Dave <djgardner@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bjib3k$2ve$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...

        [..]
        GR effects can easily be explained by assuming light is slowed
        down by a tiny amount in a gravitational field.
        [..]
        Using a calculator with a built-in equation solver, this gives
        c=299,792,458.8086 m/s in outer space, 21 cm/sec higher than the value
        on the Earth's surface
        [..]
        Now use this value of c to calculate v at the GPS satellite elevation of
        R=26.6e6 metres. This gives v=299,792,458.7586 m/s, 15.86 cm/sec higher
        than on Earth's surface.

Henri Wilson:
        Dave is right. Light speeds up as it falls to ground.

Paul Andersen:
        :-)

Henri Wilson:
        The Pound Rebka experiment proved that.

Paul Andersen:
        You didn't get it, did you?
        Dave says that the speed of light is slower at the Earth's surface
        than it is at higher altidudes, and you say that he is right because
        "light speeds up as it falls to the ground".

        Do you still say Dave is right? :-)

Henri Wilson:
        My statement should have read:

        Dave is possibly right. The speed of light measured in flat gravity might be
        dependent on the strength of the field. But since we do not have any evidence
        that this might be true, best not to take it too seriously.

        However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls.

Paul Andersen:
        But Dave is possibly right when saying the opposite? :-)

Henri Wilson:
        Dave is tallking about light speed across flat gravity. I am referring to light
        speed in the direction of a gravity gradient.
        Two very different scenarios.

Paul Andersen:
        Indeed?
        According to Dave, the speed of the light that has "fallen
        down" from a higher altitude is lower when it reaches the ground
        than it was when it started.
        You are stating:
        "Dave is possibly right."
        AND you are stating:
        "However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls"

        You have done this quite a number of times, Henry:
        Someone say that SR/GR is wrong by some reason.
        You agree without realizing that the someone is claiming
        something which is contrary to what you are claiming.

        I find that funny.

        And it's even more funny to see your acrobatic
        manoeuvres to evade having to admit your blunder.

        Paul, entertained

Henri Wilson:
        You just don't get it do you Paul?

        Just because photons accelerate as they fall VERTICALLY doesn't mean that
        HORIZIONTALLY measured light speed will be higher at ground level than in
        space.

Paul Andersen:
        So when you said:
        "We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
        that is not contrary to what Dave said, which is:
        "Light slows down as it falls",
        because if you in stead of saying: "light speeds up as it falls"
        had said "light doesn't speed up when it doesn't fall",
        then you wouldn't have said "light speeds up as it falls",
        and if you hadn't said that, it would not have been
        contrary to what Dave said, and both you and Dave are right.

        Have I got it now?

        Paul, enjoing the acrobatics

Henri Wilson:
        Paul, I realise that not even an Srian could be as dumb as you are trying to
        make out. So enjoy your little joke while you can.

        Does a TW measurement of light speed along a flat piece of ground involve
        'falling photons'?l

Paul Andersen:
        So when you, Henri Wilson, wrote:
        "We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
        which is clearly contrary to what Dave said,
        you didn't mean to say anything involving 'falling photons'
        but were referring to a TW measurement of light speed
        along a flat piece of ground ?

        You are really something, Henry. :-)

        Paul, enjoying the breathtaking acrobatics

Henri Wilson:
        I can see I will have to make up another of my demos to explain this simple
        phenomenon.

        The fact that photons speed up as they fall does NOT contradict the statement
        that measured TWLS along a flat surface DECREASES with increasing gravity. 

        The two principles are unrelated. Can you not see that?

        Henri Wilson.

Paul Andersen:
        I can see that according to Dave, the speed of light
        is given by the height, and is increasing with the height.
        The consequence of that is that "falling light" will
        decrease its speed as it falls.
        I can see that this is contrary to your statement:
        "We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"

        The two principles are mutually exclusive.
        Cant you see that?

        Paul, getting bored of the stupid acrobatics

Henri Wilson:
        Congratulations Paul. Your theory anihilates the Pound-rebka results.   You
        have managed to prove that experimental evidence is not to be believed. So what
        does that say for all those other sham 'experients' that you claim 'support
        SR'?

        Henri Wilson.

Paul Andersen:
        My theory? Strange idea. It is Dave's theory, and it was
        YOU, not me, who said it was correct.

        But of course you are perfectly aware of that, so this is
        another acrobatic manoeuvre to divert the attention from
        the fact that you were wrong, which you now finally
        have realized.

        Your and Dave's theories are contradictory.
        And they are both wrong.

        Paul

Henri Wilson:
        My theory and Dave's are totally unrelated.

        Thank christ Androcles is back.
        Maybe this NG will regain some respectibility..

        Henri Wilson.