#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
True or False?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spacetime no longer exists is true or false? | victorespinoza | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 27th 11 12:16 PM |
FALSE PREMISE, TRUE CONCLUSION? (SIMPLER PRESENTATION) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | December 23rd 08 07:32 AM |
FALSE PREMISE, TRUE CONCLUSION? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 30 | December 22nd 08 03:10 PM |
Venus pentagram: true or false? | No Hassles (Thanks, Coolgoose!) | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | February 16th 06 06:35 AM |
True or False? | Richard | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | December 26th 04 10:16 PM |