"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote in message
news:Gd6dnbJV7qs0In_VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d***wavecable.co m...
> 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|-
>
Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

"Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
newswBEk.17336$a24.2829***newsfe17.ams2...
>
Pentcho Valev wrotes
>>> [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)?
>
"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>> 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".
>>
Pentcho Valev writes
>>> 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?
>>
"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>> 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|-
>>
"Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
>
hanson wrote:
Andro, even if your facts underlying your question are
only remotely correct or acceptable, then what you have
sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
its most well known deja-vue is:
"Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>
'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

"hanson" <hanson***quick.net> wrote in message
news:5%REk.102$P5.74***nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> newswBEk.17336$a24.2829***newsfe17.ams2...
>>
> Pentcho Valev wrotes
>>>> [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)?
>>
> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>> 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".
>>>
> Pentcho Valev writes
>>>> 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?
>>>
> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>> 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|-
>>>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
>> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Andro, even if

In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
*************************************
* Androcles 6, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************


> your facts underlying your question are
> only remotely correct or acceptable,

The Earth moving around the Sun is a fact only remotely correct or
acceptable?

"And yet it moves..." -- Galileo Galilei.
Perhaps, like you, Van Flandern isn't aware of Copernicus and Coriolis.

*************************************
* Androcles 7, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************


> then what you have
> sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
> called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
> its most well known deja-vue is:
> "Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>>
> 'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
> So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

No, no, I'm the trucker, you are the bitter sucker.

But to be fair,
"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote (of Pentcho Valev):
Basically, you are correct.

Basically, Van Flandern is correct, Valev is indeed basically correct.
Shapiro is basically a dickhead.


Valev: "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?"
No, it had an increased journey, the speed never changed.

*************************************
* Androcles 8, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
*************************************

------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
Truck Driver "Androcles"
<Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics>
cranked himself in his mist of Gin.... ahahahahaha....
>
wrote in message news:LWSEk.33662$v97.7058***newsfe23.ams2...
>
> "hanson" <hanson***quick.net> wrote in message
> news:5%REk.102$P5.74***nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>> newswBEk.17336$a24.2829***newsfe17.ams2...
>>>
>> Pentcho Valev wrotes
>>>>> [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)?
>>>
>> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>>> 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".
>>>>
>> Pentcho Valev writes
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>>> 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|-
>>>>
>> "Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>> Why is the Coriolis effect now called the Shapiro effect?
>>> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Andro, even if
>
> In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
> past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
> the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
> in both protasis and apodosis.
> -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
> *************************************
> * Androcles 6, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Andro, even if your facts underlying your question are
>> only remotely correct or acceptable,
>
> The Earth moving around the Sun is a fact only remotely correct or
> acceptable?
>
> "And yet it moves..." -- Galileo Galilei.
> Perhaps, like you, Van Flandern isn't aware of Copernicus and Coriolis.
>
> *************************************
> * Androcles 7, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
>> then what you have
>> sensed by it, is the exhibition of the well know game
>> called: *** Plagiarize and take the Credit ***, of which
>> its most well known deja-vue is:
>> "Why is Hilbert Physics now called Einstein Relativity"?
>>>
>> 'Oye-weh!": -- "Trust me!" -- "Go Figure!".... ahahaha..
>> So long, sucker!... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> No, no, I'm the trucker, you are the bitter sucker.
>
> But to be fair,
> "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf***metaresearch.org> wrote (of Pentcho Valev):
> Basically, you are correct.
>
> Basically, Van Flandern is correct, Valev is indeed basically correct.
> Shapiro is basically a dickhead.
>
>
> Valev: "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?"
> No, it had an increased journey, the speed never changed.
>
> *************************************
> * Androcles 8, cha-cha-hanson 0 *
> *************************************
>
>
ahahahaha... Hey, AndrAlky you were trucking too
far here. You over-counted in your haze of Gin...
ahahaha... Leave it at 7 and have another Jug'oGin
to make it 8 to 0... You may bring more laughs then.
So, long sucker.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

"hanson" <hanson***quick.net> wrote in message
news:3kTEk.121$P5.9***nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> ------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
> ---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------

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

"Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:zITEk.14$FP7.10***newsfe27.ams2...
>
> "hanson" <hanson***quick.net> wrote in message
> news:3kTEk.121$P5.9***nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> ------------- ahahahahahaha -----------
>> ---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
>> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
>> in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...547cca30?hl=en
>
"Androcles" <Headmaster***Hogwarts.physics> 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...