TACIT THEOREM IN EINSTEINIANA

Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

Pentcho Valev

Y-en a mare des PV...

Libéré, j'osais le beau, vé.

Vincent






"Pentcho Valev" a écrit dans le message de
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).


No, if V=0, then

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0

Seems your confusion about Relativity might just have derived from a simple
algebraic mistake!

I bet you are relieved to find your error ....

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).


No, if V=0, then

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0

else No,



Seems your confusion about Relativity might just have derived from a
simple algebraic mistake!

I bet you are relieved to find your error ....

No, If ... no, then... no, else ...

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?

On Feb 26, 8:25 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

The crucial question is: Who should make the official declaration that
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?

Answer: The Royal Society should make that declaration. They devised
Divine Albert in 1919 and have had guilty conscience ever since:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...-Einstein.html
Martin Rees: "Although there's something rather noble about the way he
persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some
respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong signal. It unduly exalts
"armchair theory", which by itself would achieve little."

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880
"Members of the public and Royal Society scientists, both Fellows and
Research Fellows, were asked to vote in two separate polls for who
they thought had made the greater contribution out of Einstein and
Newton....The results showed Newton to be the winner on all counts,
although opinion was much closer on the overall contribution to
humankind. When asked who made the bigger overall contribution to
science the public voted 61.8% for Newton and 38.2% for Einstein and
the scientists voted 86.2% for Newton and 13.8% for Einstein."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

Pentcho Valev

bonjour,

quel calme avons nous vécu pendant quelques jours !
hélas, hélas, hélas, un quarteron de jours plus chauds que les autres a
ramené les virus printaniers du bourgeonnement..

A+

--

Lucien COSTE



"Vincent Thiernesse" a écrit dans le message
de news: ...
Y-en a mare des PV...

Libéré, j'osais le beau, vé.

Vincent






"Pentcho Valev" a écrit dans le message de
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

Pentcho Valev

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).


No, if V=0, then

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0

else No,



Seems your confusion about Relativity might just have derived from a
simple algebraic mistake!

I bet you are relieved to find your error ....

No, If ... no, then... no, else ...

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?


Maybe you didn't understand the maths, I will spell out the intermediate
steps for you

c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2 )

Now, we know c is not zero, and so 0/c^2 = 0

So,

c' = c0 (1 + 0)
c' = c0 (1) because x+0 = x for all x
c' = c because x * 1 = x for all x

See it now?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).


No, if V=0, then

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0

else No,



Seems your confusion about Relativity might just have derived from a
simple algebraic mistake!

I bet you are relieved to find your error ....

No, If ... no, then... no, else ...

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?


Maybe you didn't understand the maths, I will spell out the intermediate
steps for you


Maybe you don't understand sequential logic, I will spell out
all the steps for you.

initialise - get data - decision - 'yes' or 'true' branch - result.
|---- 'no' or 'false' branch -
different result.

When we encounter a 'decision' we
then 'decide' on which branch to take.


Initialise: print "Hello Sir/Madam, what is your name and gender?"
data: get input1, input2.
decision: If input2 is "male" then print "Hello" input1
else print "Hello Faggot".
stop:

Now we execute the code

Computer: Hello Sir/Madam, what is your name and gender?
Peter Webb: Peter, m.
(Computer asks does 'm' = 'male'? Decision is no.)
Computer: Hello Faggot.

Had Peter Webb entered "Peter, male" as expected then
the computer would print "Hello Peter"
ELSE ?

When I execute your sequence I get this:

No, if V=0, then c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0
else V = 45.32 (which is not 0) hence:
Peter Webb is an ignorant stupid illogical faggot.

See the difference between my logic and your illogic now?

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?

And you didn't like it. Pay up.

Ouf, putain que j'ai eu peur, j'ai cru un moment que les posts de Pantcho
seraient supprimés. Me voila rassuré.
Vas y Pentcho, t'as raison, Einstein est un rigolo, c'est toi le meilleur.



"Pentcho Valev" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).

Pentcho Valev

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
(at the moment of reception).


No, if V=0, then

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0

else No,



Seems your confusion about Relativity might just have derived from a
simple algebraic mistake!

I bet you are relieved to find your error ....

No, If ... no, then... no, else ...

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?


Maybe you didn't understand the maths, I will spell out the intermediate
steps for you


Maybe you don't understand sequential logic, I will spell out
all the steps for you.

initialise - get data - decision - 'yes' or 'true' branch - result.
|---- 'no' or 'false' branch -
different result.

When we encounter a 'decision' we
then 'decide' on which branch to take.


Initialise: print "Hello Sir/Madam, what is your name and gender?"
data: get input1, input2.
decision: If input2 is "male" then print "Hello" input1
else print "Hello Faggot".
stop:

Now we execute the code

Computer: Hello Sir/Madam, what is your name and gender?
Peter Webb: Peter, m.
(Computer asks does 'm' = 'male'? Decision is no.)
Computer: Hello Faggot.

Had Peter Webb entered "Peter, male" as expected then
the computer would print "Hello Peter"
ELSE ?

When I execute your sequence I get this:

No, if V=0, then c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2) = c0
else V = 45.32 (which is not 0) hence:
Peter Webb is an ignorant stupid illogical faggot.

See the difference between my logic and your illogic now?

No, I bet you £100 you don't like having your miserable illogic pointed
out to you, no?

And you didn't like it. Pay up.


I will repeat the equation I derived. If you are so sure that my maths is
wrong, perhaps instead of going on about computer programming, you could
explain which step is wrong:


c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) (this eqn was supplied)

c' = c0 (1 + 0/c^2 ) (we are examining the case V=0)

Now, we know c is not zero, and so 0/c^2 = 0

So,

c' = c0 (1 + 0)
c' = c0 (1) because x+0 = x for all x
c' = c because x * 1 = x for all x

See it now?

Not only is this different to result that was claimed, it is also exactly as
predicted by Relativity.

HTH