🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 7:21 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > 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".

In GR, there is no mathematics describing each point in space having
its own value of the speed of light.  You are assuming too much.
<shrug>

> Indeed, contrary to your naive claim, the computations of GR are
> consistent with the experiments.

GR is only consistent with the experiments only if the outcome of
these experiments had already been decided before these experiments
were to take place.

> > 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.

Not just 1911, Einstein did not fully understand anything.  PERIOD.

> 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.

Given the spacetime below,

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Are you saying dq^i, dq^j are all local measurements?  Well, you are
wrong.  They are the measurements of an observer.

> >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.]

So, after making all these silly statements, you just casually walk
away.  Well, <shrug>