Richard Hertz

2021-09-13 05:53:18 UTC

Reply

Permalinkgravitational blue shifting (45 usec) since it was made public by 1989, and

that plagues the web in any article dealing with the 38.5 μsec/day clock's

shift was INVENTED by Einstein and published on In June 1911 in the Annalen

der Physik as "Uber den Einfluβ der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes" ("On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light").

Here is a link to the 1923 translation of that paper, so you can fact-check it:

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf

This old and forgotten paper was not related in any way to the mathematics

of his GR, presented to the Prussian Academy of Science on Nov. 25, 1915.

It anticipates results that come out from complex and non-linear set

of equations that form "his" gravitational field equation by 54 months,

and the formulae into it is exclusively based on his 1905 SR plus E=mc²,

plus a lot of fallacies to hide the use of Planck's quanta of energy and

to justify his assertion of equality between inertial and gravitational

mass.

I'll only copy here excerpts from such 1911 paper, what can be verified by

anyone by just clicking on the link and read it. It's EXTREMELY simple, but

fallacious as hell.

Maybe you'll wonder how such extremely elemental but fallacious

invention of concepts out of thin air survived not only 54 months to

be embedded into the complexity of GR. You also might wonder how

come the "exact analytical solution" given by Schwarzschild and later

corrected by Hilbert (1917) can be TUNED to match such simplicity.

Also, you might wonder how come such 1911 fallacies survived until

today and has been spread to any article or paper (as approximation)

to justify the Schwarzschild's effect on the 38.5 μsec/day.

Now, the excerpts from the 1911 paper:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy

The theory of relativity shows that the inertial mass of a body increases

with the energy it contains; if the increase of energy amounts to E, the

increase in inertial mass is equal to E/c², where c denotes the velocity of

light. Now, is there an increase of gravitational mass corresponding to

this increase of inertial mass?

...............

We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2

to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration. At the moment

when the radiation energy E2 is emitted from S2 toward S1, let the velocity

of K′ relative to K0 be ZERO. The radiation will arrive at S1 when the time

h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation).

But at this moment the velocity of S1 relative to K0 is γh/c = v. Therefore

by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is related to E2, to

a first approximation, by the equation:

(1) E1 = E2 . (1+ v/c) = E2 . (1+γh/c²)

By our ASSUMPTION exactly the same relation HOLDS if the same

process takes place in the system K, which is NOT ACCELERATED, but

is provided with a GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

In this case we may replace γh by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of Φ in S1 is set to zero. We then have the

equation:

(1a) E1 = E2 + E2/c² . Φ

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under

observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,

measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the EXCESS

BEING THE POTENTIAL ENERGY of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational

field.

...........

(1b) M' - M = E/c²

The increase in GRAVITATIONAL mass is thus equal to E/c2, and therefore

equal to the increase in INERTIAL mass as given by the theory of relativity.

...........

§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

f the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K′ in S2 toward

S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, relative to S1, at

its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical

clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 . (1+γh/c²)

..............

(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

********

NOTE: Using Planck's E = hf (for a photon), he applied it to (1a)

********

This result (which by our derivation is valid to a first approximation)

permits, first, the following application. Let f0 be the oscillation-number

of an ELEMENTARY LIGHT-GENERATOR, measured by a CLOCK U at the

same location. This oscillation-number is then independent of the

locations of the LIGHT-GENERATOR and the CLOCK.

..............

If we measure time at S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time

at S2 with a clock which goes 1 + Φ/c² times more slowly than the clock

U when compared with U at one at the same location. For when measured

by such a clock, the frequency of the light-ray which is considered above

is at its emission from S2

f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

and is therefore, by (2a), equal to the frequency ν1 of the same light-ray

on its arrival at S1.

.........

If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the

velocity of light c at a location with the gravitation potential Φ will be

given by the relation

(3) c= c0 . (1+Φ/c²)

------------------------------------- End of excerpts --------------------------------------------------

Now, fast forward 104 years to 2015, in order to read the paper from

Dr. A. Mudrak et. all: "Relativistic Corrections in the European GNSS

Galileo", working at the European Space Agency - The Netherlands.

This paper criticizes the decision to NOT USE relativistic corrections

in the Galileo satellites. I posted an analysis of this paper here:

New thread for GPS, Galileo satellites and relativistic corrections.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/a1oNIn7KIFw

I quote this excerpt from the Mudrak's paper:

********************************************

3.1. Gravitational Frequency Shift

As shown in [2], the relative frequency shift between a clock experiencing

the gravitational potential Φ+ΔΦ and the one at the gravitational potential

Φ is:

Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² (1)

For an unperturbed circular Keplerian orbit, the gravitational potential omitting the higher-order harmonics in line with the approach taken in

[2] and [12] is given by

Φsat = −G.Me/r (2)

where r is the radius of the satellite orbit.

********************************************

And this EXACTLY what can be directly derived from the 1911 equation:

(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

If the elementary formula adopted by Mudrak (without questions) is

applied to Galileo satellites, as he did using for ΔΦ:

Δf/f = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift.

Δf/f = + 5.3146 . 10^-10 , which gives clock differences of

47.1982 μsec/day, using:

G.ME = 3.986004418×10^14 m³/s²

c = 299792458 m/s

Rs = 26936715 m (Galileo satellite orbit radius)

Re = 6378136.55 m (Earth radius)

So, if 120 years ago, Einstein had imagined his "light-generator" located

about 26.5 Km over his head and emitting microwaves at about 2 Ghz

(I wonder why he didn't), he could have forecast future by 75 years, and

left to the future GPS enterprise a sheer warning about to take him

seriously!

Hell! He could even had invented GPS, with trilateration math and else.

After all, it is far less complex than GR, and he "invented" the laser

in 1917, when meddling with Bohr's theory, as fanatics like to point out.

BUT, and THIS is very important to HIGHLIGHT: He did all of this without

messing with non-linear, mass sensitive, space-time and tensors.

He just used the OLD LINEAR AND EUCLIDEAN SR, plus E=mc², plus

E = h.f, plus Eotvos (1885 - 1909) results for inertial and gravitational masses, plus a lot of fallacies to make you believe it.

Now, as the topic of the Schwarzschild Effect is open to many

interpretations (GR is that flexible, with more than 20 parameters to

fit into anything that appears), I left to you to wonder if this effect is

real or not.

What are the answers for:

1) t ≠ t' or t = t'?

2) Δf/f = 0 or Δf/f = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift.

3) GR is correct or is a mathematical expression brought to the

physical world?

4) What are the consequences in the real life and technologies if all of

this shit is ABSOLUTELY FALSE?