Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity field?

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
(Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message
om...
Jack Sarfatti wrote in message
et...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


(SKIP)

Albert Einstein wrote (1916):

"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)".

RVHG

And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing
close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all
celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!

Jim G
c'=c+v

SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.

Dirk Vdm

They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!

Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?

What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????


The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs
(and WHY)

The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.

Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.

Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.

Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing". If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.

This means

....that I must have put another point which Dirk v has failed to answer
before.....

... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.

Jim G
c'=c+v