"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."

This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field...

view entire post

"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."

This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field (light falls like any material object), not to "changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks":

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..."

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."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

To All,

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the...

view entire post

To All,

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]

CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)

Wherein it is stated "actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination.":

YES, according and consistent with CIG, the "did something" was to slow the "real" probabalistic wave function and to collapse it. To observe interferes sufficiently and truly so that the probability (in all actuality there is a new and real spatial volume that was created as a result of the motion of the particle) collapses into the defined observation (customarily on the screen in the double slit, or before that if obbservation posts are placed in between the slits and the screen. Anytime the wave slows, it will become the smaller identifiable particle. Prior to observation, it travels at great speeds and its spatial qualities are manifested. It has become its larger spatial self. The correspondence between quantum and classical reality relies on the fact that quantum is in motion and classical is zero %"c". Quantum is classical at zero velocity. MTS

THX

doug (www.cigtheory.com)

view post as summary

Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post

Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein’s theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein’s namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein’s equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale’s theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe’s expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten’s M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

view post as summary

Professor Caslav Brukner:



I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to “time dilation” or “relativistic time” We first should know what it is time

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why...

view entire post

Professor Caslav Brukner:



I will refer not to the whole of your article, but only to “time dilation” or “relativistic time” We first should know what it is time

I am going to be as concrete as possible; if you read the article you will realize why it can’t be shorter. Mainly theoretical physicists are the most interested in “the nature of time” and they like to believe the subject is inherent to physicists and you will see it’s no so.

I will follow with an advice of somebody than most physicists in the world respect, Albert Einstein. “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly to be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.

Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the “understanding” of their connection. But even the concept of the “real external world” of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions” “Ideas and Opinions” Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.



I think this should be read slow, understanding each and every word of his thought about mind functioning, some times is as important as mathematics formulas.

To make possible to comprehend this article, first you should believe possible that “The problem of time” can be solve. Second let the mind freer to the understanding of new things, for this, we should say that

“time” has no definition, no empiric meaning, also can’t be sense by any of our senses or by any man designed artifact, nobody can make a description or recognize “time”. To make clearer this article we should keep in mind the last three lines through all the reading.

If was any other word with those characteristics we immediately would say “time does not exist”.

why we don’t say that, because since pre-Socratic Heraclito ,and after Socrates Plato and Aristoteles 2600 or 2300 years ago we are measuring what we call “time” and as physicist Sean Carroll said being quote by Lee Smolin "There is no question that time exists—we use it everyday," If we give this, as a reason of “time” existence. How he can be sure that exist, if he don’t know what it is? The Carroll reason is, that he think he use it every day. Certainly for use, he meant measuring the so called “time”. How he knows that what he is measuring is “time” and no something else? like movement ?

Everybody knows movement, it has definition, empiric meaning. Everything with physical existence moves, from a galaxy to a subatomic particle. Movement origin is very much older and certain that “time”. If the big-bang, happen, there was movement, life is possible because movement, our brain metabolism, which moves, is our mind that consider all movement we know of, that surround us. How we are not going to measure movement? We did it since the beginning of written history, but thinking that we were measuring “time”.

People think that with the clock movement we measure “time” and with it, comparatively we measure every other movement, change and transformation. A clock, to be one should have a “constant”, “uniform” movement, if it is not so it’s not a clock.

The physical prove that we measure movement with movement consist that with a clock “constant” movement we measure fractions of “constant” earth rotation movement represented by clock dial numbers, as the hour, these are the reasons that this are “movements units” and no “time units”

New duration definition: It is the period of change and transformation that movement allows and men limit.

Then the so called “time” is movement .When we think we are measuring “time” we are not conscious, that in fact we are measuring movement, as we always did, we do and we are going to keep doing it. Knowing this does not change any physic law. We have to remember that classic physics, relativity and quantum mechanics were created, developed and physicist keep working with them with out the need to know of “The nature of time”, but knowing that “time” it is not a mysterious thing, but movement, a quality or property of everything with physical existence, we know that we can related it to anything of physical existence.

Not only is needed to quantized general relativity to the goal of the “the theory of everything” but we also can understand conclusions of general relativity like “that velocity and gravity slows time” in GPS (imagine an analogical clock) the satellite one slows respect it’s similar on land why? because the satellite clock inertia, because it’s speed slows clock parts movement, slowing it’s functioning respect the one on land, what slows it is not “time”, but it’s functioning

Gravity slows the clock in the valley respect it’s similar on top of the mountain, because the first one is affected for more gravity than the other, gravity slows clock parts functioning it is not the “time” than slows.

Since Heraclito to Einstein passing through Newton men always ask themselves, What it is time? to reach reality, they should ask themselves What we are measuring? And quite easily they would find out that was movement. All the other things that can be made knowing this it would make this to long.

Time probably is a remnant word which represented a very important concept for men that mankind forgot it’s meaning as Einstein pre-scientific concepts. “Time dilation” as in GPS is what everybody thought was the satellite clock time slowing respect to it’s similar on land, We can prove now that what really happen is that the satellite clock is functioning slower (not time) because its inertia at 27.000 Km.h, respect to it’s similar on land. “Time dilation” can happen because of gravity action on clock parts making the clock in the valley slower respect to the one on top of the mountain . What becomes slower is not “time” but movement clock movements.

Héctor Daniel Gianni



E-mail: hectorgianni38@hotmail.com

view post as summary

Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again

"The World's Most Precise Clock Could Prove Einstein Wrong (...) Einstein also predicted that clocks in different gravitational fields would tick at different speeds. For example, a clock in Boulder, Colo., which is a mile above sea level, would feel a slightly weaker gravitational pull than a clock at sea level in Washington, D.C....

view entire post

Einsteinians Will Measure Gravitational Time Dilation Again

"The World's Most Precise Clock Could Prove Einstein Wrong (...) Einstein also predicted that clocks in different gravitational fields would tick at different speeds. For example, a clock in Boulder, Colo., which is a mile above sea level, would feel a slightly weaker gravitational pull than a clock at sea level in Washington, D.C. As a result, it would tick just a bit faster and after 200,000 years it would be a full second ahead. That's not much of an effect, but it's big enough for most atomic clocks to measure. And Ludlow's clock can register the change in gravity across a single inch of elevation. That kind of sensitivity will allow scientists to test Einstein's theories with greater precision in the real world."

"Gravitational time dilation", devised by Einstein in 1911, is one of the greatest hoaxes in today's science. Consider light falling (or climbing up) in a gravitational field:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

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."

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

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..."

The picture is more than clear - in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and this variation has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Yet some Einsteinians find it safe to ignore all this and teach the blatant lie that the speed of light remains constant in a gravitational field:

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."

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, A Brief History of Time, 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..."

Where does the courage of Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Richard Epp and Stephen Hawking come from? The blatant lie (the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field) can be taught relatively safely if the teacher has assumed that a clock on the ground runs slower than a clock at the top of a tower ("gravitational time dilation"). With this assumption, light emitted by the top will be measured to have a higher frequency on the ground not because its speed has increased, as predicted by the emission theory, but because the unit of time on the ground is dilated and encompasses more wavecrests, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

The Mystery of the Twin Paradox

In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:

(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's...

view entire post

The Mystery of the Twin Paradox

In order to prove that the twin paradox is an absurdity one has to show that special relativity implies that the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother. The problem is that:

(A) "returns younger" can ONLY be demonstrated if the travelling twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system;

(B) "returns older" can ONLY be demonstrated if the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

The scenario that both relativists and antirelativists use is deprived of the setup "the sedentary twin's clock commutes between two clocks belonging to the travelling twin's system". Given this mutilated scenario, only "returns younger" can be derived from special relativity and those who claim to have PROVED that the paradox is an absurdity must have made a mistake.

The following scenario allows either twin's clock to be checked against two of the other twin's clocks. Two long inertial systems each carrying synchronous clocks pass one another:

..........Inertial system A moving to the right..........

..........Inertial system B moving to the left..........

The systems are so designed that, the moment they stop moving relative to one another, all clocks on both systems stop ticking. In this final static configuration clock A2 faces clock B1 and clock A1 faces clock B2:

..........A2..........A1..........

..........B1..........B2..........

Before reaching clock A2, clock B1 passed clock A1 and the difference in their readings, (A1then - B1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock B1 faces clock A2 and the difference in their readings is (A2now - B1now). Clearly clock B1 has been checked against two of Inertial system A's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(A2now - B1now) > (A1then - B1then) /1/

Before reaching clock B2, clock A1 passed clock B1 and the difference in their readings, (B1then - A1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock A1 faces clock B2 and the difference in their readings is (B2now - A1now). Clearly clock A1 has been checked against two of Inertial system B's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(B2now - A1now) > (B1then - A1then)

This inequality easily becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A1now - B2now)

Since clocks on Inertial system A were synchronous and stopped ticking simultaneously, A1now = A2now. For the same reason B2now = B1now. So the last inequality becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A2now - B1now) /2/

Inequalities /1/ and /2/ are contradictory and both are consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence. The light postulate is false. Einstein should not have "introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether":

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein

Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground,...

view entire post

Falling Light Obeys Newton, Not Einstein

Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

This means that, as light falls, e.g. from the top of a tower to the ground, the speed of the wavecrests increases like the speed of bullets shot downwards (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) and accordingly the frequency measured by an observer on the ground is greater than the initial frequency measured at the top of the tower. The frequency change predicted by Newton's emission theory of light has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

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..."

If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of material bodies, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity:

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

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

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

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

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity

In his 1918 paper:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein

Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system)...

view entire post

Einstein's 1918 Refutation of Relativity

In his 1918 paper:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, by Albert Einstein

Einstein shows that, if the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. This is obviously fatal for his theory so Einstein is forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there is no other way to save relativity): According to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process:

Albert Einstein: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

It is easy to show that the turn-around acceleration has nothing to do with the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

There are even scenarios where there is no turn-around acceleration at all and yet the travelling twin proves younger at the end of the journey:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Conclusion: The turn-around acceleration is irrelevant and can and should be ignored. On the other hand, it is the only salvation - without its miraculous "more than compensation", the twin paradox is an absurdity: the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. In other words, by resorting to an inefficient salvation, Einstein in fact refuted his theory.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax

David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"

If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations...

view entire post

The Gravitational Time Dilation Hoax

David Morin: "A light source on top of a tower of height h emits flashes at time intervals Ts. A receiver on the ground receives the flashes at time intervals Tr. What is Tr in terms of Ts?"

If bullets are shot downwards at time intervals Ts, the receiver on the ground will receive them at time intervals Tr=Ts. Yet David Morin's calculations show that, for light, Ts>Tr. Are the calculations based on some implicit false assumption? They must be: Insofar as the speed variation in a gravitational field is concerned, the analogy between bullets and photons is straightforward:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

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..."

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Note that, if David Morin is wrong and Tr=Ts, this by no means implies that the frequency of light:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

does not vary with the gravitational potential. It varies exactly as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Pentcho,

In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the...

view entire post

Pentcho,

In your posts above, "The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity...", and "... in Divine Albert's world, the gravitational redshift is both the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (the truth) and the result of differences in the rates of clocks in regions of different gravitational potential (the lie, always one leap ahead of the truth)"

And mine on the Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space blog:

"Einstein's statement, page 903, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location,..." and another Einstein's statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a second",

I ask whether it is Einstein at fault or the priests that are occupying the shrine in Einsteiniana? This is because it is clear from Einstein's quotes that what he said is different from what is being preached. For example, where did the word "exactly" materialize from to apply to light velocity? Did Einstein say Caesium 133 clock will beat exactly same everywhere? However, the priests in Einsteiniana under the auspices of the BIPM want to achieve their design by forcing Caesium clock to always beat "exactly" at 9 192 631 770 Hz everywhere, then thinking they have perfected a magical act by fixing the second, they present us with a definition of the metre to tie our hand and freeze our reasoning. When you examine what Einstein said and what is now being done, you should agree that great injustice is being done to the man and to science, unfortunately in his name.

Akinbo

view post as summary

Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated...

view entire post

Einsteiniana : The Sirius B Hoax

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax

The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and...

view entire post

Einsteiniana : The Orbit-of-Mercury Hoax

The blatant lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

The truth: Einstein desperately changed and fudged his equations many times until eventually they "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. Noteworthily, already in 1907 Einstein sets himself the goal "to use his new theory of gravity, WHATEVER IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory":

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from...

view entire post

Reductio ad Absurdum in Einstein's Relativity

"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?

Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special...

view entire post

Did Einstein Tell Einsteinians How to Leapfrog into the Future?

Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

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")."

Did Einstein tell Einsteinians how to leapfrog into the future? No he didn't. Even if his 1905 postulates were true, time travel into the future still remains an invalid conclusion. Here is the original invalidity:

ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Of course, Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Many Einsteinians know that time travel into the future is impossibe and sometimes hint at that, preparing themselves for times when Einstein's idiocies will no longer strangle the spirit of mankind:

"Pour la plupart des commentateurs, le jumeau voyageur B a effectivement moins vieilli que son frère sédentaire A. Pour les autres, les deux jumeaux ont conservé le même âge ou le problème est sans signification. La controverse tourne autour du fait que, du point de vue de la Relativité restreinte, les situations des jumeaux ne sont pas symétriques : A coïncide avec un seul repère galiléen (en général celui de la Terre, idéalisé comme inertiel, pour l'occasion) pendant toute la durée du voyage, tandis que B effectue un demi-tour et coïncide ainsi avec au moins deux repères galiléens successifs. Cette différence fait que la relativité restreinte s'applique différemment à l'un et à l'autre, notamment à cause de l'accélération permettant le retour de B, en provoquant un changement de repère galiléen. Si, pendant la partie du voyage à vitesse constante, B vieillit moins vite que A, il se pourrait qu'il vieillisse plus vite durant les phases d'accélération. On relève 54 points de vue sur le paradoxe, émis entre 1905 (Einstein) et 2001 (Hawking)."

(1:06:45): "Est-ce que l'avenir existe déjà dans le futur ? C'est une question fondamentale ... Les relativistes disent oui - le futur est déjà là mais nous on n'y est pas encore ... Les physiciens quantiques, les présentistes disent non - le futur est un néant ... Les voyages dans le futur sont impossibles pour les présentistes alors qu'ils sont possibles pour les relativistes."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (02:22): "I have no access to the past. I have no access to the future."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary