🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 5:21 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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

Roberts Roberts your analysis of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is so silly and contradictory that I suspect you are just
experimenting with some new ad hoc camouflage. Perhaps 10 years ago
the experiment would have been more successful but now.....Look around
you Roberts Roberts - you are the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal
cult that still defends Einstein's idiocies. Even hypnotists as silly
as Steve Carlip and John Baez now know what is going on and do not
wish to take their heads out of the sand (lately you have not seen
messages from them defending or even mentioning Einstein's relativity
have you).

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com