🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 26, 11:26 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
> > varies with frequency suggests
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
>
> idiot
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>  Mercury perihelion precession: GR prediction for periastron
> precession scales as (semi-major axis)^(-3).
>
> http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
>  Special Relativity for yard apes
>
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>
>  Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
>  Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
> <http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruff...>
> <http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
>    http://ianparker.g3z.com/Relativity/
>  Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> idiot


The assertion is that the drop in frequency of  cosmological
redshifted light is the result of light slowing down, I propose
governed by the formula v = c - Hd where v is the speed of light in a
vacuum after traveling distance d.

This says that v = c where Hd is effectively zero, thus making it 100%
consistent with special relativity where the effects of so-called
expansion can be ignored.