EFFECT WITHOUT CAUSE IN EINSTEINIANA'S WONDERLAND
Pentcho Valev
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."
Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in
accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v
given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the
speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That
is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2),
valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in
the absence of a gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say,
the validity of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.
Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911
the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the
only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Juan R.
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14: "The
> equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior
> of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run
> faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then
> stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster
> than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and
> compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
>
> Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
> the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
> gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
> identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
> different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Of course, no. Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
(...)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
didier
> [...] different gravitational potentials [...] but experience essentially the same gravitational field. [...]
LOL !
rotchm
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
Nothing mysterious there. This is also predicted by classical
Newtonian mechanics (for clocks).
Note that a pendulum is not a "clock".
> Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> potentials [...] but experience essentially the same gravitational field.
Hahaha!!?? Essentially? Are they or not in a same grav. field? Make
up your mind.
Dirk Van de moortel
75a24079-490e-401c...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> will show more time elapsed."
>
> Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
> the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
> gravitational field.
<choke!>
> This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
> identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
> different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Ins't that just brilliant?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EssentiallyTheSame.html
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana
even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh
Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not
exist:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."
Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
Juan R.
> Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh
> Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even
> harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann
> teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not exist:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
> in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light
> pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH
> ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter
> at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the
> floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN
> THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE
> GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC
> RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls light signals as they
> traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
Keyword: INTRINSIC.
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14: "The
> equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior
> of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run
> faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then
> stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster
> than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and
> compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
>
> Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
> the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
> gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
> identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
> different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Again, no. Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
> Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic.
> In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of
> light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with
> the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by
> Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light
> varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the
> equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence
> of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
> gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of
> the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>
> Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the
> "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only
> protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
--
Pentcho Valev
like "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it
reasonable to react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in
the luxury of being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's
version of "There is no gravitational time dilation":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh
Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana
even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh
Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not
exist:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."
Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
Juan R.
Third time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
> Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic.
> In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of
> light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with
> the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by
> Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light
> varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the
> equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence
> of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
> gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of
> the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>
> Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the
> "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only
> protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
--
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:48:51 -0700:
>
>
>
> > In the era of Postscientism the slogan "Relativity is false" sounds like
> > "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it reasonable to
> > react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in the luxury of
> > being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's version of "There
> > is no gravitational time dilation":
>
> > equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior
> > of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run
> > faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then
> > stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster
> > than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and
> > compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
>
> > Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> > potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
> > the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
> > gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
> > identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
> > different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
>
> Third time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
> identical physical surroundings.
You are wrong,
-------V1------- \
\
\
-------V2--------
Look at the above diagram. Potential V1 has flat
local surroundings, potential V2 has also flat
local surroundings, but the potential difference
between then is not zero,
|V1 - V2| > 0
You can't make the assumption that V1 must be equal
to V2 because they exhibit flat local surroundings.
That's a very frequent error perpretrated in astrophysics.
That error is often done because astrophysics seldom know
the exact boundaries and ranges of local surroundings.
>
>
>
> > Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic.
> > In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of
> > light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with
> > the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> > This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by
> > Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light
> > varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the
> > equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence
> > of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
> > gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of
> > the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>
> > Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the
> > "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only
> > protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
Juan R.
Fourth time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
>
>>
>>
>> > Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
>> > prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the
>> > speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in
>> > accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
>> > theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v
>> > given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the
>> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That
>> > is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts
>> > c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into
>> > c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice
>> > versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal
>> > for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>>
>> > Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911
>> > the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the
>> > only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>>
>> > Pentcho Valev
>> > pva...@yahoo.com
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
Pentcho Valev
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
In 1999 a young and still honest Bulgarian philosopher, Vesselin
Petkov, made a discovery equivalent to "2+2=4": the gravitational
redshift is due to the variation of the speed of light in accordance
with Einstein's 1911 eqation given by Newton's emission theory of
light:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fe26baf9ccdc0040
Vesselin Petkov: "This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In
general relativity the speed of light depends on the diference of the
gravitational potentials (delta Phi) of the source and observation
points:
c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
However, in 1911 this formula lead Einstein to a wrong value of the
deflection angle of a light ray being deflected by the Sun. In 1916
Einsten got it right using the coordinate velocity of light. Since
then formula (1) has been neglected. But it is this velocity that is
involved in any calculations verifying the principle of equivalence."
Only the highest priests in Einsteiniana knew how dangerous this
discovery was so Tom Roberts immediately brainwashed Vesselin Petkov:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/eec57b72201d6522
Vesselin Petkov wrote:
> This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In general relativity the
> speed of light depends on the diference of the gravitational potentials
> (delta Phi) of the source and observation points:
> c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
Tom Roberts: "This depends upon what you mean by "velocity of light".
Normally when that phrase is used, one implicitly or explicitly means
using standard coordinates, and under inertial conditions, or in a
local region, or some similar restrictions. In GR, an unconstrained
"velocity of light" can have any value whatsoever, and is not very
interesting."
At present Vesselin Petkov does not remember at all the problem he had
in 1999. He is himself a high priest in Einsteiniana, organizes
conferences and regularly sings "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" ("Two and two make five, five, five").
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In the era of Postscientism the slogan "Relativity is false" sounds
like "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it
reasonable to react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in
the luxury of being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's
version of "There is no gravitational time dilation":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh
Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
Pentcho Valev
identical clocks experiencing the same gravitational field cannot run
at different rates (that is, their subconsciousness rejects Einstein's
1911 camouflage), so they teach that gravitational time dilation is
due to clocks experiencing DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05EED81E3EF932A35752C0A9629C8B63
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, tick off time
at different rates."
Clever Einsteinians faithful to the camouflage teach that
gravitational time dilation is due to clocks possibly experiencing the
SAME GRAVITATIONAL FIELD but placed at different gravitational
potentials.
Juan R.
Fifth time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
> Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic.
> In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of
> light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with
> the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by
> Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light
> varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the
> equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence
> of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
> gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of
> the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>
> Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the
> "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only
> protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
--
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:56:16 -0700:
>
>
>
> > the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you
> > would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that
> > claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not
> > merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external
> > reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies
> > was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill
> > you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after
> > all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of
> > gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and
> > the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is
> > controllable what then?"
>
> > In 1999 a young and still honest Bulgarian philosopher, Vesselin Petkov,
> > made a discovery equivalent to "2+2=4": the gravitational redshift is
> > due to the variation of the speed of light in accordance with Einstein's
> > 1911 eqation given by Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> > Vesselin Petkov: "This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In
> > general relativity the speed of light depends on the diference of the
> > gravitational potentials (delta Phi) of the source and observation
> > points:
>
> > c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
>
> > However, in 1911 this formula lead Einstein to a wrong value of the
> > deflection angle of a light ray being deflected by the Sun. In 1916
> > Einsten got it right using the coordinate velocity of light. Since then
> > formula (1) has been neglected. But it is this velocity that is involved
> > in any calculations verifying the principle of equivalence."
>
> > Only the highest priests in Einsteiniana knew how dangerous this
> > discovery was so Tom Roberts immediately brainwashed Vesselin Petkov:
>
> > Vesselin Petkov wrote:
> >> This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In general relativity
> >> the speed of light depends on the diference of the gravitational
> >> potentials (delta Phi) of the source and observation points:
>
> >> c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
>
> > Tom Roberts: "This depends upon what you mean by "velocity of light".
> > Normally when that phrase is used, one implicitly or explicitly means
> > using standard coordinates, and under inertial conditions, or in a local
> > region, or some similar restrictions. In GR, an unconstrained "velocity
> > of light" can have any value whatsoever, and is not very interesting."
>
> > At present Vesselin Petkov does not remember at all the problem he had
> > in 1999. He is himself a high priest in Einsteiniana, organizes
> > conferences and regularly sings "Yes we all believe in relativity,
> > relativity, relativity" ("Two and two make five, five, five").
>
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > In the era of Postscientism the slogan "Relativity is false" sounds like
> > "The world is bad": both are truisms that nobody finds it reasonable to
> > react to. This allows clever Einsteinians to indulge in the luxury of
> > being honest from time to time. Here is John Norton's version of "There
> > is no gravitational time dilation":
>
> > equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior
> > of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run
> > faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then
> > stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster
> > than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and
> > compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
>
> > Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
> > potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
> > the potential difference) but experience essentially the same
> > gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
> > identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
> > different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
>
> Fifth time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
> identical physical surroundings.
Define "place" :-----------------------------------?
Define "potential":--------------------------------?
Define "identical" :-------------------------------?
Define "physical surroundings" :-------------------?
Once you have defined correctly the above terms,
you can prove the next teorem.
Bonehead Juan R. teorem:
"Two places with different 'potential'
do not describe identical physical
surroundings."
Hint:
Proof by reductio ad absurdum.
Suppose two places with different 'potential'
could describe identical physical surroundings.
In that case, we would have two different places
mapping identical physical surroundings, which
of course is absurd, and in addition the potentials
would be even irrelevant for accomplishing the proof.
It has been shown that if some statement were so,
a logical contradiction occurs, hence the Bonehead
Juan R. teorem must be true.
>
>
>
> > Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite prosaic.
> > In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the speed of
> > light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in accordance with
> > the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
> > This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v given again by
> > Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light
> > varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That is, by applying the
> > equivalence principle, one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence
> > of a gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
> > gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity of
> > the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>
> > Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911 the
> > "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the only
> > protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
Juan R.
Sixth time: Two places with different 'potential' do not describe
identical physical surroundings.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
>> > prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that the
>> > speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V", in
>> > accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
>> > theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the equation c'=c+v
>> > given again by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the
>> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, "v". That
>> > is, by applying the equivalence principle, one converts
>> > c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a gravitational field, into
>> > c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a gravitational field, and vice
>> > versa. Needless to say, the validity of the two equations is fatal
>> > for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>>
>> > Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in 1911
>> > the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause, was the
>> > only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to produce.
>>
>> > Pentcho Valev
>> > pva...@yahoo.com
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Albertito wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:58:43 -0700:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 7:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:56:16 -0700:
>
Tu eres idiota y no lo saben en tu casa, manón!
Juan R.
"Tu" --> "Tú".
"manón" --> "mamón".
Lacks one "¡"
... learn also some physics before posting more nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Outside Einsteiniana's wonderland the explanation sounds quite
>> >> > prosaic. In 1911 Divine Albert discovered and even published that
>> >> > the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, "V",
>> >> > in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
>> >> > emission theory of light. This equation is equivalent to the
>> >> > equation c'=c+v given again by Newton's emission theory of light
>> >> > and showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the
>> >> > light source, "v". That is, by applying the equivalence principle,
>> >> > one converts c'=c(1+V/c^2), valid in the presence of a
>> >> > gravitational field, into c'=c+v, valid in the absence of a
>> >> > gravitational field, and vice versa. Needless to say, the validity
>> >> > of the two equations is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
>>
>> >> > Later, in 1915, Divine Albert devised better camouflage but in
>> >> > 1911 the "gavitational time dilation", the effect without cause,
>> >> > was the only protective fraud his panicky mind was able to
>> >> > produce.
>>
>> >> > Pentcho Valev
>> >> > pva...@yahoo.com
>>
>> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--