Science > Physics > RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
03 May 2007 01:09:23 AM |
| Object: |
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
There has been some discussion of Wallace's claims that radar between
Earth and Venus travels at c+v. Does anyone have a reference to a real
paper on this?
I found: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
but that is just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics
basis of his claims (I will not discuss the sociological claims).
I also found; Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative
Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361.
But I have no access to that journal. Does anybody have a copy they can
send to me?
Tom Roberts
Roberts Roberts looking for the truth? Or just panic? Roberts Roberts
even if Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" were, as you say,
"just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of
his claims", just remember the man was dying when he was writing it
and try to find the truth about c'=c+v, the emission theory equation,
by using more reliable sources. For instance, your brothers hypnotists
teach 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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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 / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
There are two possibilities Roberts Roberts:
1. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with both Pound
and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) and the emission theory equation
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply
mean that c'=c+v is true.
2. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is inconsistent with Pound and
Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) but consistent with the emission
theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This
would simply mean that both c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v are wrong.
Roberts Roberts you know these are the only possibilities. Which one
do you recommend Roberts Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
08 May 2007 02:50:57 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
There has been some discussion of Wallace's claims that radar between
Earth and Venus travels at c+v. Does anyone have a reference to a real
paper on this?
I found: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
but that is just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics
basis of his claims (I will not discuss the sociological claims).
I also found; Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative
Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361.
But I have no access to that journal. Does anybody have a copy they can
send to me?
Tom Roberts
Roberts Roberts looking for the truth? Or just panic? Roberts Roberts
even if Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" were, as you say,
"just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of
his claims", just remember the man was dying when he was writing it
and try to find the truth about c'=c+v, the emission theory equation,
by using more reliable sources. For instance, your brothers hypnotists
teach 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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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 / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
There are two possibilities Roberts Roberts:
1. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with both Pound
and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) and the emission theory equation
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply
mean that c'=c+v is true.
2. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is inconsistent with Pound and
Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) but consistent with the emission
theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This
would simply mean that both c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v are wrong.
Roberts Roberts you know these are the only possibilities. Which one
do you recommend Roberts Roberts?
Roberts Roberts your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has given precious
explanations:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm?CFID=16089669&CFTOKEN=67454987
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined)
decreases as the black hole is approached....If the photon, the
'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object,
it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a
black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner
that is not intuitively obvious....So, it is absolutely true that the
speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field....The speed
of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field, but depends upon
the reference frame of the observer. An observer anywhere in free fall
will measure (locally) the traditional value of c. An observer
sufficiently far away from the source of the field will conclude
likewise that the speed of light is c (locally). But, the observer far
away from the source will likewise conclude that the speed of light
closer in to the source decreases as the source is approached."
Brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations seem confusing and
contradictory but you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you know if they were not
confusing and contradictory Divine Albert's divine theory would not
survive. Now Roberts Roberts you will have to elaborate on brother
hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations. We already know what the
observer in free fall and the observer sufficiently far away from the
source will measure. But we do not know what speed of light an
observer CLOSE to the source of the field will measure. Should this
observer think of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while
measuring the speed of light? Brother hypnotist Warren Davis refers to
Einstein's 1911 equation as if it were true but you Roberts Roberts,
you said it was wrong and I believe you (after all YOU are the Albert
Einstein of our generation, not brother hypnotist Warren Davis). So
please Roberts Roberts tell me what speed of light the observer CLOSE
to the source will measure.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
13 May 2007 01:42:42 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
There has been some discussion of Wallace's claims that radar between
Earth and Venus travels at c+v. Does anyone have a reference to a real
paper on this?
I found: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
but that is just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics
basis of his claims (I will not discuss the sociological claims).
I also found; Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative
Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361.
But I have no access to that journal. Does anybody have a copy they can
send to me?
Tom Roberts
Roberts Roberts looking for the truth? Or just panic? Roberts Roberts
even if Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" were, as you say,
"just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of
his claims", just remember the man was dying when he was writing it
and try to find the truth about c'=c+v, the emission theory equation,
by using more reliable sources. For instance, your brothers hypnotists
teach 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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....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 / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
There are two possibilities Roberts Roberts:
1. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with both Pound
and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) and the emission theory equation
c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the
observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply
mean that c'=c+v is true.
2. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is inconsistent with Pound and
Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) but consistent with the emission
theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This
would simply mean that both c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v are wrong.
Roberts Roberts you know these are the only possibilities. Which one
do you recommend Roberts Roberts?
Roberts Roberts your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has given precious
explanations:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm?CFID=16089669&CFTOKEN=67454987
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined)
decreases as the black hole is approached....If the photon, the
'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object,
it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a
black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner
that is not intuitively obvious....So, it is absolutely true that the
speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field....The speed
of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field, but depends upon
the reference frame of the observer. An observer anywhere in free fall
will measure (locally) the traditional value of c. An observer
sufficiently far away from the source of the field will conclude
likewise that the speed of light is c (locally). But, the observer far
away from the source will likewise conclude that the speed of light
closer in to the source decreases as the source is approached."
Brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations seem confusing and
contradictory but you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you know if they were not
confusing and contradictory Divine Albert's divine theory would not
survive. Now Roberts Roberts you will have to elaborate on brother
hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations. We already know what the
observer in free fall and the observer sufficiently far away from the
source will measure. But we do not know what speed of light an
observer CLOSE to the source of the field will measure. Should this
observer think of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while
measuring the speed of light? Brother hypnotist Warren Davis refers to
Einstein's 1911 equation as if it were true but you Roberts Roberts,
you said it was wrong and I believe you (after all YOU are the Albert
Einstein of our generation, not brother hypnotist Warren Davis). So
please Roberts Roberts tell me what speed of light the observer CLOSE
to the source will measure.
Roberts Roberts your silence is frightening. In the process of
educating people your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has started a new
breathtaking science:
www.physlink.com/ae13.cfm : "If the photon, the 'particle' of light,
is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be
accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However,
the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not
intuitively obvious."
True, brother hypnotist Warren Davis has added a lot of idiocies (and
the above idea of his sounds idiotic as well) but that is always the
case at the start (remember Divine Albert's case). But if you manage
to develop those idiocies Roberts Roberts (together with brothers
hypnotists of course - e.g. Steve Carlip, John Baez, John Stachel,
Paul Davies, Brian Greene, Kip Thorne, why not Lubos Motl etc.) the
education would become much more efficient. Why are you silent Roberts
Roberts? What is going on?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
13 May 2007 03:33:00 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
Are you lonely?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
14 May 2007 02:48:02 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
Are you lonely?
Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
Einstein in 1915:
"Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity
possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of
relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of
the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity -
especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited
validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that
the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the
sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be
retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational
potential."
But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot
refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give
me the information. And I feel lonely.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
16 May 2007 03:46:32 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179128882.761845.204290@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: Eric Gisse wrote:
: > On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > > > Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Are you lonely?
:
: Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
: Einstein in 1915:
:
: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity
: possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of
: relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of
: the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity -
: especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited
: validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that
: the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the
: sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
: to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be
: retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational
: potential."
:
: But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot
: refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give
: me the information. And I feel lonely.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
Aww...
http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html
When you walk through a storm
hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark.
At the end of a storm is a golden sky
And the sweet silver song of a lark.
Walk on through the wind,
Walk on through the rain,
Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone,
You'll never, ever walk alone.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone,
You'll never, ever walk alone.
You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are
used to walking alone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
16 May 2007 07:10:40 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179128882.761845.204290@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: Eric Gisse wrote:
: > On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > > > Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Are you lonely?
:
: Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
: Einstein in 1915:
:
: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity
: possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of
: relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of
: the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity -
: especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited
: validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that
: the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the
: sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
: to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be
: retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational
: potential."
:
: But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot
: refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give
: me the information. And I feel lonely.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
Aww...
http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html
When you walk through a storm
hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark.
At the end of a storm is a golden sky
And the sweet silver song of a lark.
Walk on through the wind,
Walk on through the rain,
Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone,
You'll never, ever walk alone.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone,
You'll never, ever walk alone.
You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are
used to walking alone.
This seems inevitable when you live in Einstein's world and do not
want to be, as Bryan Wallace would have put it, a "scientific
prostitute". Einstein's criminal cult do not love one another but they
are united by the common money-spinner. Nothing unites anti-
relativists although I have the impression that they have become the
majority.
By the way, I have found where Divine Albert published the above
precious insights. It was in a 1912 paper, "Theory of Relativity",
published in "Physik", Emil Warburg, Leipzig, 1915:
Divine Albert: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory
of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the
theory of relativity have different views on this question. The
majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of
relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim
unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the
opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a
generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion,
this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically
constant gravitational potential."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
16 May 2007 09:43:31 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179317440.256868.37330@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1179128882.761845.204290@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: > : Eric Gisse wrote:
: > : > On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > : > > > Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: > : >
: > : > [...]
: > : >
: > : > Are you lonely?
: > :
: > : Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
: > : Einstein in 1915:
: > :
: > : "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity
: > : possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of
: > : relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of
: > : the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity -
: > : especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited
: > : validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that
: > : the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the
: > : sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
: > : to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be
: > : retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational
: > : potential."
: > :
: > : But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot
: > : refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give
: > : me the information. And I feel lonely.
: > :
: > : Pentcho Valev
: > :
: >
: > Aww...
: > http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html
: >
: >
: > When you walk through a storm
: > hold your head up high
: > And don't be afraid of the dark.
: > At the end of a storm is a golden sky
: >
: >
: > And the sweet silver song of a lark.
: > Walk on through the wind,
: > Walk on through the rain,
: > Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown.
: >
: >
: > Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
: > And you'll never walk alone,
: > You'll never, ever walk alone.
: > Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
: >
: >
: > And you'll never walk alone,
: > You'll never, ever walk alone.
: >
: >
: > You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are
: > used to walking alone.
:
: This seems inevitable when you live in Einstein's world and do not
: want to be, as Bryan Wallace would have put it, a "scientific
: prostitute". Einstein's criminal cult do not love one another but they
: are united by the common money-spinner. Nothing unites anti-
: relativists although I have the impression that they have become the
: majority.
I'm not anti-relativity. It's the only-one-speed-of-light morons
I'm against, since it is provably false. Relative motion is an axiom.
: By the way, I have found where Divine Albert published the above
: precious insights. It was in a 1912 paper, "Theory of Relativity",
: published in "Physik", Emil Warburg, Leipzig, 1915:
:
: Divine Albert: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory
: of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the
: theory of relativity have different views on this question. The
: majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of
: relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim
: unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the
: opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a
: generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of
: the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion,
: this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically
: constant gravitational potential."
:
: Pentcho Valev
GR stands or falls on Mercury's alleged "anomaly" of 43.1 arc
seconds per 8.430197267 Jovian orbits, Jupiter being the prime
cause of the precession.
If Divine Albert has solved the three body problem then I take
my hat off to him, give him the Fields Medal, but last I heard it
still has no analytical solution.
But never mind griping, that's been going on since Galileo
supported Copernicus.
When you walk through a storm
hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
I've been riding the storm since 1987, Pentcho, and I'm still untouchable.
Climb up here beside me, leave the sheep in the meadow.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
It's a beautiful view but it can only be seen when standing on the
shoulders of giants.
At the end of a storm is a golden sky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
16 May 2007 06:04:40 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 10:43 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179317440.256868.37330@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...: Androcles wrote:
: > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >news:1179128882.761845.204290@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: > : Eric Gisse wrote:
: > : > On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > : > > > Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: > : >
: > : > [...]
: > : >
: > : > Are you lonely?
: > :
: > : Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
: > : Einstein in 1915:
: > :
: > : "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity
: > : possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of
: > : relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of
: > : the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity -
: > : especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited
: > : validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that
: > : the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the
: > : sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
: > : to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be
: > : retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational
: > : potential."
: > :
: > : But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot
: > : refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give
: > : me the information. And I feel lonely.
: > :
: > : Pentcho Valev
: > :
: >
: > Aww...
: > http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html
: >
: >
: > When you walk through a storm
: > hold your head up high
: > And don't be afraid of the dark.
: > At the end of a storm is a golden sky
: >
: >
: > And the sweet silver song of a lark.
: > Walk on through the wind,
: > Walk on through the rain,
: > Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown.
: >
: >
: > Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
: > And you'll never walk alone,
: > You'll never, ever walk alone.
: > Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
: >
: >
: > And you'll never walk alone,
: > You'll never, ever walk alone.
: >
: >
: > You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are
: > used to walking alone.
:
: This seems inevitable when you live in Einstein's world and do not
: want to be, as Bryan Wallace would have put it, a "scientific
: prostitute". Einstein's criminal cult do not love one another but they
: are united by the common money-spinner. Nothing unites anti-
: relativists although I have the impression that they have become the
: majority.
I'm not anti-relativity. It's the only-one-speed-of-light morons
I'm against, since it is provably false.
Yet neither you nor anyone else, has "proven' this. You would think
that a bright "engineer" like yourself would be able to construct the
instruments necessary to prove this. How do you explain the failure of
everyone, most of all YOU, to EXPERIMENTALLY demostrate the
"falsehood" of SR?
Relative motion is an axiom.
: By the way, I have found where Divine Albert published the above
: precious insights. It was in a 1912 paper, "Theory of Relativity",
: published in "Physik", Emil Warburg, Leipzig, 1915:
:
: Divine Albert: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory
: of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the
: theory of relativity have different views on this question. The
: majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of
: relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim
: unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the
: opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a
: generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of
: the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion,
: this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically
: constant gravitational potential."
No *****! That's why he went to the trouble of developing GR!
Are you just acting, or are you really this fucking clueless? Could
somebody throw Androcles and Pentcho a bone, and buy them a clue?
:
: Pentcho Valev
GR stands or falls on Mercury's alleged "anomaly" of 43.1 arc
seconds per 8.430197267 Jovian orbits, Jupiter being the prime
cause of the precession.
Why hasn't a bright "engineer" like you built the instruments to
verify the "error" in the anomaly?
If Divine Albert has solved the three body problem then I take
my hat off to him, give him the Fields Medal, but last I heard it
still has no analytical solution.
You should take your hat to an yone who has solved a physics problem,
since you can't seem to solve even the simplest calculus problems.
But never mind griping, that's been going on since Galileo
supported Copernicus.
When you walk through a storm
hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark.
You would think a bright "engineer" like you would simply wear a mac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
I've been riding the storm since 1987, Pentcho, and I'm still untouchable.
Climb up here beside me, leave the sheep in the meadow.
"The sheep in the meadow"?
"Jean, Jean, you're young, and alive/
Come out of yor half-dreamed dream./
And run, if you will/
To the top of the hill/
Come into my arms, bonny Jean."
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
It's a beautiful view but it can only be seen when standing on the
shoulders of giants.
Dufus doesn't even understand the "shoulders of giants" quote.
It was a jibe at Newton's rival, Bacon (who was very short of
stature).
At the end of a storm is a golden sky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
17 May 2007 02:50:12 AM |
|
|
On May 16, 4:04 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
You should take your hat to an yone who has solved a physics problem,
since you can't seem to solve even the simplest calculus problems.
Did you know that Faraday's law states that E = -dB/dt? Neither did I
- apparently Androcles thinks that the curl of a vector field is the
same as the vector field itself.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
16 May 2007 10:29:05 AM |
|
|
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
This is a very good thing. It's through free and open endless
discussion as evidenced here in Usenet that the Global Brain is formed
and it holds the answers to the issues being discussed here, endlessly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
14 May 2007 03:36:59 PM |
|
|
On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
EricGissewrote:
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
Are you lonely?
Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
Einstein in 1915:
Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside.
Might want to get a personality first, but whatever.
[snip all]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
15 May 2007 06:41:38 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
EricGissewrote:
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
Are you lonely?
Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
Einstein in 1915:
Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside.
Girlfriends are important but in a different context. A year ago the
red herring "Einstein's girlfriends" was very efficient and I tried to
fight it:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/07/einsteins_theory_of_infidelity.html
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS |
15 May 2007 05:12:32 PM |
|
|
On May 15, 4:41 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
EricGissewrote:
On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
EricGissewrote:
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
Are you lonely?
Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by
Einstein in 1915:
Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside.
Girlfriends are important but in a different context. A year ago the
red herring "Einstein's girlfriends" was very efficient and I tried to
fight it:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/07/einsteins_theory_of_i...
Pentcho Valev
hahahahahh you sad little man
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
