RELATIVIST PAUL ANDERSEN ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT

On 7 Aug 2001 Paul Andersen wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"We don't measure different light speed. We measure the same light
speed in all frames. The speed of light is invariant. Wavelength and
frequency are not."

Andersen, a few months ago you declared, in sci.physics.relativity,
that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was WRONG. As far as I
remember, I asked you to give the right equation, you said something
irrelevant etc. Now your declaration and the subsequent discussion
seem to be absent (at least my search showed so). So I have two
questions:

1. Are you able to destroy old messages that you find discrediting?

2. Would you claim again that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
is wrong?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 7 Aug 2001 Paul Andersen wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"We don't measure different light speed. We measure the same light
speed in all frames. The speed of light is invariant. Wavelength and
frequency are not."

Andersen, a few months ago you declared, in sci.physics.relativity,
that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was WRONG. As far as I
remember, I asked you to give the right equation, you said something
irrelevant etc. Now your declaration and the subsequent discussion
seem to be absent (at least my search showed so). So I have two
questions:

1. Are you able to destroy old messages that you find discrediting?

2. Would you claim again that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
is wrong?

Andersen I see you learn by rote and repeat Master Tom Roberts'
wisdoms so you need not answer my first question:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...311d48df?tvc=2
H.G. Huelsmann wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
And please do not forget the dependence of the speed of the light
on the gravity potential at the place where the light was generated.
Tom Roberts replied: "You got it wrong. The _speed_ is not dependent
on "the gravity potential at the place where the light was generated",
the frequency and wavelength are."

But Andersen please answer my second question. Have you managed to
destroy your message where you claim Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is WRONG, and what is even more important, have you managed to
destroy my replies to your message?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 7 Aug 2001 Paul Andersen wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"We don't measure different light speed. We measure the same light
speed in all frames. The speed of light is invariant. Wavelength and
frequency are not."

Andersen, a few months ago you declared, in sci.physics.relativity,
that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was WRONG. As far as I
remember, I asked you to give the right equation, you said something
irrelevant etc. Now your declaration and the subsequent discussion
seem to be absent (at least my search showed so). So I have two
questions:

1. Are you able to destroy old messages that you find discrediting?

2. Would you claim again that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
is wrong?

Andersen I see you learn by rote and repeat Master Tom Roberts'
wisdoms so you need not answer my first question:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...311d48df?tvc=2
H.G. Huelsmann wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
And please do not forget the dependence of the speed of the light
on the gravity potential at the place where the light was generated.
Tom Roberts replied: "You got it wrong. The _speed_ is not dependent
on "the gravity potential at the place where the light was generated",
the frequency and wavelength are."

But Andersen please answer my second question. Have you managed to
destroy your message where you claim Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is WRONG, and what is even more important, have you managed to
destroy my replies to your message?

Just a little correction: the question I would like you to answer is
originally my FIRST one:

1. Are you able to destroy old messages that you find discrediting?
Have you managed to destroy your message where you claim Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is WRONG, and what is even more important,
have you managed to destroy my replies to your message?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

I always love it when the village idiot demonstrates to the
world at large how to successfully communicate with himself.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

I always love it when the village idiot demonstrates to the
world at large how to successfully communicate with himself.

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely correct. But now that there are two of us the communication
is livelier. I would like you to comment on the following problem. So
far only two members of Einstein's criminal cult - Master Tom Roberts
and his student Paul Andersen - have claimed Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong (you are also Master Tom Roberts' student but
you do not help him in his fight against Einstein's 1911 equation).
Other members of the criminal cult worship the equation and even
relate it to quantities as important as 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."

Of course, the majority in Einstein's criminal cult are neutral with
respect to Einstein's 1911 equation: perhaps wrong, perhaps not (the
salary does not depend on it). Now if, as I suspect, Paul Andersen has
destroyed messages where he explicitly helps Master Tom Roberts in his
fight against Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), then Paul
Andersen is obviously a traitor. So for the moment Master Tom Roberts
is the only person in the world that claims Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong. Sad isn't it.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

I always love it when the village idiot demonstrates to the
world at large how to successfully communicate with himself.

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely correct. But now that there are two of us the communication
is livelier.

Valev, you smell like a dead corpse.

Dirk Vdm

On May 9, 1:56 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pancho's imbecilities snipped

Panchisto,

Still having few ideas but fixed?

On May 10, 4:50 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Stooopid - calculate the norm of any four velocity. It will be c.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

I always love it when the village idiot demonstrates to the
world at large how to successfully communicate with himself.

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely correct. But now that there are two of us the communication
is livelier.

Valev, you smell like a dead corpse.

Dirk Vdm

You may change your mind. I say:

Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the variation of the
speed of light is correct and consistent with the gravitational
redshift factor 1+V/c^2. Bravo Einstein!

You conclude that I smell like a dead corpse. In contrast, Master Tom
Roberts says Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the
variation of the speed of light is wrong:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...fc1168b4?tvc=2
c'=c(1+V/c2)
in the presence of a gravitational field.
Tom Roberts: "This, too, is wrong, as has been explained many times."

You conclude that Master Tom Roberts does not smell like a dead
corpse. Have you thought suffuciently over your conclusions?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

I always love it when the village idiot demonstrates to the
world at large how to successfully communicate with himself.

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely correct. But now that there are two of us the communication
is livelier.

Valev, you smell like a dead corpse.

Dirk Vdm

You may change your mind. I say:

Six weeks old, at least.

Dirk Vdm