> On May 11, 1:13 pm, Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On May 9, 2:41 am, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On May 8, 10:29 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Although Silly Vesselin Petkov was very close to the truth:

>

>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810030v13
>>>> Silly Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of
>>>> a photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along
>>>> with its frequency due to the conservation of the photon momentum. As
>>>> both frequency and velocity change in this experiment the measurement
>>>> of a change in a photon frequency is in fact an indirect measurement
>>>> of a change in the photon local velocity."

>

>>>> Criminal Tom Roberts managed to confuse him irreversibly and now Silly
>>>> Vesselin Petkov is very far from the truth. Here is an Einsteinian
>>>> that Criminal Tom Roberts has not confused yet so this particular
>>>> Einsteinian is still very close to the truth:

>

>>>>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."

>

>>> So if Criminal Tom Roberts had not confused Silly Vesselin Petkov so
>>> irreversibly, Silly Vesselin Petkov could say to Silly Ian Morison:

>

>>>http://fora.tv/2008/02/21/Ian_Morison_on_Einstein_s_Relativity_in_Action

>

>>> Silly Vesselin Petkov: "Hey, Silly Ian Morison, Pound and Rebka did
>>> not prove the existence of any gravitational time dilation! Rather,
>>> although they did not know it, they proved the validity of Einstein's
>>> 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with
>>> the gravitaional potential V. If they had known how to apply
>>> Einstein's equivalence principle in such cases, they would also have
>>> shown the validity of the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
>>> theory of light, where v is the relative speed of the light source and
>>> the observer."

>

>>> Silly Vesselin Petkov will never say that to Silly Ian Morison because
>>> Criminal Tom Roberts managed to confuse him irreversibly.

>

>> I think everything about theories should be ok in the ngs, even
>> trolling, but yet I recommend not characterizing anyone as criminal,
>> especially Roberts, with whom I have had many arguments with but he is
>> a good scienstist and does nto deserve this.

>
> Only a criminal can teach Einstein zombie world that, even if "light
> in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
> transform", special relativity "would be unaffected":
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa...
> Tom Roberts, Feb 1 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
> photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
> invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
> both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
> domains of applicability would be reduced)."

>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -