Dark Age of Cosmology

On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

PD

On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 6, 12:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:



On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is..

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD

On Aug 6, 8:09*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 12:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD

Master say zombie discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Zombie
discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Master say zombie
introduce silly red herring yes. Zombie introduce silly red herring
yes. Master say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes.
Master repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 6, 2:16*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:09*pm, PD wrote:



On Aug 6, 12:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD

Master say zombie discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not.

I said no such thing. I said it would be best to look at them in the
proper *context* where they are used. Just as it's best to look at the
*context* of the formulas in the example I gave, lest there be a Valev
paroxysm in the offing.

Zombie
discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Master say zombie
introduce silly red herring yes. Zombie introduce silly red herring
yes. Master say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes.
Master repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 12:07*am, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 2:16*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:09*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD

Master say zombie discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not.

I said no such thing. I said it would be best to look at them in the
proper *context* where they are used.

Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
stated (see above). Don't twist and turn in such a silly way Clever
Draper. You do not wish to discuss Einstein's equations in the context
of the Pound-Rebka experiment - OK, everybody understands why. Just
remain silent and in 10 days the episode will be forgotten. This is
Einstein zombie world after all.

Pentcho Valev


Just as it's best to look at the
*context* of the formulas in the example I gave, lest there be a Valev
paroxysm in the offing.

Zombie
discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Master say zombie
introduce silly red herring yes. Zombie introduce silly red herring
yes. Master say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes.
Master repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 6, 5:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:07*am, PD wrote:



On Aug 6, 2:16*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:09*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 7:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Aug 6, 12:27*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:56*pm, PD wrote:

There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.

You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
frequency shift is:

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
a gravitational field:

(A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

(B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)

Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
not give a **** about both (A) and (B) *but I have the impression that
you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?

So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
to get a free education on the internet?

Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD

Master say zombie discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not.

I said no such thing. I said it would be best to look at them in the
proper *context* where they are used.

Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
stated (see above).

Citations, please. Were both in the Pound-Rebka paper? Were both in a
paper by Einstein about Pound and Rebka's experiment?

Don't twist and turn in such a silly way Clever
Draper. You do not wish to discuss Einstein's equations in the context
of the Pound-Rebka experiment - OK, everybody understands why. Just
remain silent and in 10 days the episode will be forgotten. This is
Einstein zombie world after all.

Pentcho Valev


Just as it's best to look at the
*context* of the formulas in the example I gave, lest there be a Valev
paroxysm in the offing.

Zombie
discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Master say zombie
introduce silly red herring yes. Zombie introduce silly red herring
yes. Master say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes.
Master repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 2:35*am, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
stated (see above).

Citations, please. Were both in the Pound-Rebka paper?

They weren't.

Were both in a
paper by Einstein about Pound and Rebka's experiment?

They weren't. Conclusion:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ


"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Aug 7, 2:35 am, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:48 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
stated (see above).

Citations, please. Were both in the Pound-Rebka paper?

No citations.
Honestly, what did you expect?

Dirk Vdm


They weren't.

Were both in a
paper by Einstein about Pound and Rebka's experiment?

They weren't. Conclusion:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ


"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 11:11*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message

*

On Aug 7, 2:35 am, PD wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:48 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
stated (see above).

Citations, please. Were both in the Pound-Rebka paper?

No citations.
Honestly, what did you expect?

Dirk Vdm

But I have already drawn the conclusion, Clever Moortel. Let me
repeat: Einstein's equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) showing
how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential were
NOT mentioned in the Pound-Rebka paper which confirmed the validity of
the equation f'=f(1+V/c^2) showing how the frequency varies with the
gravitational potential. For that reason my question: "Which of
Einstein's equations is consistent with the equation f'=f(1+V/c^2)?"
is absolutely irrelevant. Conclusion:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev