True or False?

On Jun 11, 9:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 6/11/12 6/11/12 - 1:04 AM, AB wrote:

If you were to fly down near a black hole’s horizon and hover there for a few
days and then return home to Earth, you would discover that millions of years
have elapsed on Earth. You have aged only a few days, but your friends are
long since dead. True or False?

It is now possible to actually perform a similar experiment, using atomic
clocks, an automobile, and a mountain. Of course the difference in elapsed
proper times will be only a a tiny fraction of a second, but a statistically
significant result could be obtained.

Here's a comparable result, but driving up the mountain:

http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light. This postulate is
fully embraced by John Polasek. With higher value in the speed of
light at higher altitude, the predicted time dilation is
indistinguishable from what is predicted by GR. It is surprising that
an experimental physicist cannot see this point and devises more
experiments to distinguish these two competitive hypotheses but
instead champions the validity in GR and poo-poo-ed all others. Yes,
simpler wording would be “jumping into conclusions before all
evidences are gathered”. Either an amateur or already mystified with
GR right from the start! shrug

On Jun 11, 8:14*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 6/11/12 6/11/12 - 1:04 AM, AB wrote:
If you were to fly down near a black hole’s horizon and hover there for a few
days and then return home to Earth, you would discover that millions of years
have elapsed on Earth. You have aged only a few days, but your friends are
long since dead. True or False?

It is now possible to actually perform a similar experiment, using atomic
clocks, an automobile, and a mountain. Of course the difference in elapsed
proper times will be only a a tiny fraction of a second, but a statistically
significant result could be obtained.

* * * * Here's a comparable result, but driving up the mountain:

* * * *http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light. *This postulate is
fully embraced by John Polasek. *With higher value in the speed of
light at higher altitude, the predicted time dilation is
indistinguishable from what is predicted by GR. *It is surprising that
an experimental physicist cannot see this point and devises more
experiments to distinguish these two competitive hypotheses but
instead champions the validity in GR and poo-poo-ed all others. *Yes,
simpler wording would be “jumping into conclusions before all
evidences are gathered”. *Either an amateur or already mystified with
GR right from the start! *shrug


A shrugging idiot

On 6/11/12 12:14 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light.

Oh Brother!

On 6/11/12 6/11/12 - 12:14 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light.

Only by people who do not understand GR. People who do understand GR know that
a) this is worded too poorly for any good use, and b) the most obvious way to
fix it (add "local" just before "speed of light") makes a false statement.


[... further nonsense]


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote:
something to the effect that
__ GR is worded too poorly for any good use___

hanson wrote:
Yo, Roberts; excellent!... Let me reinforce you in
what "People who really do understand GR" said
for a long, long time:
___ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL_____ &
______ SR is short for STUPID RANT ______

Even Einstein himself issued his own denials about
his SR/GR, warned & constantly urged others, ever
since 1920:
|||AE:|||.... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
|||AE:||| .... where he, Einstein, had been working".

And he did so for one full generation, and 33 years later,
a year before he folded his relativity tent, closed his
umbrella, kicked the bucket and finally puffed and bit
the grass, Einstein wrote, in 1954 to his Jewish friend
Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein

Only fanatical, and brainwashed Einstein Dingleberries do
come back over and over, still & again, to present upfront
and center their own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity,
Thanks for the laughs, Roberts... hahahahahanson

On Jun 11, 10:52 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light.

Only by people who do not understand GR. People who do understand GR
know that a) this is worded too poorly for any good use, and b) the
most obvious way to fix it (add "local" just before "speed of light")
makes a false statement.

This is another hypothesis. GR people seem to get stuck in that
cesspool of mysticism not able to understand other hypotheses that can
equally satisfy these experimental results. shrug

Given hypothesis A and hypothesis B, both predict the same results.
Don’t you think hailing hypothesis B triumphant over A is rather
amateurish, stupid, and mystified? Apparently not to GR folks. WTF!
shrug

This postulate is fully embraced by John Polasek. With higher
value in the speed of light at higher altitude, the predicted
time dilation is indistinguishable from what is predicted by GR.
It is surprising that an experimental physicist cannot see this
point and devises more experiments to distinguish these two
competitive hypotheses but instead champions the validity in GR
and poo-poo-ed all others. Yes, simpler wording would be
“jumping into conclusions before all evidences are gathered”.
Either an amateur or already mystified with GR right from the
start! shrug

Please note this is another one of Koobee Wublee’s posts that have
silenced Tom and other self-styled physicists. CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN

On Jun 12, 1:56*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:52 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

It is acknowledged since the birth of GR that higher elevation
corresponds to higher value in the speed of light.

Only by people who do not understand GR. People who do understand GR
know that a) this is worded too poorly for any good use, and b) the
most obvious way to fix it (add "local" just before "speed of light")
makes a false statement.

This is another hypothesis. *GR people seem to get stuck in that
cesspool of mysticism not able to understand other hypotheses that can
equally satisfy these experimental results. *shrug

Given hypothesis A and hypothesis B, both predict the same results.
Don’t you think hailing hypothesis B triumphant over A is rather
amateurish, stupid, and mystified? *Apparently not to GR folks. *WTF!
shrug

This postulate is fully embraced by John Polasek. *With higher
value in the speed of light at higher altitude, the predicted
time dilation is indistinguishable from what is predicted by GR.
It is surprising that an experimental physicist cannot see this
point and devises more experiments to distinguish these two
competitive hypotheses but instead champions the validity in GR
and poo-poo-ed all others. *Yes, simpler wording would be
“jumping into conclusions before all evidences are gathered”.
Either an amateur or already mystified with GR right from the
start! *shrug

Please note this is another one of Koobee Wublee’s posts that have
silenced Tom and other self-styled physicists. *CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN



Idiot

higher is faster light, because
the only parameter is "index of refraction,"
which depends upon a)
number of atoms per volume, and b)
atomic number of the atoms or molecules (such
as H2, which predominates between the stars,
over H+).

of course, a lot of folks since Einsteinmania, believe that a)
there is an absolute, Pascalian vacuum, and that b)
photons are particles.

but, it cannot porpogate very much faster,
than in air, because air is already 1.0000004,
forgetting the exact number of zeroes, base-ten.