🚀 go-pugleaf

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