🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 10:50 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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).

So you have no arguments left. Why do you post?

--
Jan Bielawski