🚀 go-pugleaf

"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message 
news:5%REk.102$P5.74@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message 
> news:DwBEk.17336$a24.2829@newsfe17.ams2...
>>
> Pentcho Valev wrotes
>>>> [Valev]: Does the speed of light vary with the frequency, in accordance
>>>> with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it the wavelength 
>>>> that
>>>> varies with the frequency (as half of today's Einsteinians claim)?
>>
> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>> When the time coordinate is the proper time of the observer, the speed
>>> of light is invariant by construction. When coordinate time is used
>>> instead, the speed of light slows in a stronger potential field. For
>>> example, radar beams slow when passing the Sun in any analysis using
>>> barycentric coordinate time. This is called the "Shapiro effect".
>>>
> Pentcho Valev writes
>>>> If Einstein's 1911 equation is correct, then perhaps light
>>>> leaves the gravitational field of the emitting body, continues its
>>>> journey and in the end reaches the observer having a reduced speed all
>>>> along?
>>>
> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>>    Basically, you are correct. But it does depend on what you are using 
>>> as
>>> a clock or time coordinate, which is why the answer is not simply "yes" 
>>> or
>>> "no". -|Tom|-
>>>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
>>  http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Andro, even if

In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
 past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
 the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
 in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
*************************************
*         Androcles 6, cha-cha-hanson 0        *
*************************************


> your facts underlying your question are
> only remotely correct or acceptable,

The Earth moving around the Sun is a fact only remotely correct or 
acceptable?

"And yet it moves..." -- Galileo Galilei.
Perhaps, like you, Van Flandern isn't aware of Copernicus and Coriolis.

*************************************
*         Androcles 7, cha-cha-hanson 0        *
*************************************


> then what you have
> sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
> called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
> its most well known deja-vue is:
> "Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>>
> 'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
> So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

No, no, I'm the trucker, you are the bitter sucker.

But to be fair,
"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf@metaresearch.org> wrote (of Pentcho Valev):
   Basically, you are correct.

Basically, Van Flandern is correct, Valev is indeed basically correct.
Shapiro is basically a dickhead.


Valev:  "perhaps light leaves the gravitational field of the emitting body,
continues its journey and in the end reaches the observer having a reduced
speed all along?"
No, it had an increased journey, the speed never changed.

*************************************
*         Androcles 8, cha-cha-hanson 0        *
*************************************