On Apr 26, 10:39 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 26, 9:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:

"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:c46a9564-7667-4262-acf7-5421805e6f89@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
? ? a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,, I love s
Dirk Vdm
Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics..

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors [...]

Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
laugh.- Hide quoted text -

It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
kind of things Einstein was trying to do.  If simple algebra describes
the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
likely to be correct.
Robert B. Winn

Bryan Olson wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
Mind this bit:

"In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
members of the public who are interested in science and
even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
to have the reasons explained to them."

Yes, indeed; that would be the absolute favourite
expectation of the orthodox supporters - the perfect
outcome. Not, in fact, only the favourite, but the only
one to be even allowed on considered at all!

I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.

Could it ever be that I simply disagree?

Oh dear! Never! Impossible! Such
a concept is beyond the horizon.Inconceivable!

The so-called kooks thus have no monopoly on self-inflicted
blindness. In spite of any physics or mathematical
intelligence they may have, the orthodox supporters
totally fail in any capacity to understand that humans
are autonomous beings with autonomous minds, and
that this fact cannot be 'corrected' by the magic of
incantations like 'kook', 'crackpot', and the like.

Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

On Apr 27, 6:14 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?
Time is relative, Bryan. A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time. t'=t defines another measurement of time. The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t. n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t. A clock can be made
to run at any speed. Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
So no clue then?

The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.

Well, it is easy to make a statement, more difficult to prove one.

Here are the Galilean transformation equations:

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.

So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
scientists.

They want to call that cesium clock t'.

No, sorry, if
scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'. t' is
already defined to be t'=t. We refuse to do this, say scientists.

Well, then, play with your imaginary equations. They actually do
give you a fairly accurate answer. However, to find out what time on
the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
variable n'.

n'=t(1-v/c)

This makes scientists unhappy because someone has called "scientific
time" by something other than t'. However, it is not difficult to
look at the answers obtained and see that n' gives the correct answer
for time on the cesium clock in S'.
At v=.9c, n' in the above equation gives a time of .1 sec if t= 1
sec., and t' in the Lorentz equations gives a time of .23 seconds.
Therefore the Lorentz equation clock is slightly faster than n'
calculated from the Galilean transformation equations, and x' is a
slightly longer distance than x' calculated from the Galilean
transformation equations. Therefore there is a distance contraction.
No, scientists, there is not a distance contraction if you use the
correct time. If the cesium clock in S' has the slower time of n',
then x' in the Galilean transformation equations is exactly the right
coordinate, there is no distance contraction, and relativity of time
is successfully explained.
However, we need to look at the situation realistically.
Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations has been a cash cow
for scientists since it was thought of as a means of extracting public
revenues from governments for research. What are they going to do
now, say that they have the wrong equations and that the answer was a
simple matter of using the correct high school algebra?
I do not think so. They will do what witches in the past have
always done. They will claim to have superior knowledge, refuse to
discuss it, and continue to use it for their personal profit.
That makes scientists of today something different from what
Einstein and scientists of his time were, people who were actually
seeking an answer to a scientific question. Scientists of today are
people trying to defend a cash cow, not people trying to discover
principles of physics.
So having correct equations in this environment is more difficult
as far as getting them accepted than people in the past who discovered
scientific principles have encountered. For example, Galileo only had
to convince religious bigots that the earth rotated on its axis, not
scientists trying to protect an economic advantage they have nurtured
for a century. Convincing religious bigots is much easier.
It is not difficult for any thinking person to see what scientists
are doing. If the velocity of S', a moving frame of reference, is .9c
relative to S, a frame of reference at rest, then if time on a cesium
clock in S is 1 second, the Lorentz equations give an answer of .23
sec. for time on a cesium clock in S', while n' derived from the
Galilean transformation equations shows a time of .1 sec for the
cesium clock in S'.
Obviously, the slightly faster rate of the Lorentz equation clock
will give a larger value for x', requiring a distance contraction to
put x' where n' shows x' in the Galilean transformation equations to
be.
This is not difficult for anyone to see who considers it, which we
have to acknowledge that scientists have already done. Therefore,
scientists have made their choice already and are not going to
change. They have chosen to support the profitable,(for them),
interpretation of the Lorentz equations that Einstein gave them, since
it is sufficiently confusing to almost everyone to allow them to
continue to claim that only they are capable of understanding such a
complicated subject as relativity, and the government, (the people),
should give them increasingly large amounts of money from public
revenues for "research".
How would it look for them to say that a mistake in high school
algebra is the cause of all of this?
Robert B. Winn

Alen wrote:
[...]
I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.  

Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.

Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
yourself demonstrate.

On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

On Apr 27, 9:10 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
This is a gross abuse of Google rating system.  Has anyone complained
to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?

That's you! Hahahahahaha

Well, after I have pointed that out.  My one-star ratings for the
following post drastically reduced from 38 to 2.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/10f71d409fd...

However, the next post picked up 18 one-stars.  Does this stupid-cat-
in-chicken-costume aka Dono work for Google or something?  If not, has
he hacked the Google system?

If you actually cared what people thought of you, you would have
changed your behavior years ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:14 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?
Time is relative, Bryan.  A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time.  t'=t defines another measurement of time.  The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t.  n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t.  A clock can be made
to run at any speed.  Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
So no clue then?

The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.

Well, it is easy to make a statement, more difficult to prove one.

Good that you understand that much. You've posted a lot of novel
science, while any proof or evidence remains to be seen.

Here are the Galilean transformation equations:

                  x'=x-vt
                  y'=y
                  z'=z
                  t'=t

Agreed.

What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.

What a mess.

The equations pertain to events identifiable in space and time, and
to two coordinate systems in which me can specify positions in space
and time. Call the coordinate systems S and S'; for any event, if
(x, y, z, t) are the coordinate of that event in S, then
(x', y', z', t') are, by definition, the coordinates of that same
event in S'.

The equations further assume that the origins of the coordinate
systems coincide. An event at (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) in S has
coordinates (x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0) in S'. Furthermore, the axis
of the two systems must be parallel; and any movement of one
coordinate system with respect to the other must be entirely in
the x direction (same as the x' direction); and such movement must
be uniform, meaning constant velocity.

There is no particular reference to the element cesium in the
Galilean transformation. The element was discovered in 1860, some
218 yeas after Galileo's death. The coordinate system has a time
dimension; a cesium clock is relevant insofar as it measures that
dimension, and no farther.

So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
scientists.

No, scientists insist on saying things unambiguously, accurately,
and precisely as possible.

They want to call that cesium clock t'.

Mr. Winn has that wrong. Scientists understand t' is, by definition,
the time axis in S'.

No, sorry, if
scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'.  t' is
already defined to be t'=t.  We refuse to do this, say scientists..

The world in Winn's head has diverged so far from the real one -- and
his idea of scientific understanding has gone so wrong, that we can do
nothing better than put a big red X through Winn's ramblings. To learn
what scientists say, listen to scientists.

    Well, then, play with your imaginary equations.  They actually do
give you a fairly accurate answer.  However, to find out what time on
the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
variable n'.

                 n'=t(1-v/c)

The Galilean transformation has no "n'", and such is greatly to the
credit of the Galilean transformation.

-Bryan

On Apr 26, 10:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 26, 10:40�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:54 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:

On Apr 26, 7:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
� �http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

� �"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
� � relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
� � outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
� � a fake?"

Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.

Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.

Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
groups.

Relativity has survived four generations of physicists. Try another
asinine argument.

Four generations of physicists have used Einstein's theory as a cash
cow to get money from public revenues.  I do not think we are going to
see any change in that practice any time soon.
Robert B. Winn

Robert, I know nothing of welding.

Am I qualified to tell other people how to weld and explain how the
technology has developed, along with all the errors they made along
the way that only I can see?- Hide quoted text -

Well, I guess there is only one way to find out. Go apply for a job

On Apr 26, 10:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 26, 10:39 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:

"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:c46a9564-7667-4262-acf7-5421805e6f89@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
? ? a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,, I love s
Dirk Vdm
Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors [...]

Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
laugh.- Hide quoted text -

It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
kind of things Einstein was trying to do.  If simple algebra describes
the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
likely to be correct.
Robert B. Winn

You can't even grasp why your additions to the Galilean
transformations contradict t' = t, or even what t' = t means. You have
no standing to claims about errors in algebra.- Hide quoted text -

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
�http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:b1fd38f4-b8f3-4372-b5d2-399aa74cc2d8@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 4:15 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

Alen wrote:
[...]
I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.

Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.

Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
yourself demonstrate.

| Not at all! �In your view, yes, that may well be what I
| demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
| thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
| otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
| me that I should 'correct' myself. My alternative to
| Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
| SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
| as I am concerned. I am under no obligation to satisfy
| the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
| I suggest an alternative. �But this stance of mine
| appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
| to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
| don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
| like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.

| Alen

Take the stupid kook up on it.
The theory predicts two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
exactly that.

On Apr 28, 7:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?

Be explicit.

On Apr 28, 3:28 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:



On Apr 28, 7:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?

Be explicit.

Because, since the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), it also
varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer,
v, in accordance with the EQUIVALENT equation c'=c+v.

Your Dr. Al knew
that and clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult also know that
but unfortunately zombies like you are not even able to notice the
problem, let alone solving it.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

On Apr 28, 3:28 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:





On Apr 28, 7:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?

Be explicit.

Because, since the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), it also
varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer,
v, in accordance with the EQUIVALENT equation c'=c+v.

On Apr 28, 9:53 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 3:28 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:

On Apr 28, 7:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust..
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?

Be explicit.

Because, since the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), it also
varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer,
v, in accordance with the EQUIVALENT equation c'=c+v.

Interesting logical leap there, Pentcho. Care to explain how c' > c(1+V/c^2) [which by the way is incorrectly transcribed by you, but
let's set that aside for now] in a gravitational field then implies c'
= c + v, the source-speed dependence of c?