🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom Roberts <tjrob137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
  rI6dnUXt4su_7RTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 7:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> sci.physics:
>>> Yes, when viewed from far away, using coordinates suited to
>>> an observer far away, then the coordinate speed of light in vacuum near
>>> a massive object will be less than c. But that's artificial, a mere
>>> artifact of a poor choice of coordinates.
>> 
>> there is nothing
>> "artificial" in the fact that light emitted by a massive object will
>> reach "an observer far away" with speed less than c
> 
> Grow up. Learn some physics. Learn to write more accurately and precisely.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>> after all, there
>> is a gravitational potential difference between the point of emission
>> and the point of reception.
> 
> Bravo -- among your voluminous posts you finally got one thing right.
> 
> 
>> You will only have to answer the following
>> question: Does the variation of the speed of light with the
>> gravitational potential obey Einstein's 1911 equation (given by
>> Newton's emission theory of light and consistent with the
>> gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by
>> Pound and Rebka), or does it obey Einstein's 1955 (in fact, 1915)
>> "improved" equation (introduced as camouflage and INCONSISTENT with
>> the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by
>> Pound and Rebka)
> 
> The answer is, of course, that in general NEITHER of those equations is correct,
> and GR most definitely does not obey such equations. Einstein knew this, AND
> SAID SO, but Valev is unable to read and understand EINSTEIN'S words, either. 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.
> 
> * 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?

Yes, that is too much for Valev (*)

> 
> * 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?

Yes, that is too much for Valev (**)

> 
> * 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?

Yes, that is too much for Valev (***)

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> You need to find a hobby that is within your capacities. Stalking me in this
> newsgroup is downright rude. 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.
> 
> 
>> [... quotations that Valev clearly does not understand]

(*), (**), (***)
List of differences ignored by Pentcho Valev, as discovered on Usenet:
    - crackpots vs. people writing books fancied by crackpots,
    - rates vs. values,
    - a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
    - children's books vs. inspired essays,
    - physicists vs. philosophers,
    - coordinate time vs. proper time,
    - invariance vs. constancy,
    - special relativity vs. general relativity,
    - teachers vs. hypnotists,
    - laymen vs. zombies,
    - a person being right vs. a theory being right,
    - students vs. imbeciles,
    - bad science vs. bad engineering,
    - bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
    - honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
    - physics vs. linguistics,
    - an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
    - understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
    - speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
    - doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
    - real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
    - receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
    - everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
    - the three things that smell like fish,
    - inertial vs. non-inertial,
    - speed vs. velocity,
    - an article vs. a book,
    - relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
    - algebra vs. analytic geometry,
    - kneeling down vs. bending over,
    - local vs. global,
    - a sycophant in English vs. in French,
    - a relation vs. an equation,
    - massive vs. massless particles,
    - a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
    - implication vs. equivalence,
    - group velocity vs. phase velocity,
    - science vs. religion

Dirk Vdm