Dark Age of Cosmology

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

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?

And what would I expect?

Dirk Vdm

On Aug 7, 11:31*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message

*





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?

And what would I expect?

Let me guess:

Master Tom Roberts say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein"
yes. Master Tom Roberts repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into
convulsions yes.

What else would you expect?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Aug 7, 11:31 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message







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?

And what would I expect?

What would anyone expect?

Dirk Vdm

On Aug 7, 4:02*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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.

So when you said that both of the equations above are in the context
of the Pound-Rebka experiment, you were indeed blowing smoke, and you
were indeed trying to compare two equations out of context, and when I
called you on it, you started foaming at the mouth and talking like
Yoda.

Does it ever occur to you to take this as a sound indicator that you
may be off track?

Conclusion:

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

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpghttp://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htmhttp://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 4:30*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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)

Einstein's equations from WHERE? What is the context of those
equations?

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/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpghttp://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htmhttp://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 2:00*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:30*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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)

Einstein's equations from WHERE? What is the context of those
equations?

Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...76de9c1bb81ab?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...196c607f78bd9?

And now you zombie Draper want to convince the public that you see
Einstein's equations for the first time. Bravo zombie Draper! The
public is convinced!

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 7, 7:37*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 7, 2:00*pm, PD wrote:



On Aug 7, 4:30*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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)

Einstein's equations from WHERE? What is the context of those
equations?

Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

These still don't point to original sources, though one of them points
to a lesson on www.mathpages.com, and you STILL haven't explicated the
*context* of those derivations, nor noticed that neither one of them
has any bearing on Pound-Rebka.

You will notice, however, that the discussion in the twice-removed
reference on www.mathpages.com DOES discuss the DIFFERENCE in the
contexts of those two equations, and does so quite explicitly. You
seem to have missed that completely.

As I told you before, Pentcho, if you just blindly put side by side
two formulas like
F_g = mg
F_g = GMm/r^2
you would be inclined to say that these two formulas are in conflict,
when they are in fact not at all in conflict. It is only by virtue of
superficial examination that they appear so, and if you take a minute
to understand the *context* of those two equations you see that they
are not in conflict at all. If you do the same exercise with the two
equations you cite, you will find there is nothing inconsistent.


And now you zombie Draper want to convince the public that you see
Einstein's equations for the first time. Bravo zombie Draper! The
public is convinced!

I don't need to convince the public. I don't need to convince you. All
I'm doing is pointing out where your likely source of confusion is. If
you don't want to entertain the notion that you are confused about
something, that's completely up to you. However, your being confused,
or your willingness to admit confusion, has nothing to do with the
self-consistency of relativity. Do not suffer the theism that "If It
Is Right, Then It Should Be Immediately Obvious."

On Aug 7, 2:49*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:37*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...76de9c1bb81ab?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...196c607f78bd9?

These still don't point to original sources....

They do Clever Draper but:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
"I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think
this is getting too silly!"

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Aug 7, 2:49 pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:37 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...76de9c1bb81ab?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...196c607f78bd9?

These still don't point to original sources....

They do Clever Draper but:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
"I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think
this is getting too silly!"

Pentcho Valev


No quotations.

Dirk Vdm

On Aug 7, 3:08*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 7, 2:49 pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:37 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...76de9c1bb81ab?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...196c607f78bd9?

These still don't point to original sources....

They do Clever Draper but:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
"I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think
this is getting too silly!"

Pentcho Valev


No quotations.

Dirk Vdm

All the information about Einstein's two equations showing how the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, including all
necessary references, can be found he

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm

Pentcho Valev