Re: The speed of gravity revisited
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 "Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>
> > Roger Shore wrote:
> >> The posting [on Tom's message board] was censored solely because
> >> the moderator didn't like the way the discussion was progressing (i.e.,
> >> presenting clear, simple, and irrefutable disproofs of the main pseudo-
> >> scientific claims presented on that web site)... There were even some
> >> follow-up questions by other posters, asking about why the censorship
> >> had taken place.
>
> > ...I don't know of any such incident in our Message Board's six-year
> > history, and I keep an eye on what the other Moderators are doing. Your
> > claim is either fictitious or the result of a bad memory. But if it refers to
> > anything real, those questions by other posters and the answer explaining
> > our Moderator's actions will still be present. Find them and cite the link
> > so we can all see what happened and be sure you are not simply trying to
> > trash our Board's reputation with false, fictitious accusations.
>
> I just checked Tom's message board, and now even the messages from the
> other participants commenting on the censorship have been removed.
> Those messages originally appeared approximately where there are now
> two messages listed as "Deleted by moderator LB for duplication". The
> interested reader can still (as of Thursday night) find the early part
> of the discussion in the thread entitled "Physical Axioms and
> Attractive Forces", located in the "Meta Science" sub folder, from
> about Feb 26 to Mar 23, 2007, at which point the criticism of Tom's
> claims suddenly and mysteriously comes to a halt.
>
> Originally there were several other messages in this thread around Mar
> 24, the last of which was intercepted, edited, and censored by the
> moderator "Larry Burford". This was followed by a brief message from
> the censored poster, stating that since the message board had decided
> to censor and edit his messages, he would no longer be participating.
> Then one of the other participants asked if it was true that the
> critic's message had been censored, and the moderator said that the
> poster had not answered the questions that he [the moderator] had
> posed to him, but had instead posted a critique of those questions,
> and the moderator had decided that he would not allow the poster to
> "get away with this". These follow-up messages appeared at least for a
> short time, but they've obviously been removed to cover up the
> censorship.
>
> This gives a good idea of the character of Tom's message board.
> Hopefully this will save others from being tempted to waste any time
> there. As I said before, Tom has forfeited any presumption of good
> faith.
This Tom Van Flandern plays the role of the "defeated most important
anti-relativist" in Einstein criminal cult. Due to Flandern's extreme
stupidity, both leading Einsteinians and journalists-sycophants
regularly expose his "heretical ideas", gloriously refute them and so
both refuters and refuted gain popularity:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
Unfortunately this tactic works and I see silly Flandern among the
organizers of the important, in my view, CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY
CONFERENCE:
http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> I just realized I said something wrong:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> >> This field is the physical equivalent of the light-carrying medium,
> > [this is TVF's fantasy theory, not GR]
> > Yes, if one only considers elementary situations with
> > weak fields, one could probably concoct a model of a
> > "light-carrying medium" that approximates the predictions
> > of GR for such physical situations. [...]
>
> Nope, that is not possible. Such a "medium" could not possibly reproduce
> the gravitational time dilation between clocks at rest in a valley and
> on a mountaintop; nor could it reproduce the time dilation between
> relatively-moving clocks at the same gravitational potential.
You never stop saying wrong things, Honest Roberts. Neither
gravitational time dilation nor "time dilation between relatively-
moving clocks at the same gravitational potential" exists. It all
depends on the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
the equivalent (that is, deduced from Einstein's 1911 equation by
applying Einstein's equivalence principle) equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. If the equations are correct, both
time dilations simply do not exist (you know that don't you). If the
equations are incorrect, that is, if the speed of light does NOT vary
with the gravitational potential V or with the speed of the light
source v, then all sorts of miracles - time dilation, length
contraction etc. are deducible but the picture gets too absurd (you
know this as well don't you). Einsteinians cleverer than you have
hinted at the right solution, Honest Roberts:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> [Roberts]: in the domain where NG is valid (e.g. here on earth,
> >> most of the solar system), the predictions of GR and NG are
> >> experimentally indistinguishable.
>
> > So you agree that in most of the solar system, GR is experimentally
> > indistinguishable from NG, a theory with infinite force propagation
> > speeds that gives strongly spiral orbits if the force propagation
> > speed is reduced as low as c?
>
> Why do you keep bringing up a FANTASY theory? There _IS_ no such theory
> as "NG with force propagation speed reduced as low as c".
>
> Yes, in this domain the predictions of GR are indistinguishable
> from the predictions of NG. But one must use each ACTUAL THEORY, not
> your fantasy.
>
> In GR, nothing that carries energy, momentum, or information can travel
> faster than c.
Honest Roberts you are desperately lying again. See a previous
statement of yours made when Einstein criminal cult was still in no
danger and jugglers like you could safely refer even to the truth:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d508022
Pentcho Valev: "CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?" Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical
conditions of the measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/
s" (by which I assume you really mean the standard value for c). And
this can happen even for an accelerated observer in a region without
any significant gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
in sci.physics.relativity:
> Sorry for the slow responses. I was at the "Crisis in Cosmology 2"
> conference (http://cosmology.info/2008conference/) last week.
Did you manage to confuse everything at that conference, Flandern? If
you did not, just explain: What is the nature of Halton Arp's
"intrinsic redshift"?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Van Flandern
> [Valev]: explain: What is the nature of Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift"?
Ordinary gravitational redshift. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org
Pentcho Valev
OK that is a reasonable explanation. Then we remember how the
frequency varies with the gravitational potential V (experimentally
confirmed by Pound and Rebka):
f'=f(1+V/c^2)
We also remember the formula:
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and we ask: Does the speed of light vary with the frequency, in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it the
wavelength that varies with the frequency (as half of today's
Einsteinians claim)? If Einstein's 1911 equation is correct, then
perhaps light leaves the gravitational field of the emitting body,
continues its journey and in the end reaches the observer having a
reduced speed all along?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Van Flandern
> [Valev]: Does the speed of light vary with the frequency, in accordance
> with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it the wavelength that
> varies with the frequency (as half of today's Einsteinians claim)?
When the time coordinate is the proper time of the observer, the speed
of light is invariant by construction. When coordinate time is used instead,
the speed of light slows in a stronger potential field. For example, radar
beams slow when passing the Sun in any analysis using barycentric coordinate
time. This is called the "Shapiro effect".
> [Valev]: If Einstein's 1911 equation is correct, then perhaps light leaves
> the gravitational field of the emitting body, continues its journey and in
> the end reaches the observer having a reduced speed all along?
Basically, you are correct. But it does depend on what you are using as
a clock or time coordinate, which is why the answer is not simply "yes" or
"no". -|Tom|-
Androcles
"Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote in message
news:Gd6dnbJV7qs0In_V...@wavecable.com...
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:DwBEk.17336$a24....@newsfe17.ams2...
>
Pentcho Valev wrotes
>>> [Valev]: Does the speed of light vary with the frequency, in accordance
>>> with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it the wavelength
>>> that
>>> varies with the frequency (as half of today's Einsteinians claim)?
>
>> When the time coordinate is the proper time of the observer, the speed
>> of light is invariant by construction. When coordinate time is used
>> instead, the speed of light slows in a stronger potential field. For
>> example, radar beams slow when passing the Sun in any analysis using
>> barycentric coordinate time. This is called the "Shapiro effect".
>>
>>> If Einstein's 1911 equation is correct, then perhaps light
>>> leaves the gravitational field of the emitting body, continues its
>>> journey and in the end reaches the observer having a reduced speed all
>>> along?
>>
>> Basically, you are correct. But it does depend on what you are using
>> as
>> a clock or time coordinate, which is why the answer is not simply "yes"
>> or
>> "no". -|Tom|-
>>
> Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>
Andro, even if your facts underlying your question are
only remotely correct or acceptable, then what you have
sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
its most well known deja-vue is:
"Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>
'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:5%REk.102$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
*************************************
* Androcles 6, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************
> your facts underlying your question are
> only remotely correct or acceptable,
The Earth moving around the Sun is a fact only remotely correct or
acceptable?
"And yet it moves..." -- Galileo Galilei.
Perhaps, like you, Van Flandern isn't aware of Copernicus and Coriolis.
*************************************
* Androcles 7, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************
> then what you have
> sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
> called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
> its most well known deja-vue is:
> "Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>>
> 'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
> So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
No, no, I'm the trucker, you are the bitter sucker.
But to be fair,
"Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote (of Pentcho Valev):
Basically, you are correct.
Basically, Van Flandern is correct, Valev is indeed basically correct.
Shapiro is basically a dickhead.
Valev: "perhaps light leaves the gravitational field of the emitting body,
continues its journey and in the end reaches the observer having a reduced
speed all along?"
No, it had an increased journey, the speed never changed.
*************************************
* Androcles 8, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************
hanson
---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
Truck Driver "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
cranked himself in his mist of Gin.... ahahahahaha....
>
wrote in message news:LWSEk.33662$v97....@newsfe23.ams2...
> past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
> the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
> in both protasis and apodosis.
> -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
> *************************************
> * Androcles 6, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
>> Andro, even if your facts underlying your question are
>> only remotely correct or acceptable,
>
> acceptable?
>
> "And yet it moves..." -- Galileo Galilei.
> Perhaps, like you, Van Flandern isn't aware of Copernicus and Coriolis.
>
> *************************************
> * Androcles 7, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
>> sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
>> called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
>> its most well known deja-vue is:
>> "Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>>>
>> 'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
>> So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
> But to be fair,
> "Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote (of Pentcho Valev):
> Basically, you are correct.
>
> Basically, Van Flandern is correct, Valev is indeed basically correct.
> Shapiro is basically a dickhead.
>
>
> continues its journey and in the end reaches the observer having a reduced
> speed all along?"
>
> *************************************
> * Androcles 8, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
far here. You over-counted in your haze of Gin...
ahahaha... Leave it at 7 and have another Jug'oGin
to make it 8 to 0... You may bring more laughs then.
So, long sucker.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
> ------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
> ---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
*************************************
* Androcles 10, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************
Thanks for your help. Own goals are always satisfying.
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:3kTEk.121$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> ------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
>> ---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
>> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8edb8a82547cca30?hl=en
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote >
*************************************
> * Androcles 10, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
> Thanks for your help. Own goals are always satisfying.
>
You are welcome. But be careful. There's an Ancient Celtic
Proverb that says : "Self-Praise Stinks" .... ahahahaha...
Pentcho Valev
You avoid (or are unable to give) a clear answer. Or perhaps my
question was not clear enough so again: The observer measures the
frequency shift to be:
f'=f(1+V/c^2)
as demonstrated by Pound and Rebka. Then, in accordance with the
formula:
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
either the observer INDIRECTLY MEASURES the speed of light shift to
be:
c'=c(1+V/c^2) /1/
which is Einstein's 1911 equation, or the observer INDIRECTLY MEASURES
the wavelength shift to be:
L'=L/(1+V/c^2) /2/
as half of today's Einsteinians claim (the other half claim that
Einstein's 1911 equation is correct).
So which equation is correct: /1/ or /2/?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com