Pentcho Valev wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

I just thought I would mention to the group some experiences I have

my Masters.

Master Tom Roberts replied:

My sympathies for your difficulties, but IMHO you should do what you

to attend class and do homework problem sets in a study group. If you
don't really need the degree, then do your best on the exams, and

the results.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation! You
are a great Master, almost as great as Divine Albert. Bill Hobba
should first attend class and learn by rote this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm : "So, it is
absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a
gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]....Indeed,
this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence
of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35,
1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity
by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You
can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle
of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2) where V is the
gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light
c0 is measured."

and this:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime).
Tom Roberts

Then the homework problem sets should involve this:

1. As the light reaches the accelerated observer, the accelerated
observer measures its speed and the speed turns out to be, say, sorry
Einstein 300002km/s. Assume the moment the light reaches the observer
the engine stops so that the measurement is performed by an INERTIAL
observer. Will the speed be again sorry Einstein 300002km/s?

2. A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
will the observer measure?

So Bill Hobba's education would be perfect and a harmony will be
established between Bill Hobba and his Masters.

Roberts Roberts your student Bill Hobba badly needs your solutions to
the following problems:

If you do not give him the solutions, Bill Hobba may start reading
some heresy, e.g.

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

And as Bill Hobba reads the following text, his asociative mind could
lead him anywhere:

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

I just thought I would mention to the group some experiences I have had with
my Masters.

Master Tom Roberts replied:

My sympathies for your difficulties, but IMHO you should do what you can
to attend class and do homework problem sets in a study group. If you
don't really need the degree, then do your best on the exams, and ignore
the results.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation! You
are a great Master, almost as great as Divine Albert. Bill Hobba
should first attend class and learn by rote this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm: "So, it is
absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a
gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]....Indeed,
this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence
of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35,
1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity
by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You
can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle
of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2) where V is the
gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light
c0 is measured."

and this:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime).
Tom Roberts

Then the homework problem sets should involve this:

1. As the light reaches the accelerated observer, the accelerated
observer measures its speed and the speed turns out to be, say, sorry
Einstein 300002km/s. Assume the moment the light reaches the observer
the engine stops so that the measurement is performed by an INERTIAL
observer. Will the speed be again sorry Einstein 300002km/s?

2. A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
will the observer measure?

So Bill Hobba's education would be perfect and a harmony will be
established between Bill Hobba and his Masters.

Roberts Roberts your student Bill Hobba badly needs your solutions to
the following problems:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/th...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/th...

If you do not give him the solutions, Bill Hobba may start reading
some heresy, e.g.

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

And as Bill Hobba reads the following text, his asociative mind could
lead him anywhere:

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

I just thought I would mention to the group some experiences I have had with
my Masters.

Master Tom Roberts replied:

My sympathies for your difficulties, but IMHO you should do what you can
to attend class and do homework problem sets in a study group. If you
don't really need the degree, then do your best on the exams, and ignore
the results.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation! You
are a great Master, almost as great as Divine Albert. Bill Hobba
should first attend class and learn by rote this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm: "So, it is
absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a
gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]....Indeed,
this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence
of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35,
1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity
by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You
can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle
of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2) where V is the
gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light
c0 is measured."

and this:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime).
Tom Roberts

Then the homework problem sets should involve this:

1. As the light reaches the accelerated observer, the accelerated
observer measures its speed and the speed turns out to be, say, sorry
Einstein 300002km/s. Assume the moment the light reaches the observer
the engine stops so that the measurement is performed by an INERTIAL
observer. Will the speed be again sorry Einstein 300002km/s?

2. A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the
gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant
INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c'
will the observer measure?

So Bill Hobba's education would be perfect and a harmony will be
established between Bill Hobba and his Masters.

Roberts Roberts your student Bill Hobba badly needs your solutions to
the following problems:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/th...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/th...

If you do not give him the solutions, Bill Hobba may start reading
some heresy, e.g.

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

And as Bill Hobba reads the following text, his asociative mind could
lead him anywhere:

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -