THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN

Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.

Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. shrug

And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). shrug

Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."

So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ce7429cbc7ffa

Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.

Pentcho Valev

On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.

Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.

Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. The world of
Master Tom Roberts and Master Tom Roberts' students - Gisse, Moortel,
Jeckyl, Wormley, Karandash.....The late Bryan Wallace expressed the
same regret in the following way:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence.
The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means
knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word
for knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in
his graduate school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and
Deeper. If one considers the vast array of abstract theoretical
garbage that dominates modern physics and astronomy, this appears to
be an accurate description of the degree. Considering the results from
Mahoney's field trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to
three times more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D.
scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to
three times more right to be called scientists then the so-called
Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that
observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an
argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least,
the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the scientific
method. The true scientist must have faith and believe in the
scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

On May 13, 11:33 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.

Unfortunately this is the only world I can live in. [...]

How delightfully pathetic.

On 13 May 2007 23:09:59 -0700, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.

No censorship, please.

w.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ps.com...
Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in
the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.

Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. shrug

And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). shrug

Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."

So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ce7429cbc7ffa

Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, this is all about words only: a lack of precision from their side
(although usually the context makes clear what they mean - that is, clear to
anyone who knows what they are talking about!) combined with a complete lack
of understanding on your side. It's hopeless I guess...

harry wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ps.com...
Tom Roberts just wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Henri Wilson wrote:
SR doesn't explain how the fairies actually adjust all the starlight in
the
universe to travel at precisely c wrt little planet Earth.

Those "fairies" "adjust" that in precisely the same way they "adjust" it
to travel in a straight line. That is, neither "fairies" nor
"adjustments" are needed, because this is geometry. shrug

And, of course, this is nothing special for "little planet earth", it is
for each and every inertial frame (i.e. the geometry is the same in
every such frame). shrug

Not each and every inertial frame shrug Roberts Roberts. Your brother
hypnotist Steve Carlip explained this to you long time ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."

So shrug Roberts Roberts if the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity" is very distant from the source of gravity, that is, the
field there is zero and the frame is virtually INERTIAL, and if the
source of gravity sends light towards this distant frame, then, as
your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip explained to you shrug Roberts
Roberts, "in such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c". In
other words, the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Learn more here shrug Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ce7429cbc7ffa

Of course, there is an essential difference between you shrug Roberts
Roberts and your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip. You are the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.) and for that
reason you should constantly lie. Your brother hypnotist Steve Carlip
is not the Albert Einstein of our generation and for that reason
sometimes he tells the truth.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, this is all about words only: a lack of precision from their side
(although usually the context makes clear what they mean - that is, clear to
anyone who knows what they are talking about!) combined with a complete lack
of understanding on your side. It's hopeless I guess...

Yes Harry it's hopeless. Master Tom Roberts' world is like Big
Brother's world:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

THE ALBERT EINSTEIN OF OUR GENERATION IS LYING AGAIN

No surprise, considering he's been dead for 50 years.

On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
shieater Panchito's imbecilities snipped

****o,****o, Panchito

Shortage of food in Bulgaria again? Back to eating **** on a daily
basis, Pan****o?

In sci.physics.relativity, H Wabnig

wrote
on Mon, 14 May 2007 09:23:00 +0200
:
On 13 May 2007 23:09:59 -0700, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 13, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Get a life of your own and stop trying to forge one out of this
newsgroup.

No censorship, please.

w.

It is not censorship to point out that one's debating
partner is an idiot. :-)

(Assuming this subthread comes close to some sort of
classical form of debating.)

Of course Eric forgot to say "please", but that's a detail.

--
#191,
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com