Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error.

[HGW...]

Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
___________________________
| |
|___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
| |
|__________________________|

|
\/
F

According to Einstein, the state of free falling is inertial. At some
stage, let the container fall towards a star, in a direction
perpendicular to the laser beam.

If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as
claimed by Einstein, the beam will be deflected downward, below the
spot, the deflection increasing with time as the gravity field becomes
stronger.

However, because the container remains inertial, the beam must remain
aimed precisely at the spot on the opposite wall, irrespective of time.
For this to be true, the action of gravity on the beam must be IDENTICAL
to that on the container, not double its value as Einstein claimed.

In light of this apparent paradox, can anyone here try to defend Einstein?

(abusive or irrelevant replies will be ignored)

--

[JanPB]

Why do you bother?? You really think you've made a valid point? What is so hard about
understanding that generations of physicists in the past were NOT idiots?

--
Jan

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:02:09 PM UTC-5, HGW... wrote:
> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
> ___________________________
> | |
> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
> | |
> |__________________________|
>
> |
> \/
> F
>
> According to Einstein, the state of free falling is inertial. At some
> stage, let the container fall towards a star, in a direction
> perpendicular to the laser beam.
>
> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter,

Space Time is Curved, Light is NOT ACCELERATED !!!!!!

Mass has INERTIAL RESISTANCE TO ACCELERATION, LIGHT DOES NOT !!!!!!!!!

(2*G*kg)/c^2 for MASS

(1*G*kg)/c^2 for LIGHT

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that

> of matter, as claimed by Einstein...

Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past the Sun, it undergoes the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light.

There are several other problems with your message, but the above is sufficient to invalidate your conclusion.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

You People Refuse to LEARN .....

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg

[HGW...]

On 09/06/17 12:15, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
>> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as
>> claimed by Einstein...
>
> Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity
> implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or
> cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past
> the Sun, it undergoes the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian"
> value) as does a pulse of light.

HAHHAHHAHHHA! What nonsense. Newton's law works perfectly well for
ordinary matter. It does not contain the factor of two.

> There are several other problems with your message, but the above is
> sufficient to invalidate your conclusion.

Crap.



--

[HGW...]

Then the beam will bend....as I said. Thanks!

> (2*G*kg)/c^2 for MASS
>
> (1*G*kg)/c^2 for LIGHT

You say the opposite to your fellow dingleberry, dancouriann



--

[JanPB]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> On 09/06/17 12:15, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
> >> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as
> >> claimed by Einstein...
> >
> > Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity
> > implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or
> > cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past
> > the Sun, it undergoes the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian"
> > value) as does a pulse of light.
>
> HAHHAHHAHHHA! What nonsense. Newton's law works perfectly well for
> ordinary matter. It does not contain the factor of two.

You are clueless. And also LAUGHING, that's simply amazing arrogance and stupidity.
Cuckoo, totally cuckoo, mental case.

--
Jan

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

There is NO BLUE SHIFTING of PHOTONS by GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION !!!

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM HGW... wrote:
> > If a particle of matter moving at nearly the speed

> > of light grazes past the Sun, it undergoes the same
> > deflection (twice the "Newtonian" value) as does a
> > pulse of light.
>

> Newton's law works perfectly well for ordinary matter.

No, it doesn't. For example, planetary orbits have non-Newtonian precession. Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter.

> It does not contain the factor of two.

Right, Newton's law gives the wrong deflection for the path of both a pulse of light and of a material particle moving at near light speed. The "factor of two" has nothing to do with light versus matter, it is simply the result of including the effect of spatial curvature. For low-speed objects only the temporal curvature is significant, but for speeds at or near light speed the effect of spatial curvature is also significant. This effectively doubles the deflection for a path (of a light pulse or material object at near light speed) passing a gravitating body.

[Helmut Wabnig]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/hubble-telescope-einstein-impossible-genius-space-science/

[HGW...]

On 09/06/17 14:28, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM HGW... wrote:
>>> If a particle of matter moving at nearly the speed of light
>>> grazes past the Sun, it undergoes the same deflection (twice the
>>> "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light.
>>
>> Newton's law works perfectly well for ordinary matter.
>
> No, it doesn't. For example, planetary orbits have non-Newtonian
> precession.

That has never been proved. Precession is chaotic. That Mercury business
is a farce.

Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law
> of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter.

What proof do you have...none!
You're just quoting your silly religion.

>> It does not contain the factor of two.
>
> Right, Newton's law gives the wrong deflection for the path of both a
> pulse of light and of a material particle moving at near light speed.
> The "factor of two" has nothing to do with light versus matter, it is
> simply the result of including the effect of spatial curvature. For
> low-speed objects only the temporal curvature is significant, but for
> speeds at or near light speed the effect of spatial curvature is also
> significant. This effectively doubles the deflection for a path (of
> a light pulse or material object at near light speed) passing a
> gravitating body.

Dream on....



--

[HGW...]

On 09/06/17 14:09, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

>>>
>>> Space Time is Curved, Light is NOT ACCELERATED !!!!!!
>>>
>>> Mass has INERTIAL RESISTANCE TO ACCELERATION, LIGHT DOES NOT !!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Then the beam will bend....as I said. Thanks!
>>
>>> (2*G*kg)/c^2 for MASS
>>>
>>> (1*G*kg)/c^2 for LIGHT
>>
>> You say the opposite to your fellow dingleberry, dancouriann
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> There is NO BLUE SHIFTING of PHOTONS by GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION !!!

The photons themselves are not affected but the 'wave arrival rate' is
dependent on their arrival speed. That shows up as Doppler blue shift.



--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
> ___________________________
> | |
> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
> | |
> |__________________________|
>
> |
> \/
> F
>
> According to Einstein, the state of free falling is inertial. At some
> stage, let the container fall towards a star, in a direction
> perpendicular to the laser beam.
>
> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as
> claimed by Einstein,

This is wrong, not claimed by Einstein at all, and it would help before
you actually understood what the theory says before attempting to
criticize it. As it is, you are leveling "thought experiments" to
criticize claims by some other theory, not relativity.

A beam of 100 MeV neutrons, aimed horizontally just like the laser, will
end up in a spot on the opposite wall in the same place as the laser
spot. There will not be any factor of two difference between the two.

> the beam will be deflected downward, below the
> spot, the deflection increasing with time as the gravity field becomes
> stronger.
>
> However, because the container remains inertial, the beam must remain
> aimed precisely at the spot on the opposite wall, irrespective of time.
> For this to be true, the action of gravity on the beam must be IDENTICAL
> to that on the container, not double its value as Einstein claimed.
>
> In light of this apparent paradox, can anyone here try to defend Einstein?
>
> (abusive or irrelevant replies will be ignored)
>


--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that
> of matter, as claimed by Einstein...

Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past the Sun, general relativity says that it will undergo the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light. This is just a mathematical fact about what the equations of general relativity predict.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:06:42 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> > Planetary orbits have non-Newtonian precession.

>
> That has never been proved. Precession is chaotic. That Mercury business
> is a farce.

The orbit of Mercury is not chaotic (for the orbital elements of interest), it follows very closely with the Newtonian prediction, with only a small and steady advance of the perihelion beyond what Newtonian theory predicts. The non-Newtonian advance matches the prediction of general relativity.

> Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law
> > of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter.
>
> What proof do you have...none!

There is an abundance of evidence that the laws of Newtonian mechanics break down at his speeds. This can be seen most vividly when accelerating particles to near light speeds. According to Newton's laws, a particle subject to a constant force will undergo constant acceleration, but this is contradicted by observation of particles at high speeds, because of the inertia of energy, which was missing from Newtonian theory.

> > Right, Newton's law gives the wrong deflection for the path of both a
> > pulse of light and of a material particle moving at near light speed.
> > The "factor of two" has nothing to do with light versus matter, it is
> > simply the result of including the effect of spatial curvature. For
> > low-speed objects only the temporal curvature is significant, but for
> > speeds at or near light speed the effect of spatial curvature is also
> > significant. This effectively doubles the deflection for a path (of
> > a light pulse or material object at near light speed) passing a
> > gravitating body.
>
> Dream on....

That doesn't seem to be a substantive rebuttal. I take it you couldn't find anything wrong with my comments.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 9 czerwca 2017 15:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik danco...@gmail.com napisał:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
> > If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that
> > of matter, as claimed by Einstein...
>
> Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past the Sun, general relativity says that it will undergo the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light. This is just a mathematical fact about what the equations of general relativity predict.

No. Your Shit predicts pulses of light travelling
straight/geodesic lines. This is just a mathematical
fact about what the equations of The Shit predict.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 09/06/17 14:28, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM HGW... wrote:
>>>> If a particle of matter moving at nearly the speed of light
>>>> grazes past the Sun, it undergoes the same deflection (twice the
>>>> "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light.
>>>
>>> Newton's law works perfectly well for ordinary matter.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. For example, planetary orbits have non-Newtonian
>> precession.

>That has never been proved. Precession is chaotic. That Mercury business
>is a farce.

No, Ralph, Mercury has a detectable 43 seconds per century deviation from
Newtonian mechanics. This is detectable above the chaotic contributions
of the other planets, and this has been known for a couple of centuries.

>Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law
>> of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter.

That's right, Ralph, because we can detect deviations from Newtonian mechanics
caused by GR! Glad you finally understand!

>What proof do you have...none!

Except for measurements, of course.

>You're just quoting your silly religion.

Ralph, it is you who has a religion of One, the Religion of Dirty BaThWater.
Ralph, like other religions who believe in such things as elephant-headed
gods, being awarded virgins for blowing up infidels and virgins giving
birth, your personal religion believes in things that go totally counter to
science, such as light moving at c+v and other silly anti-science crap, Ralph.

So Ralph, to join your religion, does one have to get baptized in a tub
full of DirtyBaThWater? In addition to denying science, of course.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

HGW Wrote

Thank you for openly admitting you were wrong & I am correct in that .....

The Medium of space time is red shifted according to the inverse square law by the gravity of the density of mass per meter^3

[Jim Limey]

JanPB wrote:

>> HAHHAHHAHHHA! What nonsense. Newton's law works perfectly well for
>> ordinary matter. It does not contain the factor of two.
>
> You are clueless. And also LAUGHING, that's simply amazing arrogance and
> stupidity. Cuckoo, totally cuckoo, mental case.

Not at all. Please take a look at these missions first. THEN come back and
tell us about cuckoos.

simulations
NASA_-_DESTROYED_THE_HOAX_MISSION_TO_THE_MOON_TECHNOLOGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJ5qG5EdDc

carton boxes and paper
Nasa Hoax - Lunar Lander Scam Exposed - The Price Is Wrong Bitch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji-P6ijQaXs

Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X522N8Biq7U

[HGW...]

There is none.

> This can be seen most vividly
> when accelerating particles to near light speeds. According to
> Newton's laws, a particle subject to a constant force will undergo
> constant acceleration, but this is contradicted by observation of
> particles at high speeds, because of the inertia of energy, which was
> missing from Newtonian theory.

Newton didn't know much about particle accelerators so nothing relating
to one is included in his theory. So you cannot say NM breaks down. BaTh
is an upgrade of NM, particularly in regard to light.

The force is not constant in a particle accelerator. It falls off as the
particle approaches the speed at which the force acts. Also, a reverse
field 'bubble' builds up around the particle and that tends to
neutralize what field remains.

>>> Right, Newton's law gives the wrong deflection for the path of
>>> both a pulse of light and of a material particle moving at near
>>> light speed. The "factor of two" has nothing to do with light
>>> versus matter, it is simply the result of including the effect of
>>> spatial curvature. For low-speed objects only the temporal
>>> curvature is significant, but for speeds at or near light speed
>>> the effect of spatial curvature is also significant. This
>>> effectively doubles the deflection for a path (of a light pulse
>>> or material object at near light speed) passing a gravitating
>>> body.
>>
>> Dream on....
>
> That doesn't seem to be a substantive rebuttal. I take it you
> couldn't find anything wrong with my comments.

Space curvature does not exist. It is a SciFi requirement that follows
Einstein bogus P2, that light speed is always c.



--

[HGW...]

On 10/06/17 00:37, Mad Michael Moroney claimed that the acceleration due
to gravity at the Earth's surface is 19.6 m/s2.....then he asked his
nurse for some more pills...


--

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

HGW Clearly States ....."Space curvature does not exist"


"Space curvature does not exist" = Acceleration

You are DIRECTLY SAYING "ACCELERATION DOES NOT EXIST"

[HGW...]

On 09/06/17 22:51, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
>> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
>> ___________________________
>> | |
>> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>> | |
>> |__________________________|
>>
>> |
>> \/
>> F
>>
>> According to Einstein, the state of free falling is inertial. At some
>> stage, let the container fall towards a star, in a direction
>> perpendicular to the laser beam.
>>
>> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as
>> claimed by Einstein,
>
> This is wrong, not claimed by Einstein at all, and it would help before
> you actually understood what the theory says before attempting to
> criticize it. As it is, you are leveling "thought experiments" to
> criticize claims by some other theory, not relativity.
>
> A beam of 100 MeV neutrons, aimed horizontally just like the laser, will
> end up in a spot on the opposite wall in the same place as the laser
> spot. There will not be any factor of two difference between the two.

So will an air gun pellet...no factor of two there, either..

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:58:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> Newton didn't know much about particle accelerators so
> nothing relating to one is included in his theory.

According to Newton's laws, a particle subject to a constant force will undergo constant acceleration, but this is contradicted by observation of particles at high speeds, because of the inertia of energy, which was missing from Newtonian theory.

> The force is not constant in a particle accelerator. It falls off
> as the particle approaches the speed at which the force acts.

Not true. First, Maxwell's equations for a uniform electro-static field say the force is constant, independent of speed. Second, we know that the force on a particle is not reduced, because the amount of kinetic energy imparted to the particle continues to increase, i.e., the work on the particle equals "force times distance". For example, the kinetic energy of a particle at 0.999c is MUCH greater than the same particle at 0.99c, even though the speeds are almost identical.

We know the energy of particles from experiments that sent the accelerated particles into a vat of water, and the temperature rise of the water was measured, confirming that the work done on the particles really did continue to satisfy F*ds. So, we know with certainty that the old canard (that occurs to every high school student) about "force decreasing with speed" is simply not true. The evidence shows conclusively that the inertial mass and kinetic energy of an object increases with its speed, and by precisely the amounts predicted by special relativity.

> Einstein bogus P2, that light speed is always c.

The fact that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates is a direct consequence of the inertia of energy, which was missing from Newtonian theory.

[JanPB]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:32:41 AM UTC-7, Jim Limey wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> HAHHAHHAHHHA! What nonsense. Newton's law works perfectly well for
> >> ordinary matter. It does not contain the factor of two.
> >
> > You are clueless. And also LAUGHING, that's simply amazing arrogance and
> > stupidity. Cuckoo, totally cuckoo, mental case.
>
> Not at all. Please take a look at these missions first.

Another mental case.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Geodesic in 4D. When people talk about deflection, they mean in 3D (spatial).

--
Jan

[JanPB]

The failure of Newtonian mechanics in accelerators is also something
the accountant would notice. Suppose one constructs two accelerators:

1. particle beams smashing onto a target,

or:

2. two opposite beams smashing onto one another,

then setup (2) would deliver the same results as setup (1) but with
a lower electricity bill. Newtonian mechanics would say the bills should
be the same, relativity says (2) is more efficient and by how much.

So, HGW, go and tell the relevant sponsoring banks, governments, and
consortia what you think about relativity, I'm sure they'll be most
interested in your revelations and perhaps even pass some of their
savings to you.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/9/17 6/9/17 2:06 AM, HGW... wrote:
> On 09/06/17 14:28, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. For example, planetary orbits have non-Newtonian
>> precession.
>
> That has never been proved.

Sure it has. By comparing observations with calculations.

> Precession is chaotic.

You CLEARLY don't know what "chaotic" means.

Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the solar
system is on the order of 5 million years.

Chaos clearly cannot affect astronomical observations; since they have occurred
over a period much shorter than the Lyapunov time, the chaos does not
significantly affect the corresponding calculations, either. Moreover, competent
people doing such calculations use errorbars, so the comparison with
observations naturally INCLUDES the effects of chaos, however small or large
they might be.

All you ever do around here is demonstrate your colossal ignorance of the
subjects you attempt to write about. Why bother?

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/9/17 6/9/17 6:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> A beam of 100 MeV neutrons, aimed horizontally just like the laser, will end
>> up in a spot on the opposite wall in the same place as the laser spot. There
>> will not be any factor of two difference between the two.
>
> So will an air gun pellet.

Not true.

Not only are you ignorant of the physics here, you are also ignorant of
air-powered pellet guns -- anyone who ever used one knows your aim must account
for the fall of the pellet (which is VASTLY larger than the line-of-sight falls).

Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

What's the matter, Ralph Malcolm? You don't like it when I remind you that
the relativistic 43 seconds/century precession of Mercury is much larger
than chaotic effects? Or you don't like being reminded that your Religion
of One, the Religion of Dirty BaThWater with its silly c+v is just as
illogical scientifically as a virgin giving birth? I would think you
would enjoy having your very own illogical religion, since you get to be
Pope! I bet you do that Bread and Wine thing, too, except you do Bread
and Vodka instead. Or maybe just Vodka.

[HGW...]

Poor old Tom. The gun, pellet and room are all in free fall. Are you
saying that gravity acts more strongly on the pellet than the room?
Really , Tom, I am amazed...

> Tom Roberts


--

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 czerwca 2017 02:20:52 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:34:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 9 czerwca 2017 15:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik danco...@gmail.com napisał:
> > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:02:09 PM HGW... wrote:
> > > > If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that
> > > > of matter, as claimed by Einstein...
> > >
> > > Einstein didn't claim that, and it isn't what general relativity implies. For example, if a particle of matter (say, a neutrino or cosmic ray particle) moving at nearly the speed of light grazes past the Sun, general relativity says that it will undergo the same deflection (twice the "Newtonian" value) as does a pulse of light. This is just a mathematical fact about what the equations of general relativity predict.
> >
> > No. Your Shit predicts pulses of light travelling
> > straight/geodesic lines.
>
> Geodesic in 4D.

Geodesic in both 3d and 4d, poor idiot.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 czerwca 2017 02:41:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> The failure of Newtonian mechanics in accelerators is also

a fantasy of some brainwashed morons.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 czerwca 2017 02:15:14 UTC+2 użytkownik danco...@gmail.com napisał:

> The fact that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates is a direct consequence of

your absolute ignorance of basic rules of model building.

[HGW, DSc.]

On 10/06/17 09:05, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:58:13 PM UTC-5, HGW... wrote:

>>>> What proof do you have...none!

>>

>> Space curvature does not exist. It is a SciFi requirement that follows
>> Einstein bogus P2, that light speed is always c.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> HGW Clearly States ....."Space curvature does not exist"
>
>
> "Space curvature does not exist" = Acceleration
>
> You are DIRECTLY SAYING "ACCELERATION DOES NOT EXIST"

You will win the idiot of the year award if you keep this up....

[HGW, DSc.]

On 10/06/17 00:37, Michael Moroney wrote:

> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>> That has never been proved. Precession is chaotic. That Mercury business
>> is a farce.
>

> No, Henry, Mercury has a detectable 43 seconds per century deviation from

> Newtonian mechanics. This is detectable above the chaotic contributions
> of the other planets, and this has been known for a couple of centuries.

Chaotic systems like Mercury's orbit cannot be predicted.
It might even go backwards on occasions.

>> Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law
>>> of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter.
>

> That's right, Henry, because we can detect deviations from Newtonian mechanics

> caused by GR! Glad you finally understand!

absolute crap....That kind of argument might have fooled people in 1905
but it doesn't any more.

>> What proof do you have...none!
>
> Except for measurements, of course.

all faked....and published in dingleberry owned journals.

>> You're just quoting your silly religion.
>

> Henry, it is you who has a religion of One, the Religion of Dirty BaThWater.
> Henry, like other religions who believe in such things as elephant-headed

> gods, being awarded virgins for blowing up infidels and virgins giving
> birth, your personal religion believes in things that go totally counter to

> science, such as light moving at c+v and other silly anti-science crap, Henry.
>
> So Henry, to join your religion, does one have to get baptized in a tub

> full of DirtyBaThWater? In addition to denying science, of course.

Moron-y, scream as much as you like but it is quite obvious from
variable star investigations that light moves at c+v throughout space.
Einstein was wrong and so is most of modern astronomy.
>

[HGW, DSc.]

Religious nut! <plonk>

[HGW, DSc.]

On 10/06/17 15:33, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/9/17 6/9/17 2:06 AM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 09/06/17 14:28, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> No, it doesn't. For example, planetary orbits have non-Newtonian
>>> precession.
>>
>> That has never been proved.
>
> Sure it has. By comparing observations with calculations.
>
>> Precession is chaotic.
>
> You CLEARLY don't know what "chaotic" means.
>
> Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the
> solar system is on the order of 5 million years.

This is absolute crap...but what does one expect from Roberts these
days? The positions of the planets changes quite dramatically even in
twenty years...

> Chaos clearly cannot affect astronomical observations; since they have
> occurred over a period much shorter than the Lyapunov time, the chaos
> does not significantly affect the corresponding calculations, either.
> Moreover, competent people doing such calculations use errorbars, so the
> comparison with observations naturally INCLUDES the effects of chaos,
> however small or large they might be.

Hahhahha! Tom can always run behind his 'error bars' when he is in
trouble....You don't even know what causes planetary precession.

> All you ever do around here is demonstrate your colossal ignorance of
> the subjects you attempt to write about. Why bother?

The main reason for precession anomalies, if any, is the finite speed of
gravity..
>
> Tom Roberts

[HGW, DSc.]

On 10/06/17 10:15, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:58:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> Newton didn't know much about particle accelerators so nothing
>> relating to one is included in his theory.
>
> According to Newton's laws, a particle subject to a constant force
> will undergo constant acceleration, but this is contradicted by
> observation of particles at high speeds, because of the inertia of
> energy, which was missing from Newtonian theory.
>
>> The force is not constant in a particle accelerator. It falls off
>> as the particle approaches the speed at which the force acts.
>
> Not true. First, Maxwell's equations for a uniform electro-static
> field say the force is constant, independent of speed.

At low speeds maybe...You have been raving on about how a gravity field
is affected at high speed, now you think you can say the opposite about
electric fields... I think you're up yourself...

> Second, we
> know that the force on a particle is not reduced, because the amount
> of kinetic energy imparted to the particle continues to increase,
> i.e., the work on the particle equals "force times distance". For
> example, the kinetic energy of a particle at 0.999c is MUCH greater
> than the same particle at 0.99c, even though the speeds are almost
> identical.

> We know the energy of particles from experiments that sent the
> accelerated particles into a vat of water, and the temperature rise
> of the water was measured, confirming that the work done on the
> particles really did continue to satisfy F*ds. So, we know with
> certainty that the old canard (that occurs to every high school
> student) about "force decreasing with speed" is simply not true. The
> evidence shows conclusively that the inertial mass and kinetic energy
> of an object increases with its speed, and by precisely the amounts
> predicted by special relativity.

All that is explained by the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble (WRFB) which
builds up around the charge. It requires a lot of energy to maintain and
that energy shows up in bolometer experiments.

>> Einstein bogus P2, that light speed is always c.
>
> The fact that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of
> inertial coordinates is a direct consequence of the inertia of
> energy, which was missing from Newtonian theory.

What in your tiny mind unifies the speed of light from differently
moving sources?
>

[Kitubu Nkyaku]

That must be you, stuppy. More exactly, an imbecile of the level of
wozniak, refusing to look at the presented evidences. You two has to be
colocataires. What a shame, at your age.

Hellooo World, this unemployed academia is refusing hard evidences in
Physics and Engineerings.

[HGW, DSc.]

On 10/06/17 15:50, Tom Roberts wrote:

I suppose you wrote this for Wikipedia, too, Quote:
"Another clarification needed is that the equivalence principle assumes
a constant acceleration of 1g without considering the mechanics of
generating 1g. If we do consider the mechanics of it, then we must
assume the aforementioned windowless room has a fixed mass. Accelerating
it at 1g means there is a constant force being applied, which = m*g
where m is the mass of the windowless room along with its contents
(including the observer). Now, if the observer jumps inside the room, an
object lying freely on the floor will decrease in weight momentarily
because the acceleration is going to decrease momentarily due to the
observer pushing back against the floor in order to jump. The object
will then gain weight while the observer is in the air and the resulting
decreased mass of the windowless room allows greater acceleration; it
will lose weight again when the observer lands and pushes once more
against the floor; and it will finally return to its initial weight
afterwards. To make all these effects equal those we would measure on a
planet producing 1g, the windowless room must be assumed to have the
same mass as that planet. Additionally, the windowless room must not
cause its own gravity, otherwise the scenario changes even further.
These are technicalities, clearly, but practical ones if we wish the
experiment to demonstrate more or less precisely the equivalence of 1g
gravity and 1g acceleration."

[Kitubu Nkyaku]

HGW, DSc. wrote:

> On 10/06/17 15:50, Tom Roberts wrote:
> I suppose you wrote this for Wikipedia, too, Quote:
> "Another clarification needed is that the equivalence principle assumes
> a constant acceleration of 1g without considering the mechanics of
> generating 1g.

Ahahahaaa, excellent catch, Dr. HGW. Keep up the good work.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:43:24 AM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> > First, Maxwell's equations for a uniform electro-static
> > field say the force is constant, independent of speed.
>
> At low speeds maybe...

At high speeds too. Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics are unambiguous about this (for moderate rates of acceleration). And the observed behavior (acceleration and kinetic energy) of particles confirms that Maxwell's equations and the equations of special relativity are correct.

> You have been raving on about how a gravity field
> is affected at high speed, now you think you can
> say the opposite about electric fields...

To the contrary, the gravitational field doesn't change at all for test particles moving at different speeds. Every test particle (fast or slow) in the gravitational field of a massive object follows a geodesic path through the space and time surrounding the object. The particular geodesic path that a particle follows naturally depends on its initial trajectory. The geodesics for fast (near light speed) trajectories exhibit twice the angular deflection as would be predicted by applying Newton's laws in space-time with flat metric.

> > We know that the force on a particle is not reduced,

> > because the amount of kinetic energy imparted to the

> > particle continues to increase... The evidence shows

> > conclusively that the inertial mass and kinetic energy
> > of an object increases with its speed, and by precisely
> > the amounts predicted by special relativity.
>
> All that is explained by the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble

> (WRFB) which builds up around the charge...

That's fine. If you agree that, due to the WFRB, the effective inertial mass of an object moving at speed v is m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) where m0 is the inertial mass of the object at rest, then your theory agrees with experiment and is equivalent to special relativity. All the other consequences of special relativity can be derived from this. (Feynman used to teach relativity this way.)

> What in your tiny mind unifies the speed of light from differently
> moving sources?

The Wilson Reverse Field Bubble. You see, in an emission (ballistic) theory, light propagates at the speed c in terms of the inertial coordinate system in which the source is at rest. On the other hand, in a wave (ether) theory, light propagates at the speed c in the inertial coordinates in which the ether is at rest, independent of the motion of the source. There is strong (actually irrefutable) evidence for both of these. But how can they both be true? Are they not mutually contradictory?

No, they aren't. The answer is the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble, which causes the effective inertia of objects to increase with speed. Once this is taken into account (see any good book on the foundations of relativity) we find that, in fact, the speed of light is c in terms of *every* system of inertial coordinates. This is because, due to the WRFB, inertial coordinate systems are related to each other in a way that differs from what Galileo and Newton assumed.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm, so not only do you have your very own religion, you're
actually a religious nut as well?

I just hope you aren't too much of a nut, Ralph, so that you don't go and
strap on a suicide vest or something.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:46:22 AM UTC-7, Kitubu Nkyaku wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:32:41 AM UTC-7, Jim Limey wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >>
> >> >> HAHHAHHAHHHA! What nonsense. Newton's law works perfectly well for
> >> >> ordinary matter. It does not contain the factor of two.
> >> >
> >> > You are clueless. And also LAUGHING, that's simply amazing arrogance
> >> > and stupidity. Cuckoo, totally cuckoo, mental case.
> >>
> >> Not at all. Please take a look at these missions first.
> >
> > Another mental case.
>
> That must be you, stuppy. More exactly, an imbecile of the level of
> wozniak, refusing to look at the presented evidences.

There is no "evidence", just made-up nonsense strictly on the noise level. It's well-known
that if one makes up one's mind first, THEN one can always find "support" for such
"conclusion" made beforehand. Every lawyer knows this. IF you decide beforehand
that the Bible contains a "prophecy" of JFK's murder, THEN you'll find it there.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/9/17 5:58 PM, HGW... wrote:
> The force is not constant in a particle accelerator. It falls off as the

> particle approaches the speed at which the force acts. Also, a reverse
> field 'bubble' builds up around the particle and that tends to
> neutralize what field remains.

Just for the record here, what you are saying is that you would rather
personally believe that:
- Newton's laws are perfectly fine as is
- but the laws of electrodynamics are wrong
- and that there is some unknown "field bubble" about which practically
nothing is known and with which no predictive calculations can be performed

than that:
- relativistic treatments, which get the behavior of particles in an
accelerator quantitatively right, are correct.

In other words, you'd rather believe three unusual and unsupportable
things than one supported thing.

Got it.

Well, that's you, isn't it. I wonder who else would buy into that kind
of nonsense.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/10/17 5:44 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> What in your tiny mind unifies the speed of light from differently
> moving sources?

You've asked this question many, many, many, many times before, and the
answer is consistently "there is no unification involved". This answer,
though provided many, many, many, many times before is not something you
seem to be able to absorb, though it involves only five ordinary English
words. At this point, further repetition just amplifies your ineducability.

[Odd Bodkin]

If you fire the air gun pellet at close to the speed of light, this is
absolutely right. There will be no factor of two difference between
where the light lands and where the air pellet lands.

[Bilového Hlumu]

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Not at all. Please take a look at these missions first.
>> >
>> > Another mental case.
>>
>> That must be you, stuppy. More exactly, an imbecile of the level of
>> wozniak, refusing to look at the presented evidences.
>
> There is no "evidence", just made-up nonsense strictly on the noise
> level.

As we can see, YOU are refusing to look at the presented evidences, you
lying bitch. Look at, then comment. NOT the other way around, fruit cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X522N8Biq7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJ5qG5EdDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji-P6ijQaXs

[Paul B. Andersen]

Right.
As long as the mass of the particle is negligible compared to
the mass of the gravitating body, the deflection angle is given
by the speed of the particle only, it is independent of its mass.
So Newton doesn't only get the gravitational deflection of light wrong,
he gets the gravitational deflection of anything wrong.
And if the speed of that anything is c or very close to c, Neweton
gets the deflection wrong by a factor of two.

It is quite idiotic to claim that all the experiments which
confirm the predictions of GR for gravitational deflection
must be faked because Ralph Malcom Rabbidge can't understand
how they can be right. :-D

(An understatement. It is obviously extremely stupid,
bordering to insanity, to claim so.)

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGW, DSc.]

Bodkin, I can fully understand why your even tinier mind cannot see the
problem presented by Einstein's silly P2.
For light from differently moving sources to travel at the same speed
towards any observer, there must be a process that causes that to happen.
Now I realize that dingleberries generally believe in gods, fairies and
magic but that does not provide a solution to this problem.
Why don't you openly admit that SR requires and assume the existence of
a single all-encompassing aether to unify light speeds and is therefore
nothing other than a disguised and blatantly plagiarized form of LET.

[HGW, DSc.]

On 11/06/17 01:05, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:43:24 AM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>>> First, Maxwell's equations for a uniform electro-static field
>>> say the force is constant, independent of speed.
>>
>> At low speeds maybe...
>
> At high speeds too. Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics are
> unambiguous about this (for moderate rates of acceleration). And
> the observed behavior (acceleration and kinetic energy) of particles
> confirms that Maxwell's equations and the equations of special
> relativity are correct.

Maxwell knew nothing about accelerated particles and created equations
that applied to the aether that he believed existed.
There is absolutely no proof that your claim is correct.

>> You have been raving on about how a gravity field is affected at
>> high speed, now you think you can say the opposite about electric
>> fields...
>
> To the contrary, the gravitational field doesn't change at all for
> test particles moving at different speeds. Every test particle
> (fast or slow) in the gravitational field of a massive object follows
> a geodesic path through the space and time surrounding the object.
> The particular geodesic path that a particle follows naturally
> depends on its initial trajectory. The geodesics for fast (near
> light speed) trajectories exhibit twice the angular deflection as
> would be predicted by applying Newton's laws in space-time with flat
> metric.

Gawd! That is just a bullshit roundabout way of saying exactly what I
said. Gravity IS affected by an object's speed. So why shouldn't the
force due to electric fields by also affected in the same way?
How come your silly spacetime geodesic curved sopace bullshit can't
explain electric fields?

>>> We know that the force on a particle is not reduced, because the
>>> amount of kinetic energy imparted to the particle continues to
>>> increase... The evidence shows conclusively that the inertial
>>> mass and kinetic energy of an object increases with its speed,
>>> and by precisely the amounts predicted by special relativity.
>>
>> All that is explained by the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble (WRFB)
>> which builds up around the charge...
>
> That's fine. If you agree that, due to the WFRB, the effective
> inertial mass of an object moving at speed v is m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
> where m0 is the inertial mass of the object at rest, then your
> theory agrees with experiment and is equivalent to special
> relativity.

The proof of the accuracy of that equation is very poor at best. The
WFRB plus the dependence of force on particle speed should provide a
similar but more accurate equation. I can't do it because there isn't
enough data...but you can be pretty sure that the terms 1/(c+v) and
1/(c-v) come in somewhere.
I see the biggest factor inhibiting physics today is that it regards
fields and being purely mathematical entities rather than physical ones.
It is pretty obvious to me that action-at-a-distance is a PHYSICAL
process that involves at least one other dimension...yet modern physics
remains confined to considering just x,y,z,t.

> All the other consequences of special relativity can be derived from
> this. (Feynman used to teach relativity this way.)

You mean he was a principle participant in the student indoctrination
process...
All the other consequences of special relativity are consistent with the
bogus and unproven P2. So what?

>> What in your tiny mind unifies the speed of light from differently
>> moving sources?
>
> The Wilson Reverse Field Bubble. You see, in an emission
> (ballistic) theory, light propagates at the speed c in terms of the
> inertial coordinate system in which the source is at rest. On the
> other hand, in a wave (ether) theory, light propagates at the speed c
> in the inertial coordinates in which the ether is at rest,
> independent of the motion of the source. There is strong (actually
> irrefutable) evidence for both of these. But how can they both be
> true? Are they not mutually contradictory?
>
> No, they aren't. The answer is the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble,
> which causes the effective inertia of objects to increase with
> speed. Once this is taken into account (see any good book on the
> foundations of relativity) we find that, in fact, the speed of light
> is c in terms of *every* system of inertial coordinates. This is
> because, due to the WRFB, inertial coordinate systems are related to
> each other in a way that differs from what Galileo and Newton
> assumed.

Rubbish. The speed of light is assumed to be the same in all frames
because Lorentz and Fitzgerald came up with their contraction idea to
explain the MMX null result... Thus the rods and clocks of any observer
would automatically contract in the same ratio so that they would
always MEASURE OWLS to be c, irrespective of that observer's absolute
speed. But that only applies IF all light speeds are first unified by
the supposed universal aether.
Einstein merely stated that unification as a postulate and got away with
it because the aether served no other useful purpose. So he didn't have
to mention the aether again even though it was crucial to his theory.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 czerwca 2017 21:13:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:


> It is quite idiotic to claim that all the experiments which
> confirm the predictions of GR for gravitational deflection
> must be faked because Ralph Malcom Rabbidge can't understand
> how they can be right. :-D

Your Shit, however, predicts no deflection, poor
idiot. According to it, light trajectories are
straight/geodesic lines.

[HGW, DSc.]

On 11/06/17 03:43, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/9/17 5:58 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> The force is not constant in a particle accelerator. It falls off as the
>> particle approaches the speed at which the force acts. Also, a reverse
>> field 'bubble' builds up around the particle and that tends to
>> neutralize what field remains.
>
> Just for the record here, what you are saying is that you would rather
> personally believe that:
> - Newton's laws are perfectly fine as is

Newton wrote in the 17th century. His laws have been updated somewhat by
BaTh.

> - but the laws of electrodynamics are wrong
> - and that there is some unknown "field bubble" about which practically
> nothing is known and with which no predictive calculations can be performed

Bodkin, when a current flows, there is often a 'back EMF' of some kind.
In this case, there is a very fast movement of a charge between two
electrodes that constitute plates of a capacitor. Naturally, it
generates a reverse field....and because fields take time to act, it
cannot escape from the charge and builds up like a bubble... I can't
understand why the 'experts' haven't realized this.

> than that:
> - relativistic treatments, which get the behavior of particles in an
> accelerator quantitatively right, are correct.
>
> In other words, you'd rather believe three unusual and unsupportable
> things than one supported thing.

Bodkin, there has only been ONE proper test of source
independence....variable star research...AND IT SHOWS QUITE CLEARLY THAT
LIGHT SPEED IS SOURCE DEPENDENT, AT LEAST IN EMPTY SPACE.

Bath accepts that strong fields like those around stars and planets can
inhibit light's ballistic behaviour.

[HGW, DSc.]

<plonk>

[HGW, DSc.]

On 11/06/17 03:49, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/9/17 6:14 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 09/06/17 22:51, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
>>>> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall
>>>> opposite.
>>>> ___________________________
>>>> | |
>>>> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>>>> | |
>>>> |__________________________|
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> \/
>>>> F
>>>>
>
>>>

>>> A beam of 100 MeV neutrons, aimed horizontally just like the laser,
>>> will end up in a spot on the opposite wall in the same place as the
>>> laser spot. There will not be any factor of two difference between
>>> the two.
>>
>> So will an air gun pellet...no factor of two there, either..
>>
>
> If you fire the air gun pellet at close to the speed of light, this is
> absolutely right. There will be no factor of two difference between
> where the light lands and where the air pellet lands.

Bodkin, I feel sorry for you. You are so keen to talk physics but simply
cannot understand it...
The air gun pellet can be fired at one metre per day and will still hit
the same spot.

[HGW, DSc.]

I best like the bit about the fellow jumping off the floor and then
landing again....I sounds just like any other dingleberry blunder...

[HGW, DSc.]

On 11/06/17 05:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.06.2017 19.49, skrev Odd Bodkin:

>>>> A beam of 100 MeV neutrons, aimed horizontally just like the laser,
>>>> will end up in a spot on the opposite wall in the same place as the
>>>> laser spot. There will not be any factor of two difference between
>>>> the two.
>>>
>>> So will an air gun pellet...no factor of two there, either..
>>>
>>
>> If you fire the air gun pellet at close to the speed of light, this is
>> absolutely right. There will be no factor of two difference between
>> where the light lands and where the air pellet lands.
>
> Right.
> As long as the mass of the particle is negligible compared to
> the mass of the gravitating body, the deflection angle is given
> by the speed of the particle only, it is independent of its mass.

Gawd! Now Paul is losing it completely. Gravity acts equally on all unit
masses irrespective of the value of their common speed. So the pellet
will always accelerate downward exactly like the container, causing the
pellet to always hit the same spot.
GR apparently says the laser beam will bend downwards and hit the wall
below the spot

Maybe you are claiming that free falling reduces the gravitational
force....but that makes no difference here because the pellet and
container always have the same downward speed. I cannot see how the
pellet's or laser beam's horizontal speed can enter into this argument
at all.

> So Newton doesn't only get the gravitational deflection of light wrong,
> he gets the gravitational deflection of anything wrong.
> And if the speed of that anything is c or very close to c, Neweton
> gets the deflection wrong by a factor of two.

Really? Or is that just part of your religion? There is no proof of your
claim.

> It is quite idiotic to claim that all the experiments which
> confirm the predictions of GR for gravitational deflection

> must be faked because Henry George Wilson can't understand

> how they can be right. :-D
>
> (An understatement. It is obviously extremely stupid,
> bordering to insanity, to claim so.)
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

All misinterpreted though circular logic. All have alternative and much
more plausible Newtonian explanations.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:55:17 PM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> Maxwell knew nothing about accelerated particles...

Not true. Electrodynamics is basically the study of accelerating particles, since those are all that can be observed. (The fields that Faraday and Maxwell hypothesized can't be directly observed, but they can be used as conceptual elements to predict the behavior of particles.)

> [Maxwell] created equations that applied to the

> aether that he believed existed.

Right, although it turned out that the equations that he believed applied only in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the ether is at rest actually apply equally well in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

> There is absolutely no proof that your claim [that
> Maxwell's equations and special relativity have been
> empirically successful] is correct.

As previously mentioned, the observed relationship between velocity and kinetic energy of high speed particles disagrees sharply with Newtonian mechanics and is consistent with relativistic mechanics and electrodynamics.

> > > You have been raving on about how a gravity field is affected...

> >
> > To the contrary, the gravitational field doesn't change at all for

> > test particles moving at different speeds...

>
> Gawd! That is just a bullshit roundabout way of saying exactly what I
> said. Gravity IS affected by an object's speed.

Be careful. You said I'd been raving about the gravity field being affected, and I answered that the gravitational field isn't affected at all by the speed of the particles, and then I went on to note that different trajectories obviously follow different paths, which is not "exactly what you said" at all.

Remember, the original point at issue in this digression was whether the behavior of charged particles in accelerators could be explained by saying "hey, maybe the electric force drops to zero as the particle approaches the speed of light". I explained why (as is well known) this is not a viable explanation, because the kinetic energy of the particle continues to increase by F*ds as the force continues to be applied. It is true that, in the curved space-time of general relativity, the "acceleration of gravity" has a dependence on coordinate speed, but this does not alter the empirically verified relationship between kinetic energy and velocity in electrodynamics.

> > If you agree that, due to the WFRB, the effective
> > inertial mass of an object moving at speed v is m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
> > where m0 is the inertial mass of the object at rest, then your
> > theory agrees with experiment and is equivalent to special
> > relativity.
>
> The proof of the accuracy of that equation is very poor at best.

To the contrary, that equation has been verified to many significant digits. It is one of the most precisely verified expressions in science. Particles moving at 0.99999c are routinely observed, and they exhibit the behavior predicted by that equation very precisely.

> I see the biggest factor inhibiting physics today is

> that it regards fields as being purely mathematical

> entities rather than physical ones. It is pretty
> obvious to me that action-at-a-distance is a PHYSICAL
> process that involves at least one other dimension...
> yet modern physics remains confined to considering
> just x,y,z,t.

That's a bewildering conjunction of seemingly conflicted statements. Regarding the centuries-old debate between field theories and action-at-a-distance theories, you comment first that we should regard fields as real entities, and second that action-at-a-distance is a real physical process. So, you are supporting both sides of the debate simultaneously. Then you make the surprising complaint that modern physics remains confined to considering just the four dimensions (x,y,z,t), despite that fact that modern theoretical physicists speed much of their time working on theories in 10 or 11 dimensions (e.g., string theory), and despite the fact that there have been "many-time" theories (i.e., theories with extra time dimensions) dating back at least to Dirac.

> All the other consequences of special relativity are consistent with the
> bogus and unproven P2. So what?

You mis-read my sentence. I said all the consequences of special relativity follow from the WRFB effect on the kinetic energy of accelerated particles.

> The rods and clocks of any observer would automatically

> contract in the same ratio so that they would always MEASURE

> OWLS to be c... But that only applies IF all light speeds are
> first unified by the supposed universal aether... the aether
> served no other useful purpose, so [Einstein] didn't have to

> mention the aether again even though it was crucial to his
> theory.

Special relativity can be deduced from the pre-existing facts in many different ways, and Einstein chose a way that is puzzling to some people. It can be deduced in ways that are very clear and direct, making no reference to a mechanistic ether at any point, but historically special relativity was first deduced by reconciling the emission (ballistic) and wave (ether) conceptions of physics. Einstein's two postulates basically represent those two conceptions. The relativity principle is consistent with the ballistic theory, and the light-speed principle is consistent with the wave/ether theory.

Remember, just weeks before writing his EMB paper, Einstein had finished his paper on the photo-electric effect, postulating that light behaves, at least in some ways, like Newtonian ballistic corpuscles, rather than like waves in an ether. (For man years everyone, including Planck, thought he was wrong, until experiments ultimately proved him right.) But he also knew the undeniable empirical success of Maxwell's equations. (He did not feel free to discount empirical facts simply because they disagreed with his pet theory.) So the challenge was to reconcile these.

The key to the reconciliation is what you have called the WFRB, which represents the inertia of energy. This is the key fact that was missing from Newton's physics. Einstein stumbled into this indirectly, as a necessary condition in order for the two conceptions (ballistic and ether) to be reconciled. But once the key was recognized, we find that the mechanistic ether concept must actually be discarded, because the WFRB implies that the speed of light is c in terms of not just one particular inertial coordinate system (the "ether" system), but in terms of EVERY inertial coordinate system, which isn't really compatible with a mechanistic ether conception.

And then the deeper understanding emerged, based on recognizing (with Poincare and Minkowski) the invariants implicit in the Lorentz transformation, showing that the absolute interval between two events separated by dt, dx is given by dtau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2/c^2, and it follows that light propagates along null intervals in this (pseudo) metrical spacetime.

So, when you ask "What unifies the speeds of light from two sources in different states of motion?", the answer is that light (indeed, any massless energy) propagates along null intervals, which are invariants in space-time.

[Odd Bodkin]

HGW, DSc. <HG@....> wrote:
> On 11/06/17 03:45, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/10/17 5:44 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>>> What in your tiny mind unifies the speed of light from differently
>>> moving sources?
>>
>> You've asked this question many, many, many, many times before, and the
>> answer is consistently "there is no unification involved". This answer,
>> though provided many, many, many, many times before is not something you
>> seem to be able to absorb, though it involves only five ordinary English
>> words. At this point, further repetition just amplifies your ineducability.
>
> Bodkin, I can fully understand why your even tinier mind cannot see the
> problem presented by Einstein's silly P2.
> For light from differently moving sources to travel at the same speed
> towards any observer, there must be a process that causes that to happen.

Not so, because there is no reason that the speed would be different from
the different sources to begin with. There is no unification. This you
cannot absorb. You are ineducable.

> Now I realize that dingleberries generally believe in gods, fairies and
> magic but that does not provide a solution to this problem.
> Why don't you openly admit that SR requires and assume the existence of
> a single all-encompassing aether to unify light speeds and is therefore
> nothing other than a disguised and blatantly plagiarized form of LET.
>
>
>
>

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes:

>Bodkin, there has only been ONE proper test of source
>independence....variable star research...AND IT SHOWS QUITE CLEARLY THAT

LIGHT SPEED IS A CONSTANT c, SINCE WE DO NOT OBSERVE THE BIZARRE LIGHT
PATTERNS that light arriving at different speeds would produce, as light
from a star approaching us in its orbit catches up to and passes the light
emitted by the same star half an orbit earlier when it was moving away
from us.

You can't deny this, Ralph, this lack of bizarre light curves from binary
stars rips DirtyBaThWater completely to shreds.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes:

><plonk>

Wow, Ralph, you are really, really clueless, aren't you, Ralph! Do you
even know what "<plonk>" is supposed to mean, Ralph? I'll give you a
clue, Ralph, one consequence of a real <plonk> would be that you never
would have made this second reply to my post, Ralph. Do you know why,
Ralph?

But let's look at what must be bothering you, Ralph Malcolm. You don't
like it when anyone points out to you that Mercury's orbit is nowhere near
chaotic enough to mask the 43 seconds/century precession caused by GR, so
that you can't handwave it away? Or you don't like it being pointed out
that your DirtyBaThWater is just as scientific as every other religion on
earth? You don't like it that the DirtyBaThWater religion has exactly one
follower, yourself? Even though you get to be Pope, or Grand Poobah, or
whatever you call yourself, Ralph? Just don't do that Bread and Vodka
ceremony too much, Ralph.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/10/17 6/10/17 5:28 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> Chaotic systems like Mercury's orbit cannot be predicted.

This is just not true, as long as one stays much less than the Lyapunov time of
the system; for this it is about 5 million years. Of course you have already
demonstrated that you do not know what a chaotic system actually is, or how one
might analyze them.

>> Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the
>> solar system is on the order of 5 million years.
>

> The positions of the planets changes quite dramatically even in twenty years...

A sensible person, when confronted with a term that they do not know, such as
"Lyapunov time", would spend a minute or two with Google to find out what it
means. You, however, prefer to just make something up and pretend it is true.
That is the most ANTI-SCIENTIFIC approach I have ever seen. And also the stupidest.

That is why I only respond to you when I think your outrageously
incorrect statements provide an educational opportunity for
OTHERS who follow this newsgroup. You have proven yourself to be
completely uneducable.

>> [a mention of errorbars]

> Tom can always run behind his 'error bars' when he is in trouble.

CLEARLY you are not a scientist. Unlike you, competent scientists know that no
measurement is perfect, and that errorbars are the way we quantify how
accurately a measured quantity is known. One does not "run behind" them; they
are an ESSENTIAL part of modern physics, as they represent the quality of knowledge.

As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your
COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother?

Tom Roberts

[HGW...]

On 11/06/17 11:11, Michael Moron-y admitted he is a pathetic failure...

[HGW...]

On 11/06/17 13:56, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/10/17 6/10/17 5:28 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:

>
>>> Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the
>>> solar system is on the order of 5 million years.
>>
>> The positions of the planets changes quite dramatically even in twenty
>> years...
>
> A sensible person, when confronted with a term that they do not know,
> such as "Lyapunov time", would spend a minute or two with Google to find
> out what it means. You, however, prefer to just make something up and
> pretend it is true. That is the most ANTI-SCIENTIFIC approach I have
> ever seen. And also the stupidest.

The Lyapunov time for the solar system has little to do with the
Lyapunov time for Mercury's precession. Chaotic systems can switch quite
rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another.
You have little idea of the factors that are responsible for planetary
precession anyway.

> That is why I only respond to you when I think your outrageously
> incorrect statements provide an educational opportunity for
> OTHERS who follow this newsgroup. You have proven yourself to be
> completely uneducable.
>
>>> [a mention of errorbars]
>> Tom can always run behind his 'error bars' when he is in trouble.
>
> CLEARLY you are not a scientist. Unlike you, competent scientists know
> that no measurement is perfect, and that errorbars are the way we
> quantify how accurately a measured quantity is known. One does not "run
> behind" them; they are an ESSENTIAL part of modern physics, as they
> represent the quality of knowledge.

Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
experiments that give black or white answers.
No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine
tasks of measuring things.

> As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your
> COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother?

After some of your recent statements, it is obvious who the ignorant one is.

> Tom Roberts


--

[Odd Bodkin]

HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
.
>
> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
> experiments that give black or white answers.
> No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine
> tasks of measuring things.

LOL. What planet do you live on, Henry?
Are you trying to conjure it up by repetitive incantation of How Henry
Wants Things to Be?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 11 czerwca 2017 13:38:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> .
> >
> > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
> > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
> > experiments that give black or white answers.
> > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine
> > tasks of measuring things.
>
> LOL. What planet do you live on, Henry?

Ask one of your moronic gurus how to define
their moronic interval.

[khrap...@hotmail.com]

пятница, 9 июня 2017 г., 4:02:09 UTC+4 пользователь HGW... написал:

> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
> ___________________________
> | |
> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
> | |
> |__________________________|
>
> |
> \/
> F
>

> According to Einstein, the state of free falling is inertial. At some
> stage, let the container fall towards a star, in a direction
> perpendicular to the laser beam.
>
> If the acceleration of light by gravity is twice that of matter, as

> claimed by Einstein, the beam will be deflected downward, below the
> spot, the deflection increasing with time as the gravity field becomes
> stronger.
>
> However, because the container remains inertial, the beam must remain
> aimed precisely at the spot on the opposite wall, irrespective of time.
> For this to be true, the action of gravity on the beam must be IDENTICAL
> to that on the container, not double its value as Einstein claimed.
>
> In light of this apparent paradox, can anyone here try to defend Einstein?
>
> (abusive or irrelevant replies will be ignored)
>
> --

HGW is mistaken. According to Einstein, the acceleration of light by gravity equals the acceleration of matter. See
Light bending effect and space curvature Eur. J. Phys. 36 (2015) 058002 http://khrapkori.wmsite.ru/ftpgetfile.php?id=143&module=files

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wrote:

> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
> experiments that give black or white answers.
> No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine
> tasks of measuring things.

“5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding out
what it means.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 10.06.2017 22.58, skrev HGW, DSc.:
> On 11/06/17 05:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote

>> On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>> Consider a very wide container in free space.
>>> On one side is a laser pointing 'horizontally' and
>>> directly at small spot on the wall opposite.
>>> ___________________________
>>> | |
>>> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>>> | |
>>> |__________________________|
>>>
>>> |
>>> \/
>>> F
>>>

>>> let the container fall towards a star,
>>> in a direction perpendicular to the laser beam.

The container is irrelevant.
When you fire a laser or a gun in the gravitational field of a star,
the trajectory of the particle (photon or bullet) will be curved even
if the particle gun is free falling.

The following statement is true according to Newton as well as GR:

>> As long as the mass of the particle is negligible compared to
>> the mass of the gravitating body, the deflection angle is given
>> by the speed of the particle only, it is independent of its mass.

But the predictions of GR and Newton for the deflection angle
(curvature) are quantitative different.

> Gawd! Now Paul is losing it completely. Gravity acts equally on all unit
> masses irrespective of the value of their common speed. So the pellet
> will always accelerate downward exactly like the container, causing the
> pellet to always hit the same spot.
> GR apparently says the laser beam will bend downwards and hit the wall

> below the spot.

Ralph, even you know that the curvature of a particle's trajectory
in a gravitational field depend on the speed of the particle,
so what are you babbling about?
Shoot a bullet with a rifle and throw a stone with your hand.
Why are the curvatures of the trajectories different?

>
> Maybe you are claiming that free falling reduces the gravitational
> force....but that makes no difference here because the pellet and
> container always have the same downward speed. I cannot see how the
> pellet's or laser beam's horizontal speed can enter into this argument
> at all.

Ralph, if your container were in space with no gravitational
field, the whole scenario would be trivial and pointless.
In the inertial rest frame of the container all trajectories
would obviously be straight lines according to SR, GR or Newton.
But your container was free falling towards a star.
That changes everything, and if your scenario should have a point,
it would have to be that your container is in a gravitational field.
And then both GR and Newton predict that the trajectory of
the photon or bullet will be curved, and the curvature depend on
the speed.

>> So Newton doesn't only get the gravitational deflection of light wrong,
>> he gets the gravitational deflection of anything wrong.

>> And if the speed of that anything is c or very close to c, Newton

>> gets the deflection wrong by a factor of two.

But the predictions of Newton and GR will be very close to equal
for slow velocities (bullets from guns, orbiting satellites).

>
> Really? Or is that just part of your religion? There is no proof of your
> claim.

Thanks for confirming my words:

>> It is quite idiotic to claim that all the experiments which
>> confirm the predictions of GR for gravitational deflection

>> must be faked because Ralph Malcom Rabbidge can't understand

>> how they can be right. :-D
>>
>> (An understatement. It is obviously extremely stupid,
>> bordering to insanity, to claim so.)
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
> All misinterpreted though circular logic. All have alternative and much
> more plausible Newtonian explanations.

Frustrating that you can't make the experimental evidence go away,
isn't it? :-D


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[xxei...@gmail.com]

xxein: For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A team. Call it a binary choice for convenience. But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet. To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they tell the B team to f*** off and die or what?

[xxei...@gmail.com]

xxein: Thx Paul. You supplied the words I should have used.
So? Would the A team consider the B team 'test' as trivial and pointless?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

xxei...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

It is called “attribution _line_”, not attribution novel.

>> wrote:
>> > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
>> > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
>> > experiments that give black or white answers.
>> > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine
>> > tasks of measuring things.
>> “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding
>> out what it means.
>>

>> [sig]

It is inappropriate to quote Usenet signatures without referring to their
content.

> xxein:

This is _not_ a chat room. And an e-mail address is _not_ a name.

> For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups
> physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for
> short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B
> team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A
> team.

The “A team” would probably be thrilled as the “B team” has given them more
work to do.

> Call it a binary choice for convenience.

Science simply does not work this way. There are always uncertainties.
Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth about anything (or everything)
is either not a scientist or is a scientist who has been misunderstood.

> But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model
> of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet.

Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories.

> To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what
> have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or
> refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they
> tell the B team to f*** off and die or what?

Obviously you have no clue about science and scientists. Scientists may
disagree on any number of issues, and they may compete for funding, but by-
and-large there is a scientific *community* where of which all members are
seeking the common goal to arrive at the *best* possible theories. The
nature of science is critical thought, a deep *scepticism*: science is *a
process* where knowledge is continuously *questioned*, thereby created,
improved and enriched.

As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a
theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever occurs.
In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to be a very
strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know whether they are on
the right track with their theory or only wasting their precious time with
it.

If you had paid more attention to the scientific process – which is
documented *in public* after all – instead of conjuring up conspiracy
theories, you would have realized all of that already.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Who is “Paul”? Are you talking to yourself now? Do you even have the
slightest idea what you are doing?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/10/17 11:18 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 11/06/17 11:11, Michael Moron-y admitted he is a pathetic failure...
>

You cannot reply to a post made by someone you plonked, you wanker.

[xxei...@gmail.com]

xxein: I think Henry may actually have a point if I understand him correctly. If you fire a laser or a slow pellet across the container while the container and the gun are free falling, all will fall at the same radial rate. Is that point of aim being the same as point of impact? If you stand on the ground, the gun and you are not falling but the pellet or light will continue to fall as above. Fwiw.

[xxei...@gmail.com]

xxein: Don't get 'testy' with me. It was only an ifff.

BUT I'll bet my dollar to your doughnut that I could pose a question of/to GR that you would think has been amply deduced and answered and you would consider it trivial and pointless. While being deduced and seemingly the only possible answer to be compliant to the theory and its model, in experiment it might prove to be non-compliant.

Are you saying that science would jump at the chance to experiment and find out if it could be falsified? I don't find that to be true. Baez defends the GR answer and may think it's pointless and trivial. Will thinks it's just a routine question by misunderstanding it. The jury may still be out with Susskind as he may not have received and considered it yet. My small sampling seems to disagree with your expectations. Perhaps you might suggest another avenue?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It is also inappropriate to quote everything. Get out of your cave,
Googlodyte, and learn to post.

xxei...@gmail.com wrote:

> BUT I'll bet my dollar to your doughnut that I could pose a question of/to
> GR that you would think has been amply deduced and answered and you would
> consider it trivial and pointless.

That would carry some weight if you knew what you are talking about, which
you clearly do not.

> […]

> Are you saying that science would jump at the chance to experiment and
> find out if it could be falsified?

_Theories_ are falsified by experiments, not experiments by other
experiments.

> [conspiracy theories]

This is not only nonsense, it is also off-topic here. Please go away.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 6/10/17 11:18 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 11/06/17 11:11, Michael Moron-y admitted he is a pathetic failure...
>
> You cannot reply to a post made by someone you plonked, you wanker.

Actually, you can.

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 6/10/17 11:18 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 11/06/17 11:11, Michael Moron-y admitted he is a pathetic failure...
>>

>You cannot reply to a post made by someone you plonked, you wanker.

Funny, isn't it. Ralph supposedly plonked me twice in a row and is still
replying to my posts.

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 06:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> xxei...@gmail.com wrote:

>

> Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories.

I would not agree with that. I someone gets a novel idea, the first
thing they want to do is test it.

>> To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what
>> have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or
>> refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they
>> tell the B team to f*** off and die or what?
>
> Obviously you have no clue about science and scientists. Scientists may
> disagree on any number of issues, and they may compete for funding, but by-
> and-large there is a scientific *community* where of which all members are
> seeking the common goal to arrive at the *best* possible theories. The
> nature of science is critical thought, a deep *scepticism*: science is *a
> process* where knowledge is continuously *questioned*, thereby created,
> improved and enriched.
>
> As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a
> theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever occurs.
> In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to be a very
> strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know whether they are on
> the right track with their theory or only wasting their precious time with
> it.

correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has
been anywhere near the number from experimentalists. Maybe new concepts
emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but no matter where
they come from or how credible they are, the immediate goal will be to
test them.


--

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 07:39, xxei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:53:39 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen

>>> All misinterpreted though circular logic. All have alternative
>>> and much more plausible Newtonian explanations.
>>
>> Frustrating that you can't make the experimental evidence go away,
>> isn't it? :-D
>>
>>
>> -- Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> xxein: I think Henry may actually have a point if I understand him
> correctly. If you fire a laser or a slow pellet across the container
> while the container and the gun are free falling, all will fall at
> the same radial rate. Is that point of aim being the same as point
> of impact? If you stand on the ground, the gun and you are not
> falling but the pellet or light will continue to fall as above.
> Fwiw.

That's far too hard for a Norwegian.


--

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 05:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.06.2017 22.58, skrev HGW, DSc.:
>> On 11/06/17 05:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote
>>> On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
>>>> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall
>>>> opposite.
>>>> ___________________________
>>>> | |
>>>> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>>>> | |
>>>> |__________________________|
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> \/
>>>> F
>>>>
>>>> let the container fall towards a star, in a direction perpendicular
>>>> to the laser beam.
>
> The container is irrelevant.

HAHHAHHAHHAHA! Where is the spot that was on it wall?

> When you fire a laser or a gun in the gravitational field of a star,
> the trajectory of the particle (photon or bullet) will be curved even
> if the particle gun is free falling.

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

Of course it is curved! In all frames other than the container's, So what?

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

>
> The following statement is true according to Newton as well as GR:
>
>>> As long as the mass of the particle is negligible compared to
>>> the mass of the gravitating body, the deflection angle is given
>>> by the speed of the particle only, it is independent of its mass.

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

>
> But the predictions of GR and Newton for the deflection angle
> (curvature) are quantitative different.

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

>
>> Gawd! Now Paul is losing it completely. Gravity acts equally on all
>> unit masses irrespective of the value of their common speed. So the
>> pellet will always accelerate downward exactly like the container,
>> causing the pellet to always hit the same spot.
>> GR apparently says the laser beam will bend downwards and hit the wall
>> below the spot.
>

>hENRY, even you know that the curvature of a particle's trajectory

> in a gravitational field depend on the speed of the particle,
> so what are you babbling about?

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

> Shoot a bullet with a rifle and throw a stone with your hand.
> Why are the curvatures of the trajectories different?

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

>> Maybe you are claiming that free falling reduces the gravitational
>> force....but that makes no difference here because the pellet and
>> container always have the same downward speed. I cannot see how the
>> pellet's or laser beam's horizontal speed can enter into this argument
>> at all.
>

> hENRY, if your container were in space with no gravitational

> field, the whole scenario would be trivial and pointless.
> In the inertial rest frame of the container all trajectories
> would obviously be straight lines according to SR, GR or Newton.
> But your container was free falling towards a star.

eVERYTHIUNG IN SPACE IS FREE FALLING TOWARDS A STAR.

HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!
HAHHAHHAHHAHA!HAHHAHHAHHAHA!

> That changes everything, and if your scenario should have a point,
> it would have to be that your container is in a gravitational field.
> And then both GR and Newton predict that the trajectory of
> the photon or bullet will be curved, and the curvature depend on
> the speed.

Paul, the question was, "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of
the container?"

[HGW...]

I'm not mistaken at all. You are!
According to HGW, the acceleration of light by gravity equals the
acceleration of matter.

How could that not be true, according to the equivalence principle?


--

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 10:22, Michael Moroney was apparently still ignorant of the
fact that he has been plonked.


--

[xxei...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/06/17 05:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 10.06.2017 22.58, skrev HGW, DSc.:
> >> On 11/06/17 05:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote
> >>> On 6/8/17 7:02 PM, HGW... wrote:
> >>>> Consider a very wide container in free space. On one side is a laser
> >>>> pointing 'horizontally' and directly at small spot on the wall
> >>>> opposite.

> > the speed.
>
> Paul, the question was, "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of
> the container?"

xxein: But Henry, even if it hit directly across the path is still curved.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 12/06/17 10:22, Michael Moroney was apparently still ignorant of the
>fact that he has been plonked.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the fourth post by you in response to
my post (check the References: field) after allegedly plonking me the
first time, and this is third time you have allegedly plonked me, Ralph.
Ralph, you are truly ignorant of what would happen if you really did plonk
me, aren't you. Apparently, you just can't resist reading my posts, Ralph
and you'll never plonk me for real, will you, Mr. Rabbidge. Will you
reply to this post as well, Ralph?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wrote:

> On 12/06/17 06:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories.
>
> I would not agree with that.

Since you do not know what you are talking about, your opinion on that is
irrelevant.

> I someone gets a novel idea, the first thing they want to do is test it.

Testing still is different from verification.

>> As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a
>> theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever
>> occurs. In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to
>> be a very strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know
>> whether they are on the right track with their theory or only wasting
>> their precious time with it.
>
> correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has
> been anywhere near the number from experimentalists.

You are missing the point.

> Maybe new concepts emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but
> no matter where they come from or how credible they are, the immediate
> goal will be to test them.

That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ now.

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 13:39, Michael Moron-y offered for sale shares in the
Michael Moron-y Country Shithouse, situated on the far northern coast of
Ireland. So far nobody has accepted the offer.

[HGW...]

On 12/06/17 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> I someone gets a novel idea, the first thing they want to do is test it.
>
> Testing still is different from verification.
>
>>> As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a
>>> theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever
>>> occurs. In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to
>>> be a very strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know
>>> whether they are on the right track with their theory or only wasting
>>> their precious time with it.
>>
>> correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has
>> been anywhere near the number from experimentalists.
>
> You are missing the point.
>
>> Maybe new concepts emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but
>> no matter where they come from or how credible they are, the immediate
>> goal will be to test them.
>
> That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ now.

You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas either
work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or measurements are
needed.



--

[HGW...]

It is not curved in the container frame.
It is curved in every other frame but that is irrelevant here.
Paul has made an gigantic fool of himself. I hope you are not going to
follow him.



--

[Selina Dieter]

Please ignore the fool. For instance, he can't even make a car without
lying, cheating and provoke environmental catastrophes.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote:
> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing experiments that
> give black or white answers.

Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are.

A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all articles
include errorbars. EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning ones that present
results, rather than just describing the apparatus) -- errorbars are now
considered essential; in most journals such papers greatly outnumber the purely
theoretical ones.

Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare....

As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your
COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother?

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

[Michael Moroney]

I wrote:

>>Ralph, you are truly ignorant of what would happen if you really did plonk
>>me, aren't you. Apparently, you just can't resist reading my posts, Ralph
>>and you'll never plonk me for real, will you, Mr. Rabbidge. Will you
>>reply to this post as well, Ralph?

Thanks for proving my point, Ralph! Despite your repeated claims of plonking
me, you still *can't resist* reading my responses to you, and you *can't
resist* seeing how I repeatedly prove you wrong. Also, you *can't resist*
responding, even if you have nothing to counter where I prove you wrong, so
all you have is either abuse (such as the post I am responding to) or a fake
"plonk" claim.

[HGW, DSc.]

Idiot! You're obviously confusing technology with physics.

[HGW, DSc.]

On 13/06/17 00:28, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
>> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
>> experiments that give black or white answers.
>
> Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are.
>
> A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all
> articles include errorbars.

..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the
authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless,
oparticularly those in dingleberry journals.

> EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning
> ones that present results, rather than just describing the apparatus) --
> errorbars are now considered essential; in most journals such papers
> greatly outnumber the purely theoretical ones.
>
> Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare....
>
> As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your
> COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother?

You're so stupid you post messages in duplicate.

> Tom Roberts

[Selina Dieter]

You fool yourself. You are not going to pretend, that a one unable to put
a car together one place, would be capable in Physics? In which case you
would be more uneducated than he is. Take care.

[Paparios]

El lunes, 12 de junio de 2017, 14:03:02 (UTC-4), HGW, DSc. escribió:
> On 13/06/17 00:28, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote:
> >> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in
> >> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing
> >> experiments that give black or white answers.
> >
> > Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are.
> >
> > A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all
> > articles include errorbars.
>
> ..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the
> authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless,
> oparticularly those in dingleberry journals.

The rate of people reading a paper is measured and it is called the IMPACT FACTOR.

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal.

So as usual you know shit about how physics works

[Selina Dieter]

Paparios wrote:

> The rate of people reading a paper is measured and it is called the
> IMPACT FACTOR.
>
> The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic
> journal is a measure reflecting the yearly average number of citations
> to recent articles published in that journal.

You just contradict yourself. Is it about the citations, or the readings.
That must about the citations. People are reading nonsense all the time.