Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jan 18, 6:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

Albertito wrote:

Then, why did Einstein propose a local speed of light as
c'= c(1 + V/c2)?

Because he was struggling to find General Relativity, but had not yet
figured out all the details. His intermediate formula is approximate,
but not correct. When he proposed it he did not fully understand the
difference between local and non-local phenomena.

Roberts Roberts, Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent
with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed
experimentally by Pound and Rebka.

Sure.

In other words Roberts Roberts, the
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is CORRECT, NOT APPROXIMATE: any different
equation (that may seem correct to you) would be inconsistent with the
redshift factor.

This is nonsense. You REALLY need to learn how mathematical physics
works. While that equation is CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT EXPERIMENTS, that
does not justify the word "correct". It was derived without any
consistent theoretical framework. Such a framework was presented in
1915, General Relativity. In GR the formula is DIFFERENT (and cannot be
written in closed form), but FOR THE SITUATIONS OF THE CURRENT
EXPERIMENTS THE GR EQUATION IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ABOVE
EQUATION. That's what we mean when we say "it is an APPROXIMATION".

Indeed, contrary to your naive claim, the computations of GR are
consistent with the experiments.

For that reason Roberts Roberts superior brothers in
Einstein criminal cult have always been teaching that the speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential, in accordance with
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)

As I have said so often, your blind insistence on the validity of that
formula is wrong. In 1911 Einstein did not fully understand the
difference between local and global phenomena. With the advent of GR in
1915 Einstein (and anybody else with the wit to understand GR) learned
the distinction between local and global: that formula is valid only
when one uses standards of measure valid far from the location where the
measurement was made, which is NOT how we normally measure things.
Obviously YOU do not have the wit to understand this.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
[...]

You should read your own references. It includes the statement "You can
find a more sophisticated result derived later by Einstein from the full
general theory...". That is essentially what I have been trying to tell
you for a long time. That reference does not contradict what I have been
saying, as long as one considers its entire discussion.

[Do not expect me to respond further until you grow up and
stop acting like a spoiled 3-year-old.]

Tom Roberts