Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.

Mr. Crossen says:
"I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based on the normal speed of light in a vacuum of outer space. Otherwise, it would have to be adjusted for the speed of light in air and water."

Thank you so much for your interest, Laurence. Hopefully, I can set you straight. This is a very important point of confusion, so please think... Of course, when light passes through gas or glass, etc, it is slowed and bent and split into different frequencies, but that has no bearing on meter length. The gravitational effect on frequency that occurs with redshift occurs in a vacuum and is a different matter. The PR experiment shows the decreased wavelength at a lower elevation and is correctly inferred by Einstein et al as a slower clock speed, of course, in the sense that if a meter is half as long it takes half the time for light to traverse it WHEN observed remotely. If the apparatus using a spectral line for measuring a meter is raised 22.5 meters, it will still measure a meter, but since a remote observer sees that light waves have expanded (redshift), then he is correct in concluding that space has expanded by the same degree. Indeed, the PR article does not address the fact that if clock speed or wavelength diminish, the length of a meter must in fact diminish accordingly by natural definition.

Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.

Nevertheless, my point is still valid, and it was Einstein himself who made these inferences but used them falsely to convince others that his theory predicted them. So, I make a billion dollar bet that a meter remains locally the same wherever it is placed, even in a black hole and this can be demonstrated using the apparatus used to define it. However, a remote observer can observe the wavelength used to make this determination has shifted towards the red and hence the meter has expanded as its properties are unchanged and even as unbeknown to itself. It is also easily inferred that the rate of redshift is equivalent to the rate of expansion which is equal to the opposite rate of falling bodies, not my idea but the way that gravitational redshift works and is is so observed. I stake my life, my wife and everything I have on that fact. And so, gravitational redshift is equivalent to spatial expansion, but effects of transparent substances are NOT. This is the key error missed by Einstein's fake theories, it is vitally important to science and so I dare anyone to seriously prove it wrong. ONE more thing... since comments so easily vanish, if this is important to you, that you consider saving them elsewhere. I earnestly hope I've cleared up this point. Let me emphasize that the extent to which you study the book, you will will see that I'm correct in all respects and the true nature of spatial expansion will make perfect sense. THANK YOU, Al Foos

as

that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum . PLEASE understand that.

in mind that this has nothing to do with the effect of gravity on meter length or spatial expansion. They are entirely different things.

.. My reference is ONLY the affect of gravitation on light frequency and iwas response:

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:

> . My reference is ONLY the affect of gravitation on light frequency and iwas response:

kookfight

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:23:42 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
>
> > . My reference is ONLY the affect of gravitation on light frequency and iwas response:
> kookfight

It would seem that moderators on the group are exerting exercising their own biased opinions on this site. Mr. Crossen's email to me was perfectly polite and rational. So, who are these moderators? Are they employed by Google? Do they represent the official policy of Google on this and similar issues and is their responsibility to censor discussion that contradict Google's stance on Einstein and relativity?

Foos Research wrote:
>
> Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
>
> Mr. Crossen says:
> "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based
>
>
>
> Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
>
>
>
> as
>
> that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .

"in a vacuum"....another con artists.

Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.

Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Foos Research wrote:
> >
> > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> >
> > Mr. Crossen says:
> > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based
> >
> > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> >
> >
> >
> > as
> >
> > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
>
> Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
>
>
> Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?

Foos Research wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Foos Research wrote:
> > >
> > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > >
> > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is ba
> > >
> > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > as
> > >
> > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> >
> > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> >
> >
> > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?

A vacuum does not exist on earth.

A vacuum does not exist.

Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:

vac·u·um
/'vak?yo?om/
noun

a space entirely devoid of matter.
synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
vacancy, voidness, nihility

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum

Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
universe.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:57:30 PM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Foos Research wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Foos Research wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is ba
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > as
> > > >
> > > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> > >
> > > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
> A vacuum does not exist on earth.
>
> A vacuum does not exist.
>
> Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:
>
>
> vac·u·um
> /'vak?yo?om/
> noun
>
> a space entirely devoid of matter.
> synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
> vacancy, voidness, nihility
>
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
>
>
> Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> universe.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Here, Einstein, take a hard look at the definition of light speed on wiki, before someone in this group gets to it. This is what has been taught in all physics classrooms and agreed on by all physicists since first determined by Louis Essen. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does anyone here have any serious academic training?

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC+7, Foos Research wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:57:30 PM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Foos Research wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Foos Research wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R.. This does not follow because the unit of measure is ba
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > as
> > > > >
> > > > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > > > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
> > A vacuum does not exist on earth.
> >
> > A vacuum does not exist.
> >
> > Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:
> >
> >
> > vac·u·um
> > /'vak?yo?om/
> > noun
> >
> > a space entirely devoid of matter.
> > synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
> > vacancy, voidness, nihility
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
> >
> >
> > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > universe.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Here, Einstein, take a hard look at the definition of light speed on wiki, before someone in this group gets to it. This is what has been taught in all physics classrooms and agreed on by all physicists since first determined by Louis Essen. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does anyone here have any serious academic training?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

On 3/11/2023 1:08 AM, Foos Research wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:57:30 PM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Foos Research wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Foos Research wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Crossen says:
>>>>> "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is ba
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> as
>>>>>
>>>>> that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
>>>> "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
>>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>>>> and challenge
>>>> the unchallengeable.
>>>
>>> Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
>> A vacuum does not exist on earth.
>>
>> A vacuum does not exist.
>>
>> Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:
>>
>>
>> vac·u·um
>> /'vak?yo?om/
>> noun
>>
>> a space entirely devoid of matter.
>> synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
>> vacancy, voidness, nihility
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
>>
>>
>> Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
>> universe.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>> and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
> Here, Einstein, take a hard look at the definition of light speed on wiki, before someone in this group gets to it. This is what has been taught in all physics classrooms and agreed on by all physicists since first determined by Louis Essen. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does anyone here have any serious academic training?

One of the things you need to learn is to avoid the most obvious
childish traps.

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 8:55:49 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Foos Research wrote:
> > >
> > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > >
> > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure is based
> > >
> > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > as
> > >
> > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> >
> > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> >
> >
> > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
kookfight

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 3:00 AM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
Hi, again, Laurence. At risk of overkill, my response to your issue re meter length was deleted by
Dono and maybe you missed it. I understand your confusion, but not sure how best to straighten
it out. The change in frequency "proved" by the PR experiment is a real change unrelated to
passage through any medium, just as the meter is defined as x wavelengths of a SPECIFIC
spectral line. If you imagine the measuring apparatus as being 1 meter long instead of the PR
22.5 meters and rotate it 90 degrees, we still have a meter, but we have a redshift on one end
and a blueshift on the other. Correct? You see this clearly, right? It is a well established fact that
light redshifts away from a celestial body. This is what the PR experiment proves. But even if you
raise the entire measuring apparatus 22.5 meters there is no change in the wavelength as far as
the apparatus is concerned. Check me out, does the definition of a meter specify it is only valid
at sea level or any other elevation? NO. So the frequency is NOT redshifted locally, but is seen by
a remote observer to cite a key observation by cosmologists that attribute it to Einstein's theory.
So, if the whole universe also expands spatially like Earth due to gravitational potential, it does
NOT expand internally because meters expand with it; hence, NO big bang. Now, this means
that even though a meter is the same here or 90 miles up, it is still locally a meter, it is defined as
a meter, there is no change in clock speed or frequency. If there was, the meter would have
expanded, but then how would the meter know if it expanded or not? This is another KEY
experiment attributed to relativity. A "remote" observer in Einstein's terms sees that the light at
one end of a vertical meter is redshifted because light experiences gravitational redshift. This
can ONLY mean that meter length and clock speed have increased, or in the reverse going down,
which is what the PR experiment claims to prove. The fact of change in clock speed and
frequency and meter length is NOT my idea, it is what experiments proved that were twisted to
make it seem a discovery attributed to Einstein's relativity. If you understand that relativity is a
hoax and engage your own mind, you see only what the experiments prove and that if frequency
and clock speed change, it is necessary by definition that the length of a meter change. This has
nothing to do with light slowing by passage through a medium. In a vacuum, it always measures
the same. I'd be quick to admit being wrong if you actually point out a reason, but I'm strictly
going by the definition of a meter in a vacuum. Do you honestly understand how Einstein's
meters and clocks change in SR? Be honest. It comes from change in velocity the same as occurs
with gravitational force. You should read the section on SR in the book. Simultaneity is NOT
relative. It's a hoax and you can understand the hoax. So, why does the PR experiment not make
mention of change in length with gravitational potential? It does in other instances; for example,
LIGO - they claim it measures a contraction in the length of the arms due to contraction of space
predicted by Einstein, but then how could it if frequency decreases as proved in the PR
experiment? The two would cancel locally! Where else can you find that Einstein showed that
meters change in length? You can't except that the PR experiment proves frequency changes
and therefore meter length must change as well; hence this is all Einstein's claim, not mine, I just
call it what it is and leave out Einstein. This is where the LIGO claim comes from, can you see
that? But locally, there is no change in meter length, so what it really measures is fluctuations in
the force of gravity just like dishes would rattle and so LIGO measures deflection of the mirrors,
not contraction of the arms. The Einstein stuff is propaganda, it's a hoax.
Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox/id/AQQkADAwATY3ZmYAZS05...
1 of 2 3/11/2023, 9:55 AMI don't know if this was a good time, I'm pretty tired. But I want you to see clearly that my
judgment is sound.
Thanks for your interest, I do appreciate it. Have a good day.
Al Foos

Yes, we have a red shift at the top of the meter and a blue shift at the bottom, yet it is as seen locally because this Doppler shift is not due to relative motion but to acceleration and/or deceleration of the photon. No, the universe does not expand due to gravity. It would not be noticed if it did since everything would change proportionately. The whole subject of relativity is so full of such extremely illogical nonsense as to be actually irrational, resulting in endless confusion. There are real perspectival differences, from train tracks apparently narrowing and thunder and lightning arriving at your senses at different times and the lightning in Einstein's train thought experiment being seen sooner from the front because the train is approaching it due to relative motion. Then there are the nonsensical claims of subjective or perspectival differences claimed by relativity, such as the Lorentz transformation, time dilation, and length contraction. These involve changing the units of measure, which is not legitimate. Lengths of meters do not change. Frequency does. A gravitational red/blue shift would mean the speed of light changed, not that the clock or meter changed. That the speed of light is constant is the second postulate, and it is false. Light speed varies with relative motion resulting in frequency changes, not in changes in meter length or clock speed. Experiments have not proved time dilation, or length contraction as Wallace Kantor shows in his book (and articles) "Relativistic Propagation of Light" and by many other critics of relativity. I appreciate that you express yourself clearly and think carefully, but I disagree.

Foos Research wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:23:42 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> >
> > > . My reference is ONLY the affect of gravitation on light frequency and iwas response:
> > kookfight
>
> It would seem that moderators on the group are exerting exercising their own biased opinions on this site. Mr. Crossen's email to me was perfectly polite and rational. So, who are these moderators? Are they employed by Google? Do they represent the official policy of Google on this and similar issues and is their responsibility to censor discussion that contradict Google's stance on Einstein and relativity?

"moderators"???? where? i no se no moderators here...

otherwise, everyone here would not exist here.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Foos Research wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:57:30 PM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Foos Research wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Foos Research wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure i
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > as
> > > > >
> > > > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > > > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
> > A vacuum does not exist on earth.
> >
> > A vacuum does not exist.
> >
> > Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:
> >
> >
> > vac·u·um
> > /'vak?yo?om/
> > noun
> >
> > a space entirely devoid of matter.
> > synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
> > vacancy, voidness, nihility
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
> >
> >
> > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > universe.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Here, Einstein, take a hard look at the definition of light speed on wiki, before someone in this group gets to it. This is what has been taught in all physics classrooms and agreed on by all physicists since first determined by Louis Essen. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does anyone here have any serious academic training?

You wrote: "...that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum ."

How does one measure 'gravitational effect' in a "vacuum"?

Where do you get one of these ...vacuums? Amazon???

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Foos Research wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC+7, Foos Research wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:57:30 PM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Foos Research wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:45:29 AM UTC+7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Foos Research wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Laurence made a comment I'd like to address, but it doesn't show on the group site. I'm not sure why many of the comments I receive on email vanish shortly after, but Mr. Crossen, much to his credit and unlike many others expresses an honest opinion that deserves a good answer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Crossen says:
> > > > > > "I am reading Al Foos's fascinating book criticizing relativity, particularly the P&R, employing his knowledge of calculus which I lack. He is very informative. However, he seems to think the expanding universe occurs within the solar system. This is not believed by the consensus of authorities. He also seems to think that the definition of a meter based on the speed of light requires adjusting the meter for the accelerations in the P&R. This does not follow because the unit of measure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, this is why LIGO pundits (incorrectly) claim Einstein proved that the arms shrink in response to a gravitational "wave." In a remote sense, of course, they do, but locally speaking, per PR et al, wavelength shrinks to the same degree and hence there is NO locally perceived change in meter length, clock speed or frequency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that is subject to gravitational effect in a vacuum .
> > > > > "in a vacuum"....another con artists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "vacumm". Doesn't exist.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Any ideas that are suject to "in a vacuum" is a FRAUD.
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > > and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > > Do you actually have any formal education in physics? Every freshman physics student has learned that the speed of light is defined as "in a vacuum." This is basic, fundamental physics. Seriously, have you ever had a physics course? Where? When? What was your grade?
> > > A vacuum does not exist on earth.
> > >
> > > A vacuum does not exist.
> > >
> > > Maybe you need to go back to the third grade and learn english:
> > >
> > >
> > > vac·u·um
> > > /'vak?yo?om/
> > > noun
> > >
> > > a space entirely devoid of matter.
> > > synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity,
> > > vacancy, voidness, nihility
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
> > >
> > >
> > > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > > universe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> > Here, Einstein, take a hard look at the definition of light speed on wiki, before someone in this group gets to it. This is what has been taught in all physics classrooms and agreed on by all physicists since first determined by Louis Essen. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does anyone here have any serious academic training?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Who was talking about...Speed_of_light????

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 3:00 AM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> Hi, again, Laurence. At risk of overkill, my response to your issue re meter length was deleted by
> Dono and maybe you missed it. I understand your confusion, but not sure how best to straighten
> it out. The change in frequency "proved" by the PR experiment is a real change unrelated to
> passage through any medium, just as the meter is defined as x wavelengths of a SPECIFIC
> spectral line. If you imagine the measuring apparatus as being 1 meter long instead of the PR
> 22.5 meters and rotate it 90 degrees, we still have a meter, but we have a redshift on one end
> and a blueshift on the other. Correct? You see this clearly, right? It is a well established fact that
> light redshifts away from a celestial body. This is what the PR experiment proves. But even if you
> raise the entire measuring apparatus 22.5 meters there is no change in the wavelength as far as
> the apparatus is concerned. Check me out, does the definition of a meter specify it is only valid
> at sea level or any other elevation? NO. So the frequency is NOT redshifted locally, but is seen by
> a remote observer to cite a key observation by cosmologists that attribute it to Einstein's theory.
> So, if the whole universe also expands spatially like Earth due to gravitational potential, it does
> NOT expand internally because meters expand with it; hence, NO big bang. Now, this means
> that even though a meter is the same here or 90 miles up, it is still locally a meter, it is defined as
> a meter, there is no change in clock speed or frequency. If there was, the meter would have
> expanded, but then how would the meter know if it expanded or not? This is another KEY
> experiment attributed to relativity. A "remote" observer in Einstein's terms sees that the light at
> one end of a vertical meter is redshifted because light experiences gravitational redshift. This
> can ONLY mean that meter length and clock speed have increased, or in the reverse going down,
> which is what the PR experiment claims to prove. The fact of change in clock speed and
> frequency and meter length is NOT my idea, it is what experiments proved that were twisted to
> make it seem a discovery attributed to Einstein's relativity. If you understand that relativity is a
> hoax and engage your own mind, you see only what the experiments prove and that if frequency
> and clock speed change, it is necessary by definition that the length of a meter change. This has
> nothing to do with light slowing by passage through a medium. In a vacuum, it always measures
> the same. I'd be quick to admit being wrong if you actually point out a reason, but I'm strictly
> going by the definition of a meter in a vacuum. Do you honestly understand how Einstein's
> meters and clocks change in SR? Be honest. It comes from change in velocity the same as occurs
> with gravitational force. You should read the section on SR in the book. Simultaneity is NOT
> relative. It's a hoax and you can understand the hoax. So, why does the PR experiment not make
> mention of change in length with gravitational potential? It does in other instances; for example,
> LIGO - they claim it measures a contraction in the length of the arms due to contraction of space
> predicted by Einstein, but then how could it if frequency decreases as proved in the PR
> experiment? The two would cancel locally! Where else can you find that Einstein showed that
> meters change in length? You can't except that the PR experiment proves frequency changes
> and therefore meter length must change as well; hence this is all Einstein's claim, not mine, I just
> call it what it is and leave out Einstein. This is where the LIGO claim comes from, can you see
> that? But locally, there is no change in meter length, so what it really measures is fluctuations in
> the force of gravity just like dishes would rattle and so LIGO measures deflection of the mirrors,
> not contraction of the arms. The Einstein stuff is propaganda, it's a hoax.
> Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox/id/AQQkADAwATY3ZmYAZS05...
> 1 of 2 3/11/2023, 9:55 AMI don't know if this was a good time, I'm pretty tired. But I want you to see clearly that my
> judgment is sound.
> Thanks for your interest, I do appreciate it. Have a good day.
> Al Foos
>
>

You signed this post...Al Foos????

Are you promoting your own self using a different handle?? Who are you
trying to Foo? Foo me once, shame on you...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 3/11/2023 1:57 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> universe.

The inside of your skull.

Volney wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2023 1:57 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > universe.
>
> The inside of your skull.

i'm pretty sure there is a screw loose somewhere...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/11/2023 1:57 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > universe.
>
> The inside of your skull.

"The universe consists of electrons, protons, neutrons, and morons"
(don't know who, but you can buy T-shirts)

Jan

On Sunday, 12 March 2023 at 09:25:01 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/2023 1:57 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > Point to me a place on earth devoid of matter, or anywhere in the
> > > universe.
> >
> > The inside of your skull.
> "The universe consists of electrons, protons, neutrons, and morons"

Like the ones insisting 9 192 631 770 to be
Newton mode and supporting them brothers
in faith.