🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Aug, 21:59, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> qbit wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> That 1911 article was documenting a portion of Einstein's arduous trek
> >> from SR to GR. The above formula does not hold in GR,
>
> > The above formula of Einstein from the year 1911 is indeed wrong.
> > Do you happen to know what the correct formula is instead that's
> > get used in GR?
>
> There is not a single formula, there is only a procedure: A measurement
> of the speed of light necessarily has two synchronized clocks, a light
> source at one clock, a light detector at the other clock, and a ruler
> laid along the light path.

Roberts Roberts if you continue teaching idiocies of this kind, even
the silliest zombies in Einstein criminal cult will stop believing
you. Whoever told you that a physical quantity can only be measured
DIRECTLY? Even undegraduates would tell you Roberts Roberts that the
speed of light could be measured INDIRECTLY, e.g. by measuring the
gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

> To compute/predict the outcome, one specifies
> how the clocks are synchronized, and also the particular null geodesic
> followed by the light from source to detector; one integrates the metric
> over the paths of the two clocks from their synchronization to their
> respective emission and detection events, and then takes the ratio of
> the ruler distance to the time difference.
>
>         Why isn't there a formula? Because the speed of light
>         over a non-local path is not a fundamental aspect of the
>         theory. It is possible to prove that in the limit of
>         zero distance with Einstein synchronization this
>         procedure yields the value c, in agreement with SR; this
>         is independent of location, gravitation, or anything else.
>
> If the light path is so large (compared to the curvature of the
> manifold) that no single coordinate system can cover the entire
> measurement, the whole notion of "speed" is meaningless.

And Einstein zombie world is speechless Roberts Roberts. I can only
repeat: Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation
etc.)!

Pentcho Valev