Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?

From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 11/04/04 

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:45:14 GMT

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:39:00 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:is9io09qd063oh4g297gmg261jc8brebqe@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
>The model is GR.
GR is not a model. It is a hypothetical hyperbolic 4space that is
expected to bend and twist when there's nothing there but vacuum.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Mind repating that deirvation here?
It is the solution of the Navier Stokes equation in what you might
call the quantum vacuum. It expresses acceleration in terms of
pressure gradients resulting from creation of our universe out of the
stuff of "quantum vacuum". It's the basis for Dual Space theory which
you apparently are not ready for.
>>
>> Furthermore, the frequency of the source signal remains the same. And
>> there is no time dilation.
>
>Then you violate exprimental fact.
There is no experimental fact. There is only experimental hypothesis.
You are sloppy enough to use frequency and lambda interchangeably but
there is a large difference because c is not constant. See your
citation below;
>>
>> 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
>
>Learn some kiddy math will you. We have from experiment (and my derivation
your what?
>and the derivations I linked you to -
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html)
 
Take a look yourself, and I'll give you a dollar apiece for every
instance of the word frequency you will find there in Wolframs
discussion of redshift..

>>delta f
>= (delta U/c2) f0 (where f0 is hte frequency in a local inertial frame, U
>is -GM/r so delta U is the difference between the top of the tower and the
>bottom and delta f is the change in frequency as it travels the distance of
>the tower.). This is derived from f/f0 = (1 + U/c^2) You claim L' =
>c(1+z)/f where according to your terminology L' is the wavelength, z is the
>U/r times h - whatever that is. But (according to you) L' = c/f' thus you
>have 1/f' = (1+z)/f or f = (1+z)f' (where you are rather vague what f' and f
>are) - and you define z = h MG/r^2c^2 - which is of course not -GM/rc^2 -
>what it is physically I have no idea.
>
>As usual you jumble incorrect concepts in the most atrocious way, use
>mathematics like a primary school student that has no idea what they are
>doing, and arrive at rubbish.
>
>Bill
>
>>
>> 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
>

If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Einsteins Principle of Equivalence true?
    ... >> GIANT SNIP ... >> Bill, Bill, look at the katzenjammer explanation you have written, ... stuff of "quantum vacuum". ... >> If you have nothing to say, write an essay ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Kwame Browns hands
    ... I was amazed to hear Bill criticize Luke ... dad would ever think about saying something like that. ... of the game, like Smush. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: K & K Vs Pick up the World
    ... >> Damn you, David Enke!! ... >> Bill Chandler ... "We need thousands of new songs these days: humor, to poke fun at some of ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Someone Else is Responsible
    ... > I wasn't thinking of who presented the bill to whom. ... > walk inches past a dead body and just leave it there. ... be a dangerous and unpleasant task, that safety precautions need to be taken ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: IM SELLING A FOLK ACOUSTIC GUITAR
    ... we, or rather I, would like to stop posting here. ... Bill Chandler ... Bill Chandler ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)