I explaned

YOU explained?! But you knew nothing about Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) 10 days ago.

I still do not know anything about that equation :
On the one hand, I have a proof of anti-Einstein  (this is what I
explaned) ... while, on the other hand, I have no proof af Einstien
1911.

In that case, I do not pretend to "know about" Enstein 1911 ;)

OK give your "explanation" once more. English or French.

Just a translation. The original explanation is here
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dcb5ccb45525e0ac/3e8d684e9b8d7306?hl=fr&


I'm following the reasoning of
http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~cschomb/Relatgene.pdf
when she deduce the equation

 f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2)        (2.5.35).

(We are looking at a light ray coming from the ground to a height of h
in an uniform gravitational field corresponding to the acceleration g)

Let K the the accelerated observer. At the instant t1, K coincides
with the inertial observer O1. At the instant t2, K coincides with the
observer O2 which has an uniform motion of velocity gh/c with respect
to O1.

We use the Doppler effect of special relativity between O1 and O2 in
order to get the well known formula
 >  f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2)        (2.5.35).

Now, we have to find the wavelength using the definitions

f1 = c1/L1  ;  f2 = c2/L2

There are, of course, infinitely many solutions. Among others, the two
following ones :

c1 = c2(1+gh/c^2) ; L1 = L2   (Einstein 1911)

and

c1 = c2 ; L1 = L2/(1+gh/c^2)   (anti-Einstein 1911)

How to chose ?
Let us do the same as what was done in order to deduce f1 = f2(1+gh/
c^2). We compare what happens in O1 and O2. These two are related by
an inertial motion of velocity gh/c. According to special relativity,
c1=c2 in that case.

Thus I choose anti-Einstein 1911.

If we agree with
 >  f1 = f2(1+gh/c^2)        (2.5.35),
I do not see how not to agree with my proof of anti-Einstein.

Where is the problem ?



Have a good night
Laurent


PS : I feel free to add a summary of what happens here in our French
discussion, if you give up the French discussion (which seems to be
exactly on the same point as here)