"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
...
------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...547cca30?hl=en

"Androcles" wrote
*************************************
* Androcles 10, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************
Thanks for your help. Own goals are always satisfying.

hanson wrote:
You are welcome. But be careful. There's an Ancient Celtic
Proverb that says : "Self-Praise Stinks" .... ahahahaha...

On Oct 1, 3:09*am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Pentcho Valev writes:
[Valev]: Does the speed of light vary with the frequency, in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it the wavelength that
varies with the frequency (as half of today's Einsteinians claim)?

* * When the time coordinate is the proper time of the observer, the speed
of light is invariant by construction. When coordinate time is used instead,
the speed of light slows in a stronger potential field. For example, radar
beams slow when passing the Sun in any analysis using barycentric coordinate
time. This is called the "Shapiro effect".

[Valev]: If Einstein's 1911 equation is correct, then perhaps light leaves
the gravitational field of the emitting body, continues its journey and in
the end reaches the observer having a reduced speed all along?

* * Basically, you are correct. But it does depend on what you are using as
a clock or time coordinate, which is why the answer is not simply "yes" or
"no". -|Tom|-

Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org

You avoid (or are unable to give) a clear answer. Or perhaps my
question was not clear enough so again: The observer measures the
frequency shift to be:

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

as demonstrated by Pound and Rebka. Then, in accordance with the
formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the observer INDIRECTLY MEASURES the speed of light shift to
be:

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

which is Einstein's 1911 equation, or the observer INDIRECTLY MEASURES
the wavelength shift to be:

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

as half of today's Einsteinians claim (the other half claim that
Einstein's 1911 equation is correct).

So which equation is correct: /1/ or /2/?

Pentcho Valev

"Tom" wrote:
"Lorentzian relativity easily accommodates faster-than-light
propagation and communication in forward time..."

No, your erroneous claims about this have already been falsified. To
repeat, both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity agree that the
momentum of a particle goes to infinity as the speed of the particle
approaches c. Therefore, regardless of interpretation, no material
entity can be accelerated to a speed greater than c.

"Tom" wrote:
"...experiments showing gravitational force propagating faster-than-
light in forward time falsify SR in favor of LR."

If there were any such experiments, they would falsify both SR and LR,
but there are no such experiments. Your erroneous claims about this
have already been debunked. The interactactions of objects by
relativistic fields obey conservation of momentum, and exhibit much
less aberration than would occur for simplistic Laplacian-style non-
relativistic interactions. The reason that the Laplacian aberration
argument fails for relativistic field theories was already explained
in 1900 by Poincare (yes, five years before Einstein's paper on
special relativity).

"Tom" wrote:
"These two interpretations [field and geometric) of GR have the same
math but different underlying physics."

Your erroneous claims about this have already been debunked. Again, a
theory of physics consists not just of equations, but of a mapping
between the terms of those equations and the results of some empirical
operations. If you begin with a successful scientific theory, and then
assign empirically distinguishable meanings to the terms of the
equations (compared with the meanings they have in the original
theory), you do not thereby produce a different interpretation of the
theory, you produce a different theory. Your theory makes different
empirical predictions. You can then no longer claim that your theory
passes all the empirical tests of the original theory. You are
recognized as a charlatan because you perpetrate a mental shell game,
by first claiming to espouse ideas that are empirically
indistinguishable from some successful theory (so that you can claim
the empirical successes of that theory) and then you immediately
assert profound empirical differences for your "interpretation".

"Tom" wrote:
"The geometric interpretation lacks a cause to initiate 3-space
motion..."

Yawn. This old canard? Your erroneous claim has been debunked many
times, revealing that you simply have a severe misunderstanding of the
geometric interpretation, not to mention the rest of physics. Again,
energy-momentum is explicitly conserved, at every time and place, in
any relativistic field theory. There is an unambiguous flow of
momentum and stress-energy. Hence your claims about "lacking a cause"
are completely without merit.

"Tom" wrote:
"The geometric interpretation lacks ... a source for the new momentum
of orbiting target bodies."

Again, your erroneous claims have already been thoroughly debunked.
Relativistic field theories fully and explicitly satisfy the
conservation of momentum, both translational and angular. See the
explanations of the Trouton and Noble experiment. Study it to the
point where you can explain why the torque due to aberration of the
force doesn't result in any rotation. (Hint, angular momentum is
perfectly conserved.)

"Tom" says
"It requires ... the creation of new 3-space momentum out of nothing."

That claim isn't just false, it's nonsense, because momentum
inherently involves motion, which involves changes of spatial position
in time. By referring to "3-space momentum", excluding time, you are
simply gibbering. And even if you managed to stop gibbering and
express a coherent claim about violation of energy-momentum
conservation, the claim would be false, because energy-momentum is
explicitly conserved at each time and place in relativistic field
theories (including both electromagnetism and general relativity).

"Tom" says
"...is falsified by the axiom "no miracles allowed"..."

Falsified by an axiom, huh? And of course your definition of
"miracle" presumably includes the creation of 3-space momentum out of
nothing. Actually, a real miracle would be if you ever stopped making
your idiotic anti-scientific claims and finally learned something
about science. Unfortunately, as it says on the big sign over the
entrance to the Crackpot Clubhouse: No Miracles Allowed.

"Tom" says
"...the distinguishing characteristic of deep-reality physics."

Yes, it's definitely deep. I wish I'd worn my boots.