EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 5:34:10 AM11/12/15

to

The deflection of light by massive objects implies that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity INCREASES. According to the Newtonian theory, it increases like the the speed of ordinary falling bodies - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g. In Einstein's general relativity, the deflection is twice that predicted by the Newtonian theory, which implies that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity increases twice as fast as in the Newtonian theory - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is 2g:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Actually Einstein's general relativity predicts that the speed of falling light DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 8:04:57 AM11/12/15

to

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:34:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The deflection of light by massive objects implies that the speed of light
> falling towards the source of gravity INCREASES.

Only according to Newtonian theory, but not according to relativity.

> According to the Newtonian theory, it increases like the the speed of
> ordinary falling bodies - in the gravitational field of the Earth the
> acceleration of falling photons is g.

Yes, so Pentcho was being dishonest when he put his first sentence
before the reference to Newton.

> In Einstein's general relativity, the deflection is twice that predicted
> by the Newtonian theory, which implies that the speed of light falling
> towards the source of gravity increases twice as fast as in the Newtonian
> theory - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of
> falling photons is 2g:

Prevaricating Pentcho is conflating two different scenarios: "deflection"
and "falling."

> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
> Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that
> predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with
> twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Puerile Pentcho perfidiously prefers to ignore the phrase, "in this sense"

> Actually Einstein's general relativity predicts that the speed of falling
> light DECREASES

This is what the Schwarzschild metric predicts AS VIEWED BY A DISTANT
OBSERVER. A local observer would see no change in speed. Preposterous
Pentcho prevaricates perpetually.

> - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration
> of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g:

> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases
> as the black hole is approached."

This, of course, is from the viewpoint of a distant observer. When light
passes a large gravitating body, there is a delay in the reception of the
light. It's called Shapiro delay. This experiment has been performed
many times, is in agreement with GR and refutes Newtonian theory:

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

"Shapiro lowered the imprecision of his initial measurements from over 3%
to less than 1% in subsequent years. Newer versions of this experiment work
with transponders on space probes. These receive the signal from the earth
and after a precisely known delay send it with increased intensity back to
earth. Thus with the Viking Mars probe of 1979 the predictions of the GTR
for this delay in the gravitational field of the sun could be confirmed to
an accuracy of 0.1%. In 2003, with the space probe Cassini an accuracy of
0.0012% was achieved!"

So the absurdity here is Petulant Pentcho's preposterous poppycock.

Gary

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 8:43:14 AM11/12/15

to

W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> The deflection of light by massive objects implies that

According to The Shit there is no deflection,
light trajectories are straight/geodesic.

However, a relativist, though an obvious
moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
axioms seriously. So, light is still
deflected for him.

JanPB

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 3:09:02 PM11/12/15

to

I recommend ignoring Maciej's posts. Virtually all of them are incorrect
(if they have a content in the first place). His language also tells the
reader all there is to know about where he is coming from.

In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.

--
Jan

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 2:29:16 AM11/13/15

to

W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:43:14 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> > > The deflection of light by massive objects implies that
> >
> > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> >
> > However, a relativist, though an obvious
> > moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> > axioms seriously. So, light is still
> > deflected for him.
>

> In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.

A common mistake between relativistic morons,
but I'm not.
And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
A link to enlighten you.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html

Quoting:
"Now, we known that light always takes the shortest
path between two points, "
i.e.geodesic.

paparios

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 5:55:19 AM11/13/15

to

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:29:16 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB

> > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
>
> A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> but I'm not.
> And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> A link to enlighten you.
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
>
> Quoting:
> "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest
> path between two points, "
> i.e.geodesic.

Wow, the Polish Software Programmer at his best, showing the world his outstanding knowledge of Relativity and Information Theory.

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 6:45:20 AM11/13/15

to

Wow, relativistic moron at hist best,
yelling with no sense.

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 10:17:40 AM11/14/15

to

http://www.nature.com/news/wayward-satellites-repurposed-to-test-general-relativity-1.18780
"Wayward satellites repurposed to test general relativity"

In my comment on this article I claim that there is no gravitational time dilation - the gravitational redshift (blueshift) is the result of the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 10:55:15 AM11/14/15

to

Sorry, but the on-board atomic clocks have nothing whatever to do with
whether or not NET is correct. NET could only affect the carrier frequency
whereas the clock data is modulated ON the carrier and is impervious to
external influences. Having poor understanding of reality causes one to
become a laughing stock. We laugh AT Pentcho, not with him.

Gary

JanPB

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 4:33:08 PM11/14/15

to

Another of Maciej's tactic (which is standard among cranks) is never to answer the
contradiction they've been shown committing.

The original claim:

> > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.

...is incorrect. It shows confusion between space and spacetime (there is probably much
more confusion there too).

The rest of his post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook:

> > >
> > > However, a relativist, though an obvious
> > > moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> > > axioms seriously. So, light is still
> > > deflected for him.

--
Jan

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 5:17:15 PM11/14/15

to

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ddd45c5e-466c-4a09...@googlegroups.com...

> > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
>
> A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> but I'm not.
> And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> A link to enlighten you.
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
>
> Quoting:
> "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest
> path between two points, "
> i.e.geodesic.

|Another of Maciej's tactic (which is standard among cranks) is never to
answer the
|contradiction they've been shown committing.

Another of Jan's tactic (which is standard amongs relativistic
morons) is always lie.

> The original claim:
> > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.

|...is incorrect.

No, it is not.

|It shows confusion between space and spacetime

No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.

JanPB

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 7:50:08 PM11/14/15

to

Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as this NG amply
demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and then present
those as an "answer" of sorts.

Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat denials and nothing
about his first, incorrect, claim.

The absolute master of it was a certain Dennis, in the latter part of the 20th century here
as he was extremely good at _very gradual_ topic change as the thread progressed
so unless one was _extremely_ careful about the mere writing style and his wording,
he'd make a huge issue out of it. Maciej is nowhere near that league but he does
try to switch uncomfortable topics. His problem is that he is unable to leave a thread,
he must always have the last word. If I chose to keep replying to this thread, it would
extend indefinitely.

--
Jan

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 7:48:46 AM11/15/15

to

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6...@googlegroups.com...

And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
gave him his incredible wisdom.

--
Jan

kefischer

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 8:35:40 AM11/15/15

to

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:48:45 +0100, Maciej Wozniak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "JanPB" napisal w wiadomosci grup
>dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6...@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> Uzytkownik "JanPB" napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > Uzytkownik "JanPB" napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak
>> > wrote:
>> > > Uzytkownik "JanPB" napisal w wiadomosci grup

>And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
>gave him his incredible wisdom.

Will everybody please stop replying
to this hostile depraved creep!

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 8:49:51 AM11/15/15

to

Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ld2h4b9sdn3mvobvp...@4ax.com...

Is A,B,C - replying for you?
Poor idiot.

JanPB

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 12:48:59 PM11/15/15

to

D.

--
Jan

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 3:38:40 PM11/15/15

to

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:992803c8-5653-4db5...@googlegroups.com...

For those not reading carefully: I asked this halfbrain,
what are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)
in his theory. These are his answers.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 6:44:11 PM11/15/15

to

E.
[Also: removing a misattribution]

--
Jan

unread,

Nov 18, 2015, 4:35:24 PM11/18/15

to

A lot of research was done on this topic. It would be far more efficient for
you instead of making random guesses to simply read up on it.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,

Nov 18, 2015, 4:35:51 PM11/18/15

to

K.

--
Jan

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 2:10:45 AM11/19/15

to

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 3:28:27 PM11/19/15

to

No, this is an experiment in progress. Just ignore this thread, it's dead.
I'm doing it only because it's very easy for me.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 3:30:29 PM11/19/15

to

M.

--
Jan

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 3:31:45 PM11/19/15

to

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:2bc5a1d2-279d-40fc...@googlegroups.com...

Of course it's much easier to spell A,B...L than to answer
a simple question. Easy enough for a relativistic moron to
manage.

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 4:00:26 PM11/19/15

to

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:3c882468-e12b-484d...@googlegroups.com...

Jack Monaco

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 4:37:47 PM11/19/15

to

JanPB wrote:

> No, this is an experiment in progress. Just ignore this thread, it's
> dead. I'm doing it only because it's very easy for me.

You mathematics is overbably ambivalent.

JanPB

unread,

Nov 19, 2015, 5:13:32 PM11/19/15

to

A.

--
Jan