🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 17, 7:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> It simply is not true that "light emitted by a massive object will reach 'an
> observer far away' with speed less than c". When the light REACHES that observer
> its local speed is c, and that observer will measure it to be c, in the only
> proper way to measure such a speed: LOCALLY. It's just that FAR AWAY NEAR THE
> MASSIVE OBJECT such an observer would assign a COORDINATE SPEED to the light
> that is less than c. Such a COORDINATE SPEED is indeed artificial, and is indeed
> merely an artifact of a poor choice of coordinates. And such a COORDINATE SPEED
> at a position FAR AWAY is not normally what we mean by "speed" in GR.

You only have one point of data in environmental setup to say the
speed of light is indeed 3E8 m/sec.  <shrug>  Have you personally
measured the speed of light under environment with much stronger
gravity to be exactly 3E8 m/sec?

> This is all well known and fully in conformance with the predictions and
> mathematics of GR, and with the way the relativity community uses these concepts
> and words. I have no idea why you are so confused by this, or why you are so
> fixated on it and repeat it endlessly without comprehension.

As Maxwell had already identified the speed of light to be the inverse
of the square root of the product of the permeability and the
permittivity, there remains a strong and valid reasoning that you will
not always measure the speed of light to be 3E8 m/sec in every
circumstance.  <shrug>

> The answer is, of course, that in general NEITHER of those equations is correct,
> and GR most definitely does not obey such equations.

As long as it is Newtonian compatible, it can be anything with wild
and very unexpected results at the very limits.  <shrug>

> Einstein knew this, AND SAID SO,

It does not take a genius to realize any model of gravity must
degenerate into the Newtonian result.  This is true for any
transformation.  One such contradiction comes from the late Van
Flandern’s proposal of a transformation that does not degenerate into
the Galilean transform at low speed.  All the professors should be all
over Van Flandern for that, but I find yours truly in the frontline.

> but Valev is unable to read and understand EINSTEIN'S words, either.

Hmmm...  Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.  Name a
subject credited to Einstein except the Cosmological constant crap and
the molecular dimension using area as a measurement input, and I will
give up the victim of plagiarism.  Come on.  That is fair.  <shrug>

> In
> general, to compute the light's average speed over a non-local path, one must
> INTEGRATE OVER THE PATH OF THE LIGHT RAY. The result will depend on both the
> geometry of the manifold and the path. There is no simple formula that can
> capture the complexity of the ACTUAL COMPUTATION in GR.

Yes, but we are interested in the speed of light at one particular
point in space where this point in space is not necessarily residing
at where your ass is exactly sitting right now.  <shrug>

> * In 1955 Einstein was discussing an APPROXIMATION. Is it too much to
>    expect you to distinguish between the theory (GR) and AN APPROXIMATION
>    TO IT?

You have such highly zealous belief in GR.  You are even not sure of
how the field equations are derived.  Are you still mystified over the
origins of the field equations and the geodesic equations?

> * In 1911, Einstein was groping for a relativistic theory of gravitation
>    and had not yet completed the groundwork. Is is too much to expect you
>    to distinguish between a theory (GR) and an EARLY PAPER NOT CONSISTENT
>    WITH IT?

In 1911, Einstein just began to understand the Newtonian law of
gravity after spending more than a decade studying it.  What do you
expect from a nitwit anyway?  So, re-inventing the principle of
equivalence by reverse-engineering the Newtonian law of gravity had
nothing to do with the field equations and the GR in the first place.
So, what is your complaint again?

> * Pound and Rebka's experiment is consistent with the ACTUAL COMPUTATION
>    IN GR. Is it too much to expect you to distinguish between an ACTUAL
>    COMPUTATION and some irrelevant formulas you happen to have found?

Wait!  Hold it.  Have you resolved the following?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6dcc831b6ae84dd5?hl=en

If not, your selective choice in derivation of gravitational redshift
is not valid --- even trying to find safety in GR.  <shrug>

> I have said all this numerous times, and you still don't get it. Spending some
> quality time with a good textbook could remove your confusions, and presumably
> also your fixation with an invalid notion you got from surfing the internet.

Has it not occurred to you that some scholars actually had?

> You need to find a hobby that is within your capacities. Stalking me in this
> newsgroup is downright rude.

If you don’t like this “challenge-stalking”, you don’t have to be such
“vocal”.  I don’t see you chewing out on politically-correct-thinking
zombies aka “ass-kissing stalkers”.  How is that you think one
stalking group is rude while the other one is not?  Is it your
personal taste to enjoy ass-kissing better?

> But if you're going to do that, at least READ WHAT
> I WRITE and stop re-regurgitating the same nonsense without STUDYING THE SUBJECT.

Likewise.  You are one of the very few that do not resort to personal
attacks.  Examples of personal attackers are Gisse the college
dropout, moortel the sperm licker, and others.  So, running away from
a losing discussion is very rude.  Be a man and a true scholar and
admit that you have been wrong, and your understanding of GR is
totally flawed right from the very beginning.