Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377066 > unrolled thread

Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 13:34 -0800
    Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:16 -0800
      Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 13:57 +1100
    Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 00:03 -0800
      Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 05:30 -0800
      Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 11:21 -0800
        Re: Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 01:48 -0800

#377066 — Variable Speed of Light, No Gravitational Waves

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf 
 David Tong: "The rocket has height h. It starts from rest, and moves with constant acceleration g. Light emitted from the top of the rocket is received below. By this time, the rocket is travelling at speed v=gt=gh/c. This gives rise to the Doppler effect. (Neglecting relativistic effects). f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), where f' is received frequency and f is emitted frequency."

Since f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength), we have

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light relative to the receiver (the bottom of the rocket).

Clearly the speed of light (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity. This means that David Tong's subsequent derivation of gravitational time dilation is invalid. There is no gravitational time dilation, and accordingly there are no gravitational waves.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377071

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Regurgitated lies and baloney]

His stupidly pathetic denial of copious experimental evidence is a serious
mental disease.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377075

On 25/02/2016 1:16 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> [Regurgitated lies and baloney]
>
> His stupidly pathetic denial of copious experimental evidence is a serious
> mental disease.
>

Not to mention his failure to notice an important caveat that's stated 
right there: "(Neglecting relativistic effects)"

That is, we can refute relativity by ignoring it.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377166

Clever Einsteinians know that there is no gravitational time dilation:

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relativity-and-its-roots-banesh-hoffmann-0486406768 
 Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf 
 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."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

And since there is no gravitational time dilation, there are no gravitational waves either.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377193

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:03:16 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Clever Einsteinians know that there is no gravitational time dilation:

Sorry, old boy, but Shapiro delay refutes your baseless assertion:

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1966891_Improved_Test_of_General_Relativity_with_Radio_Doppler_Data_from_the_Cassini_Spacecraft


> http://www.printsasia.com/book/relativity-and-its-roots-banesh-hoffmann-0486406768 
>  Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in
> the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light
> pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all
> the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the
> ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor
> clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as
> I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational
> red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks.
> It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time
> in the presence of gravitation."
> 
> What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence
> of gravitation? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling
> objects do, and this variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's
> emission theory of light causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

Unfortunately for your ignorant and baseless assertions, ignoramus, reality
(i.e., experimental evidence) refutes them.

> And since there is no gravitational time dilation,

Wrong again, ignorant yammerhead, reality refutes your foolish opinions.

> there are no gravitational waves either.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

But there ARE gravitational waves as demonstrated.  Both gravitational time
dilation AND gravitational waves have been experimentally confirmed.  Too
bad you continue to yammer nonsense instead of behaving like someone who
has a competent mind.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377363

http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/205 
 "If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. Together they knit together to create a spacetime fabric that pervades the universe. This notion of time as a dynamic, flexible dimension forms the basis of his immensely successful general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity manifests on cosmic scales as matter warps spacetime. On the other hand, however, the equally celebrated theory of quantum mechanics, which governs the nanoscale behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, says that time is unaffected by the presence of matter, serving as an absolute background reference clock against which motion can be measured."

Do those who believe in quantum mechanics hail LIGO's "discovery" of gravitational waves? Yes, yes, yes! There is money for everybody.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
 "...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."

The consensus in physics is that space and time are independent of gravity? Yet gravitational waves do exist? LIGO's discovery is great? John Norton? John Norton:

http://www.infonetworkmarketing.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ignoranza-paure.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377390

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498 
 "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

Then the gravitational waves "discovered" by LIGO disprove standard quantum theory? Einsteinians? Quantum theorists?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Is now quantum mechanics the loser, after LIGO so gloriously "discovered" gravitational waves? Einsteinians? Quantum theorists? Two Einsteinians and one quantum theorist:

http://images.tmcnet.com/tmc/misc/articles/image/2015/featured/burying-heads-in-sand-shutterstock.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web