Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?
From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 11/03/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Physics as Metaphor"
- Previous message: Thierry: "about EPR and the way information travels"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:09:57 GMT
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:30:53 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:pp5fo05eahiutpm801jlqeumufm67r1tre@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:38:10 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Speaking of the rationale for the Pound Rebka experiment:
>> Well, let's wrap it up. As you say:
>> "But regardless of if you accept it or not the other derivations
>> (including the one I gave) all lead to the same result - the change in
>> frequency is proportional to the difference in potential - specially
>> delta f = (delta U)f0.
>>
>> From this we get f' = f(1-z) from a loss of energy (potential)
>>
>> and from Shapiro we get c' = c(1+z) on the way up
>
>Please detail that derivation and show how it impacts on the derivation I
>gave and the other derivations ie why we need to use that value of c in the
>non inertial frame rather than what is measured in an inertial frame. For
>example in my derivation because the velocity of the local inertial frame
>was small and gravity weak we can approximate ds2 = guv dxu dxv (1) by dx2 =
>g00 d02 where by defintion d0 = ct and co is the speed of light in an
>inertial frame. The derivation of (1) comes from in an inertial frame ds2 =
>ct2 - x2 -y2 - z2 and doing a transformation to new coordinates t', x', y'
>z' (that such is possible locally is the principle of equivalence). Since
>it is t', x', y' z' than is transformed the value of c is not affected.
>That is the reason the differing speed of light in the t', x', y' z'
>coordinate system is of no relevance - it does not appear when one does the
>transformation to get (1) - or in fact in any of the other fundamental
>equations of GR such as the EFE's.
>
>Bill
>
SNIP SNIP
Bill, Bill, look at the katzenjammer explanation you have written,
taken from what you know of general relativity to explain the Pound
Rebka experiment. This borders on incantation. What is the model?
Here's how it is done in Dual Space theory. The velocity of light is
reduced in a gravity field according to
dc/dr = MG/r^2c
which I derived from scratch. It means that c increases going out of
the well and in this case accounts for stretching the wavelength.
Furthermore, the frequency of the source signal remains the same. And
there is no time dilation.
So for a path h = 22.5 meters, we find dc given by:
dc = h* dc/dr = h*MG/r^2c = h*g/c = 7.3e-7 m/s
dc/c = h*g/c^2 = z = 2.45e-15
L = c/f
L' = (c + dc)/f = c(1+ dc/c)/f = c(1 + z)/f
The term hg/c^2 is identical to relativity's with the diffference that
gh is not a potential or an energy, which is a defective concept. h
simply multiplies the dc/dr derivative to stretch the wave. There is
no change in frequency. EM waves don't drop in gravity.
This same rule can be use to explain the Huyghens portion of
deflection by the Sun.
>
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Physics as Metaphor"
- Previous message: Thierry: "about EPR and the way information travels"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
