WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?

"myravian" wrote in message
...
You know that the relativity uses tensors right?! I see that you have
the middle-school level Mr. Valev, additions, subtractions, sometimes
a power


How childishly pathetic... a shorthand notation and the little boy who
changes
his name faster than a whore changes her panties is fascinated by it. You
know that relativity doesn't use condoms, right? You've been ****ed by it
and now you have Crank's Disease.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the
air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest
of contemporary physics."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in
this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very specific
predictions indeed.

"Every sentence of the language" is a conclusion Newton-Smith obtains
by using conditionals such as (if ‘p’ then ‘p or q’). Those
conditionals are not used in physical arguments and therefore you are
right - general relativity does not contain "every sentence of the
language". However it remains true that the inconsistency covers a
larger number of potential experimental results than the consistent
theory. Example: Pound and Rebka confirmed the validity of the
frequency shift equation:

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

and this, according to the mythology, is a glorious confirmation of
the predictions of the theory. If they had found no frequency shift,
that is, had confirmed the equation:

f' = f

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No. The equations of GR - which deal with gravity, primarily - reduce to the
equations of SR in a uniform gravitational field (hence the names "general"
and "special"). GR does indeed make different predictions to SR if there is
a gravitational field present; if it made exactly the same predictions, it
wouldn't be newer.

SR is easy to prove to be correct to a zillion decimal places because
thousands or millions of items depend upon it for their correct operation,
everything from car GPS systems to CERN.

GR is not so easy to prove experimentally, one of the triumphs of Pound and
Rebka was that they were able to provide evidence of GR over SR, a much
harder thing to do.

I hope this helps.

BTW, do you actually know any tensor calculus?



Pentcho Valev

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon
the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in
the
air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the
rest
of contemporary physics."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in
this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very specific
predictions indeed.

"Every sentence of the language" is a conclusion Newton-Smith obtains
by using conditionals such as (if ‘p’ then ‘p or q’). Those
conditionals are not used in physical arguments and therefore you are
right - general relativity does not contain "every sentence of the
language". However it remains true that the inconsistency covers a
larger number of potential experimental results than the consistent
theory. Example: Pound and Rebka confirmed the validity of the
frequency shift equation:

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

and this, according to the mythology, is a glorious confirmation of
the predictions of the theory. If they had found no frequency shift,
that is, had confirmed the equation:

f' = f

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.

"Peter Webb" wrote
The equations of GR - which deal with gravity, primarily ....
[snip]

hanson wrote:
"The equations of GR - which deal with gravity, primarily" ....
.... by using the old, venerable & humble "G" of Newton
in any and all of its "solutions"... "G" without which GR
couldn't even exist.... ahahahaha... Albert and his con
men merely tried to gain fame by assciation by feeding
off Newton's brilliance...

Webb, you haven fallen vitim to one of the great cons in
science... which turned you into an EInsein Dingleberry.
But enjoy the GReat GR lies.... and thanks for the laughs...
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

PS:
Here is where in the real world Einstein's crap is still
used and where they do laugh about it:

mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL ****"
*.edu, acad. & grantology............"does use REL,... No ****"
Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
Jews defend it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or not".

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon
the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in
the
air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the
rest
of contemporary physics."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in
this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very specific
predictions indeed.

"Every sentence of the language" is a conclusion Newton-Smith obtains
by using conditionals such as (if 'p' then 'p or q'). Those
conditionals are not used in physical arguments and therefore you are
right - general relativity does not contain "every sentence of the
language". However it remains true that the inconsistency covers a
larger number of potential experimental results than the consistent
theory. Example: Pound and Rebka confirmed the validity of the
frequency shift equation:

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

and this, according to the mythology, is a glorious confirmation of
the predictions of the theory. If they had found no frequency shift,
that is, had confirmed the equation:

f' = f

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.


You asked a question and then snipped the answer.

Sometimes I think you don't actually want to learn.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon
the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy
of
the speed of light. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in
the
air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the
rest
of contemporary physics."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in
this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very
specific
predictions indeed.

"Every sentence of the language" is a conclusion Newton-Smith obtains
by using conditionals such as (if 'p' then 'p or q'). Those
conditionals are not used in physical arguments and therefore you are
right - general relativity does not contain "every sentence of the
language". However it remains true that the inconsistency covers a
larger number of potential experimental results than the consistent
theory. Example: Pound and Rebka confirmed the validity of the
frequency shift equation:

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

and this, according to the mythology, is a glorious confirmation of
the predictions of the theory. If they had found no frequency shift,
that is, had confirmed the equation:

f' = f

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.


You asked a question and then snipped the answer.

I already have your answers.
They were "Its two equations" and "No", you lying piece of ignorant ****.
If you don't want to learn from me then learn from Valev, otherwise stick
your "No" up your arse and **** off.

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.


You asked a question and then snipped the answer.

I already have your answers.
They were "Its two equations" and "No", you lying piece of ignorant ****.


Where did I lie?

If you don't want to learn from me then learn from Valev,

I can't do that. Both you and Valev clearly know a lot less about Relativity
than I do; you both make obvious mistakes when talking about it.

otherwise stick
your "No" up your arse and **** off.



You asked a question in a public newsgroup. If you don't want answers, don't
ask questions.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.


You asked a question and then snipped the answer.

I already have your answers.
They were "Its two equations" and "No", you lying piece of ignorant ****.


Where did I lie?

If you don't want to learn from me then learn from Valev,

I can't do that. Both you and Valev clearly know a lot less about
Relativity than I do; you both make obvious mistakes when talking about
it.

otherwise stick
your "No" up your arse and **** off.



I said **** off. You are a troll. You won't go peaceably, so *plonk*



You asked a question in a public newsgroup. If you don't want answers,
don't ask questions.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed
of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

**************************
No.
Yes, you ****ing idiot.


You asked a question and then snipped the answer.

I already have your answers.
They were "Its two equations" and "No", you lying piece of ignorant
****.


Where did I lie?

If you don't want to learn from me then learn from Valev,

I can't do that. Both you and Valev clearly know a lot less about
Relativity than I do; you both make obvious mistakes when talking about
it.

otherwise stick
your "No" up your arse and **** off.



I said **** off. You are a troll. You won't go peaceably, so *plonk*


Don't be all like that, just because you got it wrong first time you tried.
Its a difficult subject if your maths isn't strong. If you still want help
understanding Relativity in the future, I am still happy to explain it to
you.



You asked a question in a public newsgroup. If you don't want answers,
don't ask questions.