|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: There has been some discussion of Wallace's claims that radar between Earth and Venus travels at c+v. Does anyone have a reference to a real paper on this? I found: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm but that is just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of his claims (I will not discuss the sociological claims). I also found; Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361. But I have no access to that journal. Does anybody have a copy they can send to me? Tom Roberts Roberts Roberts looking for the truth? Or just panic? Roberts Roberts even if Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" were, as you say, "just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of his claims", just remember the man was dying when he was writing it and try to find the truth about c'=c+v, the emission theory equation, by using more reliable sources. For instance, your brothers hypnotists teach this: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." There are two possibilities Roberts Roberts: 1. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with both Pound and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) and the emission theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply mean that c'=c+v is true. 2. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is inconsistent with Pound and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) but consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply mean that both c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v are wrong. Roberts Roberts you know these are the only possibilities. Which one do you recommend Roberts Roberts? Roberts Roberts your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has given precious explanations: http://www.physlink.com/Education/As...TOKEN=67454987 "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached....If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious....So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field....The speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field, but depends upon the reference frame of the observer. An observer anywhere in free fall will measure (locally) the traditional value of c. An observer sufficiently far away from the source of the field will conclude likewise that the speed of light is c (locally). But, the observer far away from the source will likewise conclude that the speed of light closer in to the source decreases as the source is approached." Brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations seem confusing and contradictory but you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you know if they were not confusing and contradictory Divine Albert's divine theory would not survive. Now Roberts Roberts you will have to elaborate on brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations. We already know what the observer in free fall and the observer sufficiently far away from the source will measure. But we do not know what speed of light an observer CLOSE to the source of the field will measure. Should this observer think of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while measuring the speed of light? Brother hypnotist Warren Davis refers to Einstein's 1911 equation as if it were true but you Roberts Roberts, you said it was wrong and I believe you (after all YOU are the Albert Einstein of our generation, not brother hypnotist Warren Davis). So please Roberts Roberts tell me what speed of light the observer CLOSE to the source will measure. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: There has been some discussion of Wallace's claims that radar between Earth and Venus travels at c+v. Does anyone have a reference to a real paper on this? I found: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm but that is just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of his claims (I will not discuss the sociological claims). I also found; Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361. But I have no access to that journal. Does anybody have a copy they can send to me? Tom Roberts Roberts Roberts looking for the truth? Or just panic? Roberts Roberts even if Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" were, as you say, "just a long-winded mish-mash without any details or physics basis of his claims", just remember the man was dying when he was writing it and try to find the truth about c'=c+v, the emission theory equation, by using more reliable sources. For instance, your brothers hypnotists teach this: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." There are two possibilities Roberts Roberts: 1. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with both Pound and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) and the emission theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply mean that c'=c+v is true. 2. Einstein 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is inconsistent with Pound and Rebka 1960 result f'=f(1+V/c^2) but consistent with the emission theory equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. This would simply mean that both c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v are wrong. Roberts Roberts you know these are the only possibilities. Which one do you recommend Roberts Roberts? Roberts Roberts your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has given precious explanations: http://www.physlink.com/Education/As...TOKEN=67454987 "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached....If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious....So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field....The speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field, but depends upon the reference frame of the observer. An observer anywhere in free fall will measure (locally) the traditional value of c. An observer sufficiently far away from the source of the field will conclude likewise that the speed of light is c (locally). But, the observer far away from the source will likewise conclude that the speed of light closer in to the source decreases as the source is approached." Brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations seem confusing and contradictory but you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you know if they were not confusing and contradictory Divine Albert's divine theory would not survive. Now Roberts Roberts you will have to elaborate on brother hypnotist Warren Davis' explanations. We already know what the observer in free fall and the observer sufficiently far away from the source will measure. But we do not know what speed of light an observer CLOSE to the source of the field will measure. Should this observer think of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while measuring the speed of light? Brother hypnotist Warren Davis refers to Einstein's 1911 equation as if it were true but you Roberts Roberts, you said it was wrong and I believe you (after all YOU are the Albert Einstein of our generation, not brother hypnotist Warren Davis). So please Roberts Roberts tell me what speed of light the observer CLOSE to the source will measure. Roberts Roberts your silence is frightening. In the process of educating people your brother hypnotist Warren Davis has started a new breathtaking science: www.physlink.com/ae13.cfm : "If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." True, brother hypnotist Warren Davis has added a lot of idiocies (and the above idea of his sounds idiotic as well) but that is always the case at the start (remember Divine Albert's case). But if you manage to develop those idiocies Roberts Roberts (together with brothers hypnotists of course - e.g. Steve Carlip, John Baez, John Stachel, Paul Davies, Brian Greene, Kip Thorne, why not Lubos Motl etc.) the education would become much more efficient. Why are you silent Roberts Roberts? What is going on? Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [...] Are you lonely? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [...] Are you lonely? Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by Einstein in 1915: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational potential." But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give me the information. And I feel lonely. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
EricGissewrote: On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [...] Are you lonely? Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by Einstein in 1915: Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside. Might want to get a personality first, but whatever. [snip all] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
Eric Gisse wrote: On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: EricGissewrote: On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [...] Are you lonely? Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by Einstein in 1915: Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside. Girlfriends are important but in a different context. A year ago the red herring "Einstein's girlfriends" was very efficient and I tried to fight it: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...nfidelity.html Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
On May 15, 4:41 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
EricGissewrote: On May 14, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: EricGissewrote: On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [...] Are you lonely? Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by Einstein in 1915: Get a girlfriend. More specifically, go outside. Girlfriends are important but in a different context. A year ago the red herring "Einstein's girlfriends" was very efficient and I tried to fight it: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...ns_theory_of_i... Pentcho Valev hahahahahh you sad little man |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com... : Eric Gisse wrote: : On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: : Pentcho Valev wrote: : Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: : : [...] : : Are you lonely? : : Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by : Einstein in 1915: : : "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity : possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of : relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of : the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity - : especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited : validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that : the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the : sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is : to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be : retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational : potential." : : But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot : refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give : me the information. And I feel lonely. : : Pentcho Valev : Aww... http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html When you walk through a storm hold your head up high And don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of a storm is a golden sky And the sweet silver song of a lark. Walk on through the wind, Walk on through the rain, Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown. Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone, You'll never, ever walk alone. Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone, You'll never, ever walk alone. You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are used to walking alone. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com... : Eric Gisse wrote: : On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: : Pentcho Valev wrote: : Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: : : [...] : : Are you lonely? : : Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by : Einstein in 1915: : : "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity : possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of : relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of : the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity - : especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited : validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that : the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the : sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is : to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be : retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational : potential." : : But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot : refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give : me the information. And I feel lonely. : : Pentcho Valev : Aww... http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html When you walk through a storm hold your head up high And don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of a storm is a golden sky And the sweet silver song of a lark. Walk on through the wind, Walk on through the rain, Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown. Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone, You'll never, ever walk alone. Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone, You'll never, ever walk alone. You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are used to walking alone. This seems inevitable when you live in Einstein's world and do not want to be, as Bryan Wallace would have put it, a "scientific prostitute". Einstein's criminal cult do not love one another but they are united by the common money-spinner. Nothing unites anti- relativists although I have the impression that they have become the majority. By the way, I have found where Divine Albert published the above precious insights. It was in a 1912 paper, "Theory of Relativity", published in "Physik", Emil Warburg, Leipzig, 1915: Divine Albert: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational potential." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... : Androcles wrote: : "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message : oups.com... : : Eric Gisse wrote: : : On May 12, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: : : Pentcho Valev wrote: : : Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: : : : : [...] : : : : Are you lonely? : : : : Yes. I have just found the following text allegedly written by : : Einstein in 1915: : : : : "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity : : possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the theory of : : relativity have different views on this question. The majority are of : : the opinion that the propositions of the theory of relativity - : : especially its conception of time and space - can claim unlimited : : validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that : : the theory of relativity is still in need of a generalization, in the : : sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is : : to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is to be : : retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational : : potential." : : : : But I am not sure Einstein really wrote this in 1915 and I cannot : : refer to the respective source. And I suspect nobody is going to give : : me the information. And I feel lonely. : : : : Pentcho Valev : : : : Aww... : http://www.the-synergy.com/lyrics/younevr.html : : : When you walk through a storm : hold your head up high : And don't be afraid of the dark. : At the end of a storm is a golden sky : : : And the sweet silver song of a lark. : Walk on through the wind, : Walk on through the rain, : Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown. : : : Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart : And you'll never walk alone, : You'll never, ever walk alone. : Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart : : : And you'll never walk alone, : You'll never, ever walk alone. : : : You'll have to be like hahahanson and I. We are : used to walking alone. : : This seems inevitable when you live in Einstein's world and do not : want to be, as Bryan Wallace would have put it, a "scientific : prostitute". Einstein's criminal cult do not love one another but they : are united by the common money-spinner. Nothing unites anti- : relativists although I have the impression that they have become the : majority. I'm not anti-relativity. It's the only-one-speed-of-light morons I'm against, since it is provably false. Relative motion is an axiom. : By the way, I have found where Divine Albert published the above : precious insights. It was in a 1912 paper, "Theory of Relativity", : published in "Physik", Emil Warburg, Leipzig, 1915: : : Divine Albert: "Finally, one more important question: Does the theory : of relativity possess unlimited validity? Even the supporters of the : theory of relativity have different views on this question. The : majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of : relativity - especially its conception of time and space - can claim : unlimited validity. However, the writer of these lines is of the : opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of a : generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of : the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion, : this principle is to be retained only for regions of practically : constant gravitational potential." : : Pentcho Valev GR stands or falls on Mercury's alleged "anomaly" of 43.1 arc seconds per 8.430197267 Jovian orbits, Jupiter being the prime cause of the precession. If Divine Albert has solved the three body problem then I take my hat off to him, give him the Fields Medal, but last I heard it still has no analytical solution. But never mind griping, that's been going on since Galileo supported Copernicus. When you walk through a storm hold your head up high And don't be afraid of the dark. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm I've been riding the storm since 1987, Pentcho, and I'm still untouchable. Climb up here beside me, leave the sheep in the meadow. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF It's a beautiful view but it can only be seen when standing on the shoulders of giants. At the end of a storm is a golden sky. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation | a_plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 158 | December 26th 06 06:53 AM |
Physics Nobel Winners CALL EVOLUTION A FARCE --- Or They Should! | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 28th 06 12:07 AM |
elsewhere brian a m stuckless wrote: alt.local.village.idiot,alt.mo-rons,sci.physics.relativity | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | October 15th 05 04:26 PM |
EVOLUTION A FARCE (No Matter How You Say It) -- Intelligent Design.... | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 9 | June 30th 05 07:29 PM |
sci.astro.seti, alt.astronomy, uk.sci.astronomy, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro | Rob | UK Astronomy | 1 | December 31st 04 03:42 PM |