TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
Pentcho Valev
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> >> The second postulate
> >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
> >
> > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
[snip misunderstandings]
Tell me, spewing moron. How many hours a day, on average, do you spend
on this shit?
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
> Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
> even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
> at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
But autistic imbeciles never listen to what people say to
them, do they, Pentcho?
Perhaps, vis a vis autistic imbeciles, people should't take
the trouble to carefully, patiently and repeatedly explain
the differences between:
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
Ask them again Moortel. They may have said "being in a gravitational
FIELD".
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176481799....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Valev, you are the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
Ask them anyway.
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176482181.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Valev, you are bigger than the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
You can be proud.
V E R Y P R O U D.
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
JanPB
of the world.
--
Jan Bielawski
Rudolf Drabek
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
>
As long there is no absolute FOR there is no solution.
Make evidence and you will be Einstein 2nd.
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
JanPB
people don't stop being obnoxious just because you ask them!
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176490256.6...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> He won't listen to you. It's just a bulletin board, it's not the end
> of the world.
Yeah, but an error in relativity would be like Stephen Hawking trying to screw
in a light bulb.
Dirk Van de moortel
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176495160....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> John - your approach doesn't work. Are you new to Usenet? Around here
> people don't stop being obnoxious just because you ask them!
They get more obnoxious just because you ask them to stop.
So, let's have some fun and *beg* them to stop being obnoxious.
ALL TOGETHER NOW!
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
JanPB
rants. Just use a killfile - that's what they are for. Unlike
spammers, Pentcho uses a fixed address so you can easily filter him
out if you want to.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176574640.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mka0047l.jpg
http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/ostrich.jpg
"You can't see me now, I have a killfile."
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jmo0399l.jpg
http://www.overthedarkness.com/DLdepot/light_for_dummies.jpg
John Jones
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
Tom Roberts
> If THAT
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
> it.
Nonsense. In such a case, with gravitation present, an inertial frame
can be valid only locally. The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
(=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
LOCAL measurement. This is true even if source and measurement occur at
different "gravitational potentials" -- the only requirement is that the
measurement be local, and that is implied by "inertial frame", as such
frames can only be valid locally in the presence of gravity.
> Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so
Never! You are confused.
Why don't you spend some time STUDYING PHYSICS rather than wasting so
much time posting nonsense to the net?
Tom Roberts
John Jones
JanPB
to. If that idiot Pentcho bothers you, USE KILLFILES. Don't alter the
threads, it's actually worse than Pentcho's silly rants. Learn Usenet
101.
--
Jan Bielawski
Dirk Van de moortel
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176743487....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Jan, you better stop asking an obvious fake anti-crank to stop
trolling ;-)
Dirk Vdm
JanPB
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176743487....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > John - stop changing subjects of threads in groups you do not belong
> > to. If that idiot Pentcho bothers you, USE KILLFILES. Don't alter the
> > threads, it's actually worse than Pentcho's silly rants. Learn Usenet
> > 101.
>
> Jan, you better stop asking an obvious fake anti-crank to stop
> trolling ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Shhhhh, I'm still pretending "John" is a real person!
--
Jan Bielawski
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
JanPB
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176760874.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Yawn.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
<snore>
Mitchell Jones
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > If THAT
> > INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> > gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> > measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
> > it.
>
> Nonsense. In such a case, with gravitation present, an inertial frame
> can be valid only locally. The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
> LOCAL measurement.
***{Sorry Tom, but that is simply not true. The only way the local speed
of light is c is if you use local, uncalibrated clocks. If you use a
clock that has been calibrated to keep pace with standard time on
Earth--i.e., an accurate clock--the speed of light varies depending on
gravitational potential. That means in regions where the gravitational
potential is higher than on Earth, the speed of light is slower; and in
regions where the gravitational potential is less than on Earth, the
speed of light is faster. --MJ}***
> This is true even if source and measurement occur at
> different "gravitational potentials" -- the only requirement is that the
> measurement be local, and that is implied by "inertial frame", as such
> frames can only be valid locally in the presence of gravity.
>
>
> > Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so
>
> Never! You are confused.
>
>
> Why don't you spend some time STUDYING PHYSICS rather than wasting so
> much time posting nonsense to the net?
>
>
> Tom Roberts
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-A40C21....@news.thundernews.com...
> In article <bXLUh.17033$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > If THAT
>> > INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
>> > gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
>> > measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
>> > it.
>>
>> Nonsense. In such a case, with gravitation present, an inertial frame
>> can be valid only locally. The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
>> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
>> LOCAL measurement.
>
> ***{Sorry Tom, but that is simply not true. The only way the local speed
> of light is c is if you use local, uncalibrated clocks. If you use a
> clock that has been calibrated to keep pace with standard time on
> Earth--i.e., an accurate clock--the speed of light varies depending on
> gravitational potential. That means in regions where the gravitational
> potential is higher than on Earth, the speed of light is slower; and in
> regions where the gravitational potential is less than on Earth, the
> speed of light is faster. --MJ}***
Another imbecile who refuses to understand the meaning of the
word 'local'.
L O C A L.
_ ____ _____ _ _
| | / __ \ / ____| /\ | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | |
| | | | | | | / /\ \ | | | |
| |___| |__| | |____ / ____ \| |____ |_|
|______\____/ \_____/_/ \_\______| |_|
Honestly, what *does* it take???
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > If THAT
> > INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> > gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> > measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
> > it.
>
> Nonsense. In such a case, with gravitation present, an inertial frame
> can be valid only locally. The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
> LOCAL measurement. This is true even if source and measurement occur at
> different "gravitational potentials" -- the only requirement is that the
> measurement be local, and that is implied by "inertial frame", as such
> frames can only be valid locally in the presence of gravity.
Roberts Roberts instead of repeating "locally" just give an
unequivocal answer to the following problem (I have already set it
elsewhere):
A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
will the observer measure?
I hope you will apply Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) but you
may as well say again that Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong and then
perhaps you will choose the solution c'=c. In any event, please be
unequivocal: c'=c(1+V/c^2) or c'=c?
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176884676.3...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > If THAT
>> > INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
>> > gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
>> > measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
>> > it.
>>
>> Nonsense. In such a case, with gravitation present, an inertial frame
>> can be valid only locally. The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
>> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
>> LOCAL measurement. This is true even if source and measurement occur at
>> different "gravitational potentials" -- the only requirement is that the
>> measurement be local, and that is implied by "inertial frame", as such
>> frames can only be valid locally in the presence of gravity.
>
> Roberts Roberts instead of repeating "locally" just give an
> unequivocal answer to the following problem (I have already set it
> elsewhere):
>
> A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
> gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
> INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
> will the observer measure?
Well, Pentcho Valev, that light, when moving from one place
to another in that lab, will be measured to have speed c
between those two places. That's what locality means in
English. Wasn't this explained to you before?
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
Pentcho Valev
Bravo Moortel!
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176885548....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for appreciating my explanation of what locality
means in English.
There is still hope for mankind.
Dirk Vdm
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
> Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
> in scenarios like this one:
>
> http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
> "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
> with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
> interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
>
> INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
> gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
> measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
>> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
>> LOCAL measurement.
>
> gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
> INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
> will the observer measure?
c (=299792.458 km/s). I have no idea why you think it could be
otherwise. The observer will of course make a local measurement, using
standard clocks and rulers at rest in her locally inertial coordinates.
> I hope you will apply Einstein's 1911 equation [...]
Whyever would you hope that? -- that equation was written while on the
path to GR, but is not part of GR. The theory we use is GR, and its
agreement with experiment is excellent.
You will never learn much by posting nonsense to the net in the manner
of "20 questions" -- you need to STUDY.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Roberts you are really the Albert Einstein of our generation!
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is widely used in textbooks in
the form f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is frequency:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation and you
obtain c'=c+v, where v is THE RELATIVE SPEED OF THE LIGHT SOURCE AND
THE OBSERVER. Only the Albert Einstein of our generation (that is, a
person just as dishonest as Divine Albert) can accept and even teach
(do you, Roberts?) the equation f'=f(1+V/c^2) and fiercely reject its
twin: Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Encore une fois: Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our
generation!
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176962547.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
>> >> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
>> >> LOCAL measurement.
>> >
>> > A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
>> > gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
>> > INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
>> > will the observer measure?
>>
>> c (=299792.458 km/s). I have no idea why you think it could be
>> otherwise. The observer will of course make a local measurement, using
>> standard clocks and rulers at rest in her locally inertial coordinates.
>>
>>
>> > I hope you will apply Einstein's 1911 equation [...]
>>
>> Whyever would you hope that? -- that equation was written while on the
>> path to GR, but is not part of GR. The theory we use is GR, and its
>> agreement with experiment is excellent.
>>
>>
>> You will never learn much by posting nonsense to the net in the manner
>> of "20 questions" -- you need to STUDY.
>>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Roberts you are really the Albert Einstein of our generation!
> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is widely used
in non-local contexts :-)
> in textbooks in
> the form f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is frequency:
>
> http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
>
> Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation and you
> obtain c'=c+v, where v is THE RELATIVE SPEED OF THE LIGHT SOURCE AND
> THE OBSERVER.
Yes, we are fully aware of the fact that you persistently ignore
the differnece between speed and closing speed :-)
Bravo!
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> > > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:tNpN5EKo...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> The second postulate
> > >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> > >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> > >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
>
> > > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> > You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> > INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> > "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> > then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
>
Mitchell Jones
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
> >> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
> >> LOCAL measurement.
> >
> > A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
> > gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
> > INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
> > will the observer measure?
>
> c (=299792.458 km/s). I have no idea why you think it could be
> otherwise. The observer will of course make a local measurement, using
> standard clocks and rulers at rest in her locally inertial coordinates.
***{The current BIPM definition of a meter ties it to the speed of
light: it is claimed that a meter is the distance travelled by light in
a hard vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Result: if light travels
more slowly in a high-g field, which it most certainly does, the meter
automatically shrinks in the exact amount needed to cover up that state
of affairs, rendering the speed of light constant by fiat.
Whenever I reflect on that state of affairs, I am reminded of a joke
that made the rounds in engineering departments a few years ago, to the
effect that the Alabama legislature had passed a law setting pi equal to
3, "to make computations easier." Everybody had a chuckle about that
one, but, unfortunately, real people do dumber things every day, and the
current definition of the meter is a perfect example of that. The
reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever indicating any sort of
uniform, direction independent shrinkage of materials under the
influence of gravity, and so there is no basis whatsoever for adopting
such a definition of the meter, other than the desire to render the
Einstein theory invulnerable to attack by its critics. Result: any
person who is seeking the truth about the external world, rather than
promoting a relativistic hidden agenda, is going to reject the BIPM
definition out of hand, for the same reason that he would reject an
attempt to set pi equal to 3, "to make computations easier."
The question is, who would knowingly advocate the use of uncalibrated
clocks, or the use of meter sticks that vary in length? And the answer
is obvious: only a person who is attempting to establish by means of
fraud a conclusion that the facts do not support, or a person who is
pretending to accept a generally accepted fraud, to avoid killing his
career.
For those who seek the truth, however, the truth is clear: all of the
relevant experimental results, when analyzed using clocks calibrated to
keep standard time and meter sticks that remain constant even if the
speed of light varies, indicate without ambiguity that the speed of
light increases as the gravitational potential decreases, and decreases
as it increases.
And that's all there is to that story.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> > I hope you will apply Einstein's 1911 equation [...]
>
> Whyever would you hope that? -- that equation was written while on the
> path to GR, but is not part of GR. The theory we use is GR, and its
> agreement with experiment is excellent.
>
>
> You will never learn much by posting nonsense to the net in the manner
> of "20 questions" -- you need to STUDY.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
*****************************************************************
Phineas T Puddleduck
Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
> For those who seek the truth, however, the truth is clear: all of the
> relevant experimental results, when analyzed using clocks calibrated to
> keep standard time and meter sticks that remain constant even if the
> speed of light varies, indicate without ambiguity that the speed of
> light increases as the gravitational potential decreases, and decreases
> as it increases.
>
> And that's all there is to that story.
So Gravitational red shift doesn't exist then...
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
John Jones
John Jones
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-B1AB68....@news.thundernews.com...
> In article <pKAVh.11217$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> The _LOCAL_ speed of light is always c
>> >> (=299792.458 km/s), regardless of the "gravitational potential" of the
>> >> LOCAL measurement.
>> >
>> > A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
>> > gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
>> > INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
>> > will the observer measure?
>>
>> c (=299792.458 km/s). I have no idea why you think it could be
>> otherwise. The observer will of course make a local measurement, using
>> standard clocks and rulers at rest in her locally inertial coordinates.
>
> ***{The current BIPM definition of a meter ties it to the speed of
> light: it is claimed that a meter is the distance travelled by light in
> a hard vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Result: if light travels
> more slowly in a high-g field, which it most certainly does, the meter
> automatically shrinks in the exact amount needed to cover up that state
> of affairs, rendering the speed of light constant by fiat.
>
> Whenever I reflect on that state of affairs, I am reminded of a joke
> that made the rounds in engineering
AH!
Jones is an engineer!
> departments a few years ago, to the
> effect that the Alabama legislature had passed a law setting pi equal to
> 3, "to make computations easier." Everybody had a chuckle about that
> one, but, unfortunately, real people do dumber things every day, and the
> current definition of the meter is a perfect example of that.
For another great example, let's look at your gravites:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3amitchell+author%3ajones+gravites
That's what you get when an engineer thinks he's a physicist.
This OTOH is what you get when an engineer thinks he is a
mathematician:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/JonesMath.html
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > departments a few years ago, to the
> > effect that the Alabama legislature had passed a law setting pi equal to
> > 3, "to make computations easier." Everybody had a chuckle about that
> > one, but, unfortunately, real people do dumber things every day, and the
> > current definition of the meter is a perfect example of that.
>
> For another great example, let's look at your gravites:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3amitchell+author%3ajones+gravites
Another Le Sagean? What the hell .....