🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 5:21 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 6:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > sci.physics.relativity:
> >> Albertito wrote:
> >>> Then, why did Einstein propose a local speed of light as
> >>> c'= c(1 + V/c2)?
> >> Because he was struggling to find General Relativity, but had not yet
> >> figured out all the details. His intermediate formula is approximate,
> >> but not correct. When he proposed it he did not fully understand the
> >> difference between local and non-local phenomena.
>
> > Roberts Roberts, Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent
> > with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed
> > experimentally by Pound and Rebka.
>
> Sure.
>
> > In other words Roberts Roberts, the
> > equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is CORRECT, NOT APPROXIMATE: any different
> > equation (that may seem correct to you) would be inconsistent with the
> > redshift factor.
>
> This is nonsense. You REALLY need to learn how mathematical physics
> works. While that equation is CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT EXPERIMENTS, that
> does not justify the word "correct". It was derived without any
> consistent theoretical framework. Such a framework was presented in
> 1915, General Relativity. In GR the formula is DIFFERENT (and cannot be
> written in closed form), but FOR THE SITUATIONS OF THE CURRENT
> EXPERIMENTS THE GR EQUATION IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ABOVE
> EQUATION. That's what we mean when we say "it is an APPROXIMATION".
>
> Indeed, contrary to your naive claim, the computations of GR are
> consistent with the experiments.
>
> > For that reason Roberts Roberts superior brothers in
> > Einstein criminal cult have always been teaching that the speed of
> > light varies with the gravitational potential, in accordance with
> > Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
>
> As I have said so often, your blind insistence on the validity of that
> formula is wrong. In 1911 Einstein did not fully understand the
> difference between local and global phenomena. With the advent of GR in
> 1915 Einstein (and anybody else with the wit to understand GR) learned
> the distinction between local and global: that formula is valid only
> when one uses standards of measure valid far from the location where the
> measurement was made, which is NOT how we normally measure things.
> Obviously YOU do not have the wit to understand this.
>
> > http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> > [...]
>
> You should read your own references. It includes the statement "You can
> find a more sophisticated result derived later by Einstein from the full
> general theory...". That is essentially what I have been trying to tell
> you for a long time. That reference does not contradict what I have been
> saying, as long as one considers its entire discussion.
>
>         [Do not expect me to respond further until you grow up and
>          stop acting like a spoiled 3-year-old.]
>
> Tom Roberts