of absorption and re-emission at a speed that can only be 299792458m/s.

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho et al,

I have questions for emission theory...

Considering that you agree that [link:www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf], pg. 903, C = CO(1 + ф/C2)[/link]

is a "(correct) equation from Newton's emission theory of light", where ф the gravitational potential is -GM/r

have you observed that this represents another difficulty for emission/ corpuscular/ photon theory?

This 'correct' equation shows that unlike matter particles, light speed reduces as it falls in a gravitational field as CO > C.

When you add this to the fact that unlike matter particles, light speed is independent of the velocity of its source; multiple reflections don't slow light speed and light speed increases on emergence from say water to air without any discernible source of energy, perhaps you will like to re-appraise emission theory?

The ONLY evidence I know which is the photo-electric effect is also experimentally questioned by ?Fred .. in a loading theory somewhere on this site.

The particle picture of light is a major plank on which Quantum mystery and paradoxes rest, e.g. the two-slit experimental paradox of a particle being in two places at once, etc. Resolving light's nature will therefore help unify physics.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

The emission theory can be defined as the set of all consequences of the following two postulates:

1. The principle of relativity is correct.

2. The speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

The equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies in the gravitational field of the earth is one of those consequences.

The +/- problem that bothers you is insignificant - you could use c'=c(1-gh/c^2) if you wish provided you define h so that both the speed and the frequency increase as the light falls towards the source of gravity.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

"1. The principle of relativity is correct."

There are two variants of the principle, Galilean relativity and Special relativity. I suspect your sympathy is with the former, with which I have no disagreement.

"2. The speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v."

Here, there is a problem. Imagine a machine gun mounted on the bonnet of your car. As you drive at velocity, v there is no relative velocity between you the driver (observer) and the machine gun (the emitter).

When the bullets start firing, they will be hitting you faster when you are driving forward, and a bit later after each received gunshot if you are reversing.

However, for light this is not so. A light pole emitting light (emitter) and a stationary observer, even though both are moving at speed, v, the earth velocity do not experience this. That is the observer cannot know if he is driving towards the light or reversing from the light. That is the crux of the problem.

This leaves us with the choice that we either embrace a wave theory for explanation or the Special theory of relativity. An emission theory for light does not resolve the problem as light did not behave like bullets when both emitter and observer are moving at the same velocity.

3."The equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies in the gravitational field of the earth is one of those consequences. Well we are both agreement that it varies, unlike Hawking's reference you quoted. But the +/- issue should not be swept under the carpet. It is significant and illuminating whether light behaves in the instant case as an emitted particle falling in a gravitational field or as a wave. Light frequency increase is the opposite of period reduction. It is redshift, i.e. frequency reduction towards the source of gravity that is established and called "time dilation", a period increase. f = 1/T. Speed reduces towards the source of gravity which is why velocity of light in gravitationally "free space" is higher than in a gravitational field. And frequency reduces as well (redshift/ time dilation).

What do you favour particle behaviour for light over wave theory?

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

I am sorry for the many typos in my last post, although I think my meaning is conveyed.

Our mutually correct equation, plagiarized or not by Einstein and attributed to Newton is C = CO(1 + ф/C2).

There is no equivocation about +/-. If there is we both can no longer call it correct.

ф is -GM/r and if you like, you can substitute with g,

g = GM/r2.

Note that g is however not taken as a universal constant.

We are both in agreement that the speed of light varies in the gravitational field of the earth. The significance of the +/- is to guide us how that speed varies and its direction. The +/- should not be manipulated or defined towards a preferred direction for frequency or speed variation. h is the height in the gravitational field and has no direction, what gives the direction is whether light is falling or rising in the gravitational field even if travelling h in both situations.

This our correct equation (Eq.3, pg.903), including in the form c'= c(1-gh/c^2) if you wish shows us the direction of increase or decrease. As the light falls towards the source of gravity,

- speed reduces, i.e. c > c'. According to Einstein, (same link), "...the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location"

- period, T is increased(time is dilated)

- frequency, f = 1/T reduces (redshifted)

If we both agree on these there are further far reaching, self-evident and subtle consequences into the classical and quantum domains.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

Falling towards the gravity source always implies INCREASE in speed and frequency (this is more than obvious so to claim the opposite is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5):

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

Thanks for engaging in this dialectic and for the references.

Yes, 2+2 will equal 5, if light is assumed to be an object and not a wave. Objects fall, waves are propagated.

"...a falling object will increase ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING". I fully agree.So I fully agree with "WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT" if, and only if, light is also an object. The question is, is light falling or is it propagated? That is why I am challenging you to prove to me that light is an object, then we will be on the same page. I already used the machine gun (emitter) and bullet analogy to show light behaviour is different from that of an object when an earth-based observer and emitter are moving but stationary to each other.

Do you agree that gravity slows light transit? If you do, the more the gravity, then the more the slowing of light transit?, and light may even 'stand still' in the extreme gravity of hypothesized black holes.

Apart from photo-electricity what other evidence do you have that light is an object?

RE: "Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Does gravity increase the Period or reduce the period? That is, is it escaping or entering a gravitational field that results in time dilation?

With these, I hope to persuade you to give the wave picture a more favourable consideration over emission theory.

Akinbo

« Previous Page Next Page »