🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 4:46 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 10:38 am,PentchoValev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
> > potential (Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)) is rarely referred
> > to explicitly by criminal Einsteinians; usually they prefer to destroy
> > human rationality in this way:
>
> >  http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/c46ce30871328b4a?
> > Tom Roberts Jan 29 2008:
> > "There are several ways to interpret such a physical situation:
> >   A) the photon gains energy by falling in the gravitational field.
> >   B) the photon is blueshifted due to its travel between heights in
> > the gravitational field.
> >   C) the energy scales of atom and detector are different, due to
> > their difference in gravitational potential; the photon does not
> > change energy (or frequency) during its journey, but it registers more
> > energy in the detector due to change of scale (time scales also
> > differ).
> > All three interpretations are valid, and correspond to using different
> > coordinate systems to describe the physical situation. So one cannot
> > say unambiguously that the photon does or does not change energy, does
> > or does not change frequency, or that the scale of energy does or does
> > not change with height.
> > At base, the difference is due to the non-local nature of this
> > physical situation in the gravitational field, and the difficulty
> > (inherent ambiguity) in GR of describing non-local situations. This is
> > traceable to the problems of doing integrals on curved manifolds, and
> > the result is that energy is conserved only locally in GR.
> > But there is an approximation that is often appropriate: if a system
> > is localized in spacetime and has no outside interactions, then one
> > can draw a closed boundary containing the system, with no energy or
> > momentum crossing the boundary and the manifold is asymptotically flat
> > there -- then inside the boundary the total energy and momentum are
> > conserved. This applies to the original three situations, but one
> > cannot draw such a boundary between the emitter and the detector in
> > this last situation." Tom Roberts
>
> Roberts Roberts your criminal brother John Baez has abandoned
> relativity, quantum gravity etc. and is now extracting money from the
> global warming but 14 years ago he was still a member of Einstein
> criminal cult and was camouflaging the fatal variability of the speed
> of light in a gravitational field in the following way:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/285b377fd7945c22/92d7baf4ffcae461?tvc=1#92d7baf4ffcae461
> On February 23, 1994, Hartmut Frommert wrote in sci.physics:
>
> >Though the natural constant "c" which is usually called the vacuum light
> >velocity (or speed) can only be changed by re-definition of units (as any
> >conversion factor), the (actual) speed of (the propagation of) light
> >(photons !) is NOT constant, e.g. in a gravitational field (see any textbook
> >on elementary General Relativity).
>
> JOHN BAEZ replied: "This is darn misleading. The speed of light is
> constant in GR, it's just that the spacetime the light is moving
> around in is a bit wiggly. Of course, one *could* think of it the way
> you suggest, but one would have to say, not just that the speed of
> light was different in a "gravitational field," but that all other
> laws of physics were different too, in a fairly complicated manner."
>
> You see, Roberts Roberts, 14 years ago Baez was lying rather
> carelessly. The good old days! Your mission now is so difficult
> Roberts Roberts! Almost impossible! But that is normal - after all,
> you decided to join Einstein criminal cult only 15 years ago:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
> Tom Roberts (15 years ago): "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd
> like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think
> that with Government backing I could make it very silly."

Einsteinians at UCLA use specific verbiage in order to camouflage the
fact that, even according to Maxwell's theory of light, the speed of
light is VARIABLE - it depends on the speed of the OBSERVER relative
to the aether:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Ned Wright: "But 200 years after Newton the theory of electromagnetism
was developed into Maxwell's equations. These equations describe waves
with a speed of 1/sqrt(epsilon_o*mu_o), where epsilon_o is the
constant describing the strength of the electrostatic force in a
vacuum, and mu_o is the constant describing the strength of the
magnetic interaction in a vacuum. This is an absolute velocity -- it
is not relative to anything. The value of the velocity was very close
to the measured speed of light, and when Hertz generated
electromagnetic waves (microwaves) in his laboratory and showed that
they could be reflected and refracted just like light, it became clear
that light was just an example of electromagnetic radiation. Einstein
tried to fit the idea of an absolute speed of light into Newtonian
mechanics. He found that the transformation from one reference frame
to another had to affect the time -- the idea of sliding a deck of
cards had to be abandoned. This led to the theory of special
relativity. In special relativity, the velocity of light is special.
Anything moving at the speed of light in one reference frame will move
at the speed of light in all unaccelerated reference frames."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com