EINSTEINIANS STILL HATE THE 1911 EQUATION OF EINSTEIN
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.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation. Your
"with gravitation present" is excellent camouflage (Hawking cannot
devise such camouflage and for that reason he is no longer the Albert
Einstein of our generation). Gravitation is only present where the
light is emitted Roberts; let me repeat the problem:
"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?"
So Roberts why don't you apply Einstein's 1911 equation? I suspect you
are in the position described in
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
>
> Pentcho Valev
Hmm, we ought to make up our mind what the the speed of light is,
otherwise we should find nothing to talk about.
Pentcho Valev
Roberts Roberts and don't forget what your brother hypnotist wrote 10
years ago:
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."
Steve Carlip
car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
>
> Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
On the other hand, Roberts, don't pay too much attention to this Steve
Carlip - he will NEVER become the Albert Einstein of our generation.
He could be extremely harmful for Einstein's criminal cult:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition!"
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Roberts Roberts note that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
not only valid for the "frame at rest relative to a source of gravity"
that your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip introduced; it is also
consistent with what John Michell, a man much cleverer than you,
Carlip and Divine Albert taken together, said long time ago:
Roberts Roberts just say, first, "Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is correct" and then, solemnly, "Adieu Einstein, adieu Albert!".
Pentcho Valev