info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The End of Einstein Is Around the Corner
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Apr 25, 2017, 8:08:41 PM4/25/17
to
Divine Albert's Divine Theory is surrounded by silence nowadays - only Einstein's sex life is discussed. Famous Einsteinians are silent, Science and Nature are silent, even the two Brians (Greene and Cox) are silent. And there are embarrassing hints:
"Scientists are now questioning that the speed of light is constant and some believe that fairly soon quantum theory and the theory of relativity could be fighting it out to determine which theory will capture the crown of scientific consensus." http://www.qcsunonline.com/story/2017/04/26/opinion/science-has-failed-in-obligations/18216.html
"Today the speed of light, or c as it's commonly known, is considered the cornerstone of special relativity - unlike space and time, the speed of light is constant, independent of the observer. [...] Quantum field theory says that a vacuum is never really empty: it's filled with elementary particles, rapidly popping in and out of existence. These particles create electromagnetic ripples along the way, the hypothesis goes, and could potentially cause variations in the speed of light. Studies into these ideas are ongoing, and we don't know for sure one way or the other yet. For now, the speed of light remains the same as it has for centuries, constant and fixed... but watch this space." http://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-the-speed-of-light-the-speed-of-light
Alas, Einsteinians, the speed of light is VARIABLE, and this is OBVIOUS. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect shows that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source - the measured frequency increases:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
The following quotation is relevant:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer (receiver) is (4/3)c, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light relative to him becomes c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity, and the frequency he measures shifts accordingly - from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ=(c+v)/λ:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
Pentcho Valev
"Scientists are now questioning that the speed of light is constant and some believe that fairly soon quantum theory and the theory of relativity could be fighting it out to determine which theory will capture the crown of scientific consensus." http://www.qcsunonline.com/story/2017/04/26/opinion/science-has-failed-in-obligations/18216.html
"Today the speed of light, or c as it's commonly known, is considered the cornerstone of special relativity - unlike space and time, the speed of light is constant, independent of the observer. [...] Quantum field theory says that a vacuum is never really empty: it's filled with elementary particles, rapidly popping in and out of existence. These particles create electromagnetic ripples along the way, the hypothesis goes, and could potentially cause variations in the speed of light. Studies into these ideas are ongoing, and we don't know for sure one way or the other yet. For now, the speed of light remains the same as it has for centuries, constant and fixed... but watch this space." http://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-the-speed-of-light-the-speed-of-light
Alas, Einsteinians, the speed of light is VARIABLE, and this is OBVIOUS. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect shows that THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source - the measured frequency increases:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
The following quotation is relevant:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer (receiver) is (4/3)c, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light relative to him becomes c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity, and the frequency he measures shifts accordingly - from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ=(c+v)/λ:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Apr 25, 2017, 11:34:10 PM4/25/17
to
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:08:41 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Divine Albert's Divine Theory is surrounded by silence nowadays -
Your choice of words, "Divine Albert's Divine Theory", tells your readers immediately that
> Divine Albert's Divine Theory is surrounded by silence nowadays -
your motivation is simply attacking the man Albert Einstein, and it has nothing to do with
science.
As far as your subject line goes, I'll repeat again: there is going to be exactly as much of
"the end of Einstein" as there was "the end of Newton" after QM and "the end of
Maxwell" after QED.
In other words - you are on a pitiful silly quest which will lead you nowhere.
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Apr 26, 2017, 4:21:50 AM4/26/17
to
Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/science/some-scientists-suggest-relativity-may-be-well-relative.html
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light - 186,000 miles per second - are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." [...] "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
So Einsteinians want to drop the false postulate but don't drop it. Why? Because dropping it would destroy the whole pseudoscience empire that feeds them:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."
How do Einsteinians know that the end of special relativity means the end of everything? Einstein told them so in 1954:
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-John-Stachel/dp/0817641432
John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151: Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/science/some-scientists-suggest-relativity-may-be-well-relative.html
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light - 186,000 miles per second - are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." [...] "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
So Einsteinians want to drop the false postulate but don't drop it. Why? Because dropping it would destroy the whole pseudoscience empire that feeds them:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."
How do Einsteinians know that the end of special relativity means the end of everything? Einstein told them so in 1954:
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-John-Stachel/dp/0817641432
John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151: Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Apr 26, 2017, 7:20:10 AM4/26/17
to
W dniu środa, 26 kwietnia 2017 05:34:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:08:41 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Divine Albert's Divine Theory is surrounded by silence nowadays -
>
> Your choice of words, "Divine Albert's Divine Theory", tells your readers immediately that
> your motivation is simply attacking the man Albert Einstein, and it has nothing to do with
> science.
In opposition to your "syntax schmyntax"
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:08:41 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Divine Albert's Divine Theory is surrounded by silence nowadays -
>
> Your choice of words, "Divine Albert's Divine Theory", tells your readers immediately that
> your motivation is simply attacking the man Albert Einstein, and it has nothing to do with
> science.
screams. Right, poor idiot?
JanPB
Apr 26, 2017, 4:50:46 PM4/26/17
to
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
> Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
Pentcho, give it up. It's just not your bag.
--
Jan
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Apr 28, 2017, 9:29:30 AM4/28/17
to
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
>
> Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
Correction: Not even in the same universe.
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
>
> Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
In THIS universe, the laws of physics are different from the laws in Pentcho's
universe.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Apr 28, 2017, 9:45:09 AM4/28/17
to
W dniu piątek, 28 kwietnia 2017 15:29:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
> >
> > Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
>
> Correction: Not even in the same universe.
>
> In THIS universe, the laws of physics are different from the laws in Pentcho's
> universe.
1)Your laws of physics belong to your physics, not
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
> >
> > Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
>
> Correction: Not even in the same universe.
>
> In THIS universe, the laws of physics are different from the laws in Pentcho's
> universe.
to the universe, poor idiot.
2)But even your bunch of idiots was unable to hold
constant-light-speed idiocy for long, so your
GR shit rejects it.
JanPB
Apr 28, 2017, 7:47:34 PM4/28/17
to
arguments, nobody will listen to you.
Also, you automatically forfeit the right to point the same thing
to anyone else addressing you.
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Apr 29, 2017, 1:11:02 AM4/29/17
to
The scientific world is preparing for a revolution/catastrophe:
"Why Einstein's Theory of General Relativity Matters...and why it soon might not. [...] And that raises perhaps the most important ramification behind a variable speed of light. It throws everything we know about the physical world into disarray. [...] But a complete upheaval of our knowledge of physics would be equal parts fascinating and discouraging. Yes, we should care if Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, because the effects on how we investigate physics might not even be comprehensible to us at this point in time. And all this speculation is moot if Magueijo's and Afshordi's experiment can't support their hypothesis. We'll have to wait impatiently to see exactly what the pair find. They might be totally wrong. But if they're not, the scientific community will have to come to grips with a world they actually know nothing about." https://www.inverse.com/article/24397-albert-einstein-wrong-speed-of-light-theory-of-general-relativity
No need to "wait impatiently". Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Here is the original formulation:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
This independence of the state of motion of the emitting body is only conceivable if the motion of the emitting body is able to change the wavelength of the emitted light. That is, when the emitting body starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength of the emitted light must become shorter (otherwise Einstein's light postulate is false). Accordingly, Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary source)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif (moving source)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"
http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. This shortening of the wavelength is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λ>λ') when the source is moving.
For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source is moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.
Conclusion: The light source ("emitting body") moving towards the observer does not emit shorter wavelength. Rather, it emits faster light. If the initially stationary source starts moving towards the stationary observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
"Why Einstein's Theory of General Relativity Matters...and why it soon might not. [...] And that raises perhaps the most important ramification behind a variable speed of light. It throws everything we know about the physical world into disarray. [...] But a complete upheaval of our knowledge of physics would be equal parts fascinating and discouraging. Yes, we should care if Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, because the effects on how we investigate physics might not even be comprehensible to us at this point in time. And all this speculation is moot if Magueijo's and Afshordi's experiment can't support their hypothesis. We'll have to wait impatiently to see exactly what the pair find. They might be totally wrong. But if they're not, the scientific community will have to come to grips with a world they actually know nothing about." https://www.inverse.com/article/24397-albert-einstein-wrong-speed-of-light-theory-of-general-relativity
No need to "wait impatiently". Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Here is the original formulation:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
This independence of the state of motion of the emitting body is only conceivable if the motion of the emitting body is able to change the wavelength of the emitted light. That is, when the emitting body starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength of the emitted light must become shorter (otherwise Einstein's light postulate is false). Accordingly, Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary source)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif (moving source)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"
http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. This shortening of the wavelength is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λ>λ') when the source is moving.
For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source is moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.
Conclusion: The light source ("emitting body") moving towards the observer does not emit shorter wavelength. Rather, it emits faster light. If the initially stationary source starts moving towards the stationary observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Apr 29, 2017, 6:33:39 AM4/29/17
to
W dniu sobota, 29 kwietnia 2017 01:47:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 6:45:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 28 kwietnia 2017 15:29:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
> > > >
> > > > Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
> > >
> > > Correction: Not even in the same universe.
> > >
> > > In THIS universe, the laws of physics are different from the laws in Pentcho's
> > > universe.
> >
> > 1)Your laws of physics belong to your physics, not
> > to the universe, poor idiot.
> > 2)But even your bunch of idiots was unable to hold
> > constant-light-speed idiocy for long, so your
> > GR shit rejects it.
>
> As long as you keep using words like "shit" and "idiot" instead of
> arguments, nobody will listen to you.
Samely, as long as you keep using words like "idiot"
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 6:45:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 28 kwietnia 2017 15:29:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:21:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > Einsteinians have known for quite some time that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false:
> > > >
> > > > Not even wrong. Not even in the same galaxy.
> > >
> > > Correction: Not even in the same universe.
> > >
> > > In THIS universe, the laws of physics are different from the laws in Pentcho's
> > > universe.
> >
> > 1)Your laws of physics belong to your physics, not
> > to the universe, poor idiot.
> > 2)But even your bunch of idiots was unable to hold
> > constant-light-speed idiocy for long, so your
> > GR shit rejects it.
>
> As long as you keep using words like "shit" and "idiot" instead of
> arguments, nobody will listen to you.
or "synta schmyntax" instead of arguments, nobody
will listen to you.
0 new messages