On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
On Apr 4, 10:47 am, "Androcles" wrote:



--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe"
wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 10:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe"
wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 2:28 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:01 -0700:

On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26
+0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are
*not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c
(as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that
electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find
the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of
Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

And yet in actual measurements of transit time over measured
distance,
it is found to be c.

First one would know that is being measured before repeating the
mistakes
done by relativists.

| Time when a pulse leaves a transmit location.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is
not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an
event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption".

It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at
A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such
as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.

| It carries a clock which is designed to keep Earth
| time regardless of what the local time is. Just
| as GPS does.

Yes. So out goes Einstein's crank assumption 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from
B to A', because A (Earth) and B (Saturn) are in relative motion and
it takes over an hour to get from A to B but less to return when A is
approaching B, more when A is receding from B, both of which occur
each year.

No, it has nothing to do with the claim that the
speed of light is isotropic. However, the speed of
light is found experimentally to actually *be*
isotropic, so there's not much point in disagreeing
with that assumption.

Einstein's third postulate is just plain wrong and the idiot's mathematics
he built on it are ridiculously incompetent anyway, just like you,
Draper and Roberts; all of you too stupid to read it, the closest any of
you ever got to it is "Spacetime Physics". Einstein's idiot assumption
makes Cassini's clock wrong by 30 seconds. I'll believe the clock,
not the crank.

Cassini's clock is designed to read earth time. It
isn't "wrong". It isn't attempting to measure local
time. What do you mean you believe Cassini's clock?
Cassini's clock is just an earth-synchronized clock,
and by design has nothing to do with local time.

- Randy