Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/03/04 

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:39:00 GMT

"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.

>
> 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?

>
> Furthermore, the frequency of the source signal remains the same. And
> there is no time dilation.

Then you violate exprimental fact.

>
> 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
and the derivations I linked you to -
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html) 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

Relevant Pages