Science > Physics > THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
14 May 2007 12:59:08 AM |
| Object: |
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.
Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. <shrug>
And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). <shrug>
Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce3ac7c573c1acb0/38914329d47c551d#38914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."
So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9d0dfdc8193e7ba8/fc7ce7429cbc7ffa#fc7ce7429cbc7ffa
Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 02:58:06 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179122348.833130.53190@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in
the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.
Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. <shrug>
And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). <shrug>
Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce3ac7c573c1acb0/38914329d47c551d#38914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."
So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9d0dfdc8193e7ba8/fc7ce7429cbc7ffa#fc7ce7429cbc7ffa
Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, this is all about words only: a lack of precision from their side
(although usually the context makes clear what they mean - that is, clear to
anyone who knows what they are talking about!) combined with a complete lack
of understanding on your side. It's hopeless I guess...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 03:36:45 AM |
|
|
harry wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179122348.833130.53190@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in
the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.
Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. <shrug>
And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). <shrug>
Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce3ac7c573c1acb0/38914329d47c551d#38914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."
So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9d0dfdc8193e7ba8/fc7ce7429cbc7ffa#fc7ce7429cbc7ffa
Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, this is all about words only: a lack of precision from their side
(although usually the context makes clear what they mean - that is, clear to
anyone who knows what they are talking about!) combined with a complete lack
of understanding on your side. It's hopeless I guess...
Yes Harry it's hopeless. Master Tom Roberts' world is like Big
Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "I Was A Teenage Queerwolf" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 05:53:58 AM |
|
|
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN
No surprise, considering he's been dead for 50 years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 09:09:41 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<shieater Panchito's imbecilities snipped>
Shito,Shito, Panchito
Shortage of food in Bulgaria again? Back to eating ***** on a daily
basis, Panshito?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 01:09:59 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 01:33:25 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. The world of
Master Tom Roberts and Master Tom Roberts' students - Gisse, Moortel,
Jeckyl, Wormley, Karandash.....The late Bryan Wallace expressed the
same regret in the following way:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence.
The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means
knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word
for knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in
his graduate school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and
Deeper. If one considers the vast array of abstract theoretical
garbage that dominates modern physics and astronomy, this appears to
be an accurate description of the degree. Considering the results from
Mahoney's field trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to
three times more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D.
scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to
three times more right to be called scientists then the so-called
Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that
observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an
argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least,
the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the scientific
method. The true scientist must have faith and believe in the
scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
28 May 2007 09:20:43 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179124405.039417.108380@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. The world of
Master Tom Roberts and Master Tom Roberts' students - Gisse, Moortel,
Jeckyl, Wormley, Karandash.....The late Bryan Wallace expressed the
same regret in the following way:
You're a sad obsessed little man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
29 May 2007 01:21:28 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179124405.039417.108380@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. The world of
Master Tom Roberts and Master Tom Roberts' students - Gisse, Moortel,
Jeckyl, Wormley, Karandash.....The late Bryan Wallace expressed the
same regret in the following way:
You're a sad obsessed little man
Let us see if you understand anything. Consider carefully this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/beca605eb2df12e5?
and especially Master Tom Roberts' reply:
Master Tom Roberts: "SR has a domain of applicability that does not
extend to the gravitation that is inherent in the "variability of the
speed of light" you mention. Within its domain, SR remains unrefuted;
outside that domain it is easy to refute. This is well known and
unremarkable. Some day perhaps you'll stop wasting your time writing
nonsense to the net and actually STUDY some physics. <shrug>"
Then compare Master Tom Roberts' reply with two more texts:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD;
indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a
gravitational potential."
Now the only question you should answer is: Has the variability of the
speed of light in the presence of a gravitational field (confirmed by
all your masters) anything to do with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light advanced in 1905:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 12:17:32 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
[...] SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."
Yes. Because Einstein realized that SR could not handle gravitation. As
is well known -- I have been pointing this out since long before you
started spamming this newsgroup with your nonsense.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
[...] ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD;
indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a
gravitational potential."
Yes, IN 1907! It took Einstein the next 8 years to fully understand
this, and the final result, General Relativity, is that his 1907
conclusion was wrong, and this variable speed of light cannot actually
be used as a gravitational potential. But he arrived at something MUCH
more fulfilling: a consistent theory of gravitation that includes SR.
But that 1907 notion lives on in the Newtonian APPROXIMATION to GR, in
which the Newtonian gravitational potential appears in the g_tt
component of the metric (using Newtonian coordinates); this makes the
speed of light depend on position in that gravitational potential, WHEN
MEASURED USING THOSE NEWTONIAN COORDINATES. Remember that this is only
an APPROXIMATION, and applies only to certain coordinates -- the theory
itself does not have this property.
Now the only question you should answer is: Has the variability of the
speed of light in the presence of a gravitational field (confirmed by
all your masters) anything to do with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light advanced in 1905:
No. Just look at the dates -- how could a MISTAKE made in 1907 affect
something written in 1905? Or how could a successful theory presented in
1915 do so?
Our understanding today is that SR is only APPROXIMATELY valid within
its domain of applicability, but within that domain the approximation
can be vastly better than typical experimental resolutions. That domain
excludes any situation in which gravitation is important.
This is all very basic and well known, but Valev continues to be
completely befuddled by his own confusions and refusal to STUDY. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 01:51:31 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
[...] SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."
Yes. Because Einstein realized that SR could not handle gravitation. As
is well known -- I have been pointing this out since long before you
started spamming this newsgroup with your nonsense.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
[...] ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD;
indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a
gravitational potential."
Yes, IN 1907! It took Einstein the next 8 years to fully understand
this, and the final result, General Relativity, is that his 1907
conclusion was wrong, and this variable speed of light cannot actually
be used as a gravitational potential. But he arrived at something MUCH
more fulfilling: a consistent theory of gravitation that includes SR.
But that 1907 notion lives on in the Newtonian APPROXIMATION to GR, in
which the Newtonian gravitational potential appears in the g_tt
component of the metric (using Newtonian coordinates); this makes the
speed of light depend on position in that gravitational potential, WHEN
MEASURED USING THOSE NEWTONIAN COORDINATES. Remember that this is only
an APPROXIMATION, and applies only to certain coordinates -- the theory
itself does not have this property.
Now the only question you should answer is: Has the variability of the
speed of light in the presence of a gravitational field (confirmed by
all your masters) anything to do with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light advanced in 1905:
No. Just look at the dates -- how could a MISTAKE made in 1907 affect
something written in 1905? Or how could a successful theory presented in
1915 do so?
In two ways Roberts Roberts. First, the MISTAKE: you wrote above:
"this variable speed of light cannot actually be used as a
gravitational potential". Yes, using the variable speed of light as a
gravitational potential was a mistake but this is irrelevant (red
herring); what is relevant is that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE
GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, and this is not a mistake, is it Roberts
Roberts.
The next question: How exactly does the speed of light vary with the
gravitational potential? Einstein offered the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
and you say this equation is wrong but never give the correct
equation. Why Roberts Roberts? And some of your brothers hypnotists
say Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct. How is this
possible Roberts Roberts? How can this type of science be
characterized?
Anyway, since you do not give the correct equation, we will have to
use Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) in order to show that, for
an accelerated observer (in the absence of a gravitational field), the
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) becomes c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed
of the light source and the observer. Those who wish to deduce the
transition from c'=c(1+V/c^2) to c'=c+v can use
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
although the calculations in this textbook, although essentially
correct, are deliberately confused. So Roberts Roberts this is the
first way in which Einstein's 1905 false principle of constancy of the
speed of light is affected. True, for the moment it is deduced that
c'=c+v is valid for an ACCELERATED observer, but you know Roberts
Roberts that this is not essential and further analysis would show c'=c
+v is valid for a non-accelerated (inertial) observer as well.
The second way in which the fact that the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential proves fatal can be understood if we note
that an observer distant enough from and at rest relative to a gravity
source is INERTIAL but at a gravitational potential DIFFERENT from the
potential on the surface of the gravity source. So if the gravity
source sends light towards this observer with an initial speed c this
light will reach the observer with a speed different from c. I have
already raised this problem many times:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/3691dbc83fe748b7?
Note Roberts Roberts that in this case Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not essential: the only fact that matters is that THE
SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 02:14:34 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180507891.716730.145220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
In two ways Roberts Roberts.
What is all this "Roberts Roberts" crap?
First, the MISTAKE: you wrote above:
"this variable speed of light cannot actually be used as a
gravitational potential". Yes, using the variable speed of light as a
gravitational potential was a mistake
There you go .. you agree
but this is irrelevant (red
herring); what is relevant is that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE
GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, and this is not a mistake, is it Roberts
Roberts.
Measured from where .. what frame of reference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 02:23:17 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180507891.716730.145220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
In two ways Roberts Roberts.
What is all this "Roberts Roberts" crap?
First, the MISTAKE: you wrote above:
"this variable speed of light cannot actually be used as a
gravitational potential". Yes, using the variable speed of light as a
gravitational potential was a mistake
There you go .. you agree
but this is irrelevant (red
herring); what is relevant is that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE
GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, and this is not a mistake, is it Roberts
Roberts.
Measured from where .. what frame of reference?
Clearly you want to learn but strangely you want to learn from me, not
from your masters. All your masters say the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential - why don't you ask them to elaborate?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 02:45:09 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180509797.496399.214160@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180507891.716730.145220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
In two ways Roberts Roberts.
What is all this "Roberts Roberts" crap?
First, the MISTAKE: you wrote above:
"this variable speed of light cannot actually be used as a
gravitational potential". Yes, using the variable speed of light as a
gravitational potential was a mistake
There you go .. you agree
but this is irrelevant (red
herring); what is relevant is that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE
GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, and this is not a mistake, is it Roberts
Roberts.
Measured from where .. what frame of reference?
Clearly you want to learn but strangely you want to learn from me, not
from your masters. All your masters say the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential - why don't you ask them to elaborate?
As suspected .. you know nothing and have nothing useful to say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
30 May 2007 02:51:14 AM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 00:23:17 -0700, Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180507891.716730.145220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
In two ways Roberts Roberts.
What is all this "Roberts Roberts" crap?
First, the MISTAKE: you wrote above:
"this variable speed of light cannot actually be used as a
gravitational potential". Yes, using the variable speed of light as a
gravitational potential was a mistake
There you go .. you agree
but this is irrelevant (red
herring); what is relevant is that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE
GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL, and this is not a mistake, is it Roberts
Roberts.
Measured from where .. what frame of reference?
Clearly you want to learn but strangely you want to learn from me, not
from your masters. All your masters say the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential - why don't you ask them to elaborate?
Pentcho Valev
The very first reasonable statement from Pentcho Valev:
nobody can't learn nothing from him ...
w.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
29 May 2007 01:35:12 AM |
|
|
[...]
Go away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
29 May 2007 02:14:40 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
[...]
Go away.
Something must have happened to you - you have already repeated "go
away" so many times. All zombies in Einstein criminal cult should
consult their masters when they have problems of this kind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/161f4a7c18ed02ac?
Bill Hobba wrote in sci.physics.relativity: "I just thought I would
mention to the group some experiences I have had with my Masters. I
had a look at the past exam papers, and while I could do them, some
mandatory questions were manipulatively/computationally intensive.
Due to a side effect of the arthritic condition I have, I also suffer
anxiety/depression under stress (my specialist says it has something
to do with the my haywire immune system that is the underlying cause
of my arthritis)."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
29 May 2007 03:21:09 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180422880.800444.15300@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
[...]
Go away.
Something must have happened to you - you have already repeated "go
away" so many times. All zombies in Einstein criminal cult should
consult their masters when they have problems of this kind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/161f4a7c18ed02ac?
Bill Hobba wrote in sci.physics.relativity: "I just thought I would
mention to the group some experiences I have had with my Masters. I
had a look at the past exam papers, and while I could do them, some
mandatory questions were manipulatively/computationally intensive.
Due to a side effect of the arthritic condition I have, I also suffer
anxiety/depression under stress (my specialist says it has something
to do with the my haywire immune system that is the underlying cause
of my arthritis)."
Pentcho Valev
Obviously you've nothing of an substance to say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
29 May 2007 02:49:55 AM |
|
|
On May 29, 12:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Go away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 01:43:50 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 11:33 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. [...]
How delightfully pathetic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
14 May 2007 02:23:00 AM |
|
|
On 13 May 2007 23:09:59 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
No censorship, please.
w.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN |
18 May 2007 10:37:53 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, H Wabnig
<>
wrote
on Mon, 14 May 2007 09:23:00 +0200
<th3g435k00pppqrsumdndndgcpi8i3dkif@4ax.com>:
On 13 May 2007 23:09:59 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.
No censorship, please.
w.
It is not censorship to point out that one's debating
partner is an idiot. :-)
(Assuming this subthread comes close to some sort of
classical form of debating.)
Of course Eric forgot to say "please", but that's a detail.
--
#191,
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
