| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2005 01:07:45 AM |
| Object: |
The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that
Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c
principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of
speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of
Einstein's cult:
The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 04:51:53 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that
Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c
principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of
speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of
Einstein's cult:
c + v principle ? Was that Newton ? Or is it just an easy mistake. Because
mass velocities
and Light velocities are never added. Only Distances.
I think Newton would turn in the grave if he had to read this.
The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maury Markowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 10:03:54 AM |
|
|
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
No they didn't. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Maury
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 07:17:52 AM |
|
|
Dear Pentcho Valev:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.
I can see that Einstein is the Satan in your new religion. Too
bad you seem to worship him with every word you post. It is
customary when designing a new religion, to apply the carrot,
before you apply the stick. What experimentally verifiable
results do you predict, that relativity does not?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 09:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close. In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's, and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all, whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain, but the algebra is quite clear, and some calibration
is possible by shooting gamma rays at a moving block (where
block and gamma source are at the same level).
The GR predicted effect is (1 + gh/c^2), where h is the
height of the tower and g is the local acceleration
from gravity (usually 9.805 m/s/s), and the SR predicted
effect is sqrt(1+(v/c))/sqrt(1-(v/c)) =~ 1+(v/c) where v
is the velocity.
For a 22m tower the ratio is approximately 1 + 2.4 * 10^-15,
which would give the same measurement as a block moving .72
microns per second or 2.592 mm per hour.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 03:52:40 PM |
|
|
According to Ghost, "the GR prediction of frequency shift is half that
of Newton's"
and "Newton predicts no wavelength shift at all".
Is he a phuckwit or what?
Lay off the nose candy, Ghost.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 06:00:12 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<androc1es@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 24 Dec 2005 13:52:40 -0800
<1135461160.038412.270530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
According to Ghost, "the GR prediction of frequency shift is half that
of Newton's"
and "Newton predicts no wavelength shift at all".
Is he a phuckwit or what?
Lay off the nose candy, Ghost.
Androcles
This coming from a guy who insists Einstein predicted
a TWLS of zero.
You are, of course, free to work the problem using your
theory. I'll wait...
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 03:48:07 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
More? Or less?
Nearly true or nearly false?
You are more of a phuckwit than you are a phuckwit.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close.
Yes, you a correct. This is not a case of the c+v principle, but the
at+c principle where a is accleration and t is time.
In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's,
One of your fellow phuckwits said:
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars."--Tom Roberts.
and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all,
But you've just said "half that of Newton's", you self-contradictory
phuckwit.
Is it more correct, or less correct, you fucking stupid troll?
whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 30 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 1 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet between bumps?
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 60 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 2 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet, idiot?
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain,
Ha! Not cetain... we'll ignore your more or less guesses.
*****, imbecilic troll.
[rest snipped].
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 03:52:46 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
More? Or less?
Nearly true or nearly false?
You are more of a phuckwit than you are a phuckwit.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close.
Yes, you a correct. This is not a case of the c+v principle, but the
at+c principle where a is accleration and t is time.
In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's,
One of your fellow phuckwits said:
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars."--Tom Roberts.
and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all,
But you've just said "half that of Newton's", you self-contradictory
phuckwit.
Is it more correct, or less correct, you fucking stupid troll?
whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 30 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 1 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet between bumps?
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 60 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 2 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet, idiot?
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain,
Ha! Not cetain... we'll ignore your more or less guesses.
*****, imbecilic troll.
[rest snipped].
Androcles.
Geez! The guy breaks his own "no snip!" rule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 05:49:19 PM |
|
|
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135461166.909912.236510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
More? Or less?
Nearly true or nearly false?
You are more of a phuckwit than you are a phuckwit.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v
principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close.
Yes, you a correct. This is not a case of the c+v principle, but the
at+c principle where a is accleration and t is time.
In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's,
One of your fellow phuckwits said:
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars."--Tom Roberts.
and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all,
But you've just said "half that of Newton's", you self-contradictory
phuckwit.
Is it more correct, or less correct, you fucking stupid troll?
whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 30 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 1 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet between bumps?
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 60 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 2 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet, idiot?
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain,
Ha! Not cetain... we'll ignore your more or less guesses.
*****, imbecilic troll.
[rest snipped].
Androcles.
Geez! The guy breaks his own "no snip!" rule.
Look at Ghost's posts. Do unto others as they do unto you.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 06:59:47 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135461166.909912.236510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
More? Or less?
Nearly true or nearly false?
You are more of a phuckwit than you are a phuckwit.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v
principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close.
Yes, you a correct. This is not a case of the c+v principle, but the
at+c principle where a is accleration and t is time.
In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's,
One of your fellow phuckwits said:
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars."--Tom Roberts.
and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all,
But you've just said "half that of Newton's", you self-contradictory
phuckwit.
Is it more correct, or less correct, you fucking stupid troll?
whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 30 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 1 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet between bumps?
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 60 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 2 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet, idiot?
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain,
Ha! Not cetain... we'll ignore your more or less guesses.
*****, imbecilic troll.
[rest snipped].
Androcles.
Geez! The guy breaks his own "no snip!" rule.
Look at Ghost's posts. Do unto others as they do unto you.
Androcles.
Besides that fact that you are a damn hypocrite -- imbecilic troll (Do
unto others as they do unto you) -- the rules of posting on
sci.physics.relativity asks posters to snip material in previous posts
not relevant to the poster's point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 08:22:55 PM |
|
|
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135472387.777376.18980@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135461166.909912.236510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Dec 2005 23:07:45 -0800
<1135321665.736421.290860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light
travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower.
More or less correct.
More? Or less?
Nearly true or nearly false?
You are more of a phuckwit than you are a phuckwit.
Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v
principle)
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of
light
(the c principle).
Erm, not even close.
Yes, you a correct. This is not a case of the c+v principle, but the
at+c principle where a is accleration and t is time.
In any event, the GR prediction
of frequency shift is half that of Newton's,
One of your fellow phuckwits said:
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars."--Tom
Roberts.
and Newton
predicts no wavelength shift at all,
But you've just said "half that of Newton's", you self-contradictory
phuckwit.
Is it more correct, or less correct, you fucking stupid troll?
whereas GR predicts
a wavelength shift as well as a frequency shift, but no
speed change.
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 30 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 1 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet between bumps?
What is the wavelength of a car travelling at 60 mph and bouncing over
bumps
in the road at 2 Hz, moron? Can it be 44 feet, idiot?
Now Pound, Rebka, and Snyder verified this, I'm not entirely
certain,
Ha! Not cetain... we'll ignore your more or less guesses.
*****, imbecilic troll.
[rest snipped].
Androcles.
Geez! The guy breaks his own "no snip!" rule.
Look at Ghost's posts. Do unto others as they do unto you.
Androcles.
Besides that fact that you are a damn hypocrite -- imbecilic troll (Do
unto others as they do unto you) -- the rules of posting on
sci.physics.relativity asks posters to snip material in previous posts
not relevant to the poster's point.
Which is what I did.
Now I snip you, you are irrelevant to my point.
*plonk*
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 09:14:30 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
Nonsense. Their experiment did no such thing. They did not measure the
speed of light in any way, shape, or form.
What they did measure is the effect of the earth's gravitational field
on nuclear resonances.
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Again nonsense. Where do you get this stuff? Why don't you even READ the
articles about the experiments you claim to discuss????
You have repeatedly posted messages containing complete nonsense, based
on major misunderstandings of the literature, and a general lack of
knowledge about science in general and modern physics in particular. You
think there is some sort of "Einstein cult" or "zombies", when in fact
it is YOU who are ineducable and have a closed mind.
Please, either learn something about physics or shut up.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 05:51:12 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels
between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed
Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle)
Nonsense. Their experiment did no such thing. They did not measure the
speed of light in any way, shape, or form.
What they did measure is the effect of the earth's gravitational field
on nuclear resonances.
and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light
(the c principle).
Again nonsense. Where do you get this stuff? Why don't you even READ the
articles about the experiments you claim to discuss????
You have repeatedly posted messages containing complete nonsense, based
on major misunderstandings of the literature, and a general lack of
knowledge about science in general and modern physics in particular. You
think there is some sort of "Einstein cult" or "zombies", when in fact
it is YOU who are ineducable and have a closed mind.
Please, either learn something about physics or shut up.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Derivation of the cuckoo transformations:
Velocity should be used since that has both direction and
magnitude and is a vector. Speed is a scalar.
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
=BD[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =3D
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
"Hence if x' be taken infinitessimally small:- " <<<
(attempt to differentiate at a discontinuity, dtau/dx', undefined
inverted
velocity)
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Discontinuity.html
=BD[1/(v-c) + 1/(v+c)] * dtau/dt =3D dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) * dtau/dt
dtau/dx' + v/(c=B2-v=B2) * dtau/dt =3D 0
tau =3D a * ( t - (vx' / (c=B2-v=B2)))
Show a=3D 1
tau =3D (t-vx/c=B2) / sqrt(1-v=B2/c=B2)
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein was incompetent as a mathematician, his disciples
are likewise incompetent. He was extremely good as a huckster.
As a consequence, there exist paradoxes.
tau =3D (t-vx/c=B2)/sqrt(1-v=B2/c=B2)
tau =3D (t-vy/c=B2)/sqrt(1-u=B2/c=B2)
tau =3D (t-vz/c=B2)/sqrt(1-w=B2/c=B2)
xi =3D (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v=B2/c=B2)
eta =3D (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u=B2/c=B2)
zeta=3D (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w=B2/c=B2)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Newton would have made breakfast of Einstein on toast.
Please, either learn something about mathematics or shut the ***** up,
you dumb *****.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perspicacious" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
23 Dec 2005 10:42:50 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
it is YOU who are ineducable and have a closed mind.
Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out;
but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.
- A.E. Houseman
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hymn of Einstein's Cult |
24 Dec 2005 06:09:56 PM |
|
|
so your stupid and color blind.
Stupid because any movng object with two colors would apear to be in
two places idiot.
frequency times wavelenth equals c .
To evry observer inside and outside this visible universe .
The laws of physics is the same outside this visible universe .
c is c to a star 100 billion light years past the hubble limit.
When that photon gets here in 100 billin years it wount have a
wavelength .
The star it came from is going FASTER THEN c wrt us it is going away
from us at 3c .
the star 100 billion light years away is going away at 3 times he speedd
of light twr us .
But it observes all photons at c .
The point in space the photon was ejected from the star wount ever move
and is not moving . The photon will leave that point at c .
Dark energy is all the photons from outside this visible universe and it
fills space.
photons at c with no wave length is energy under presure as a nuetron
cuts a path eliminating a void into ep that will close.
at c behind it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
