info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Equivalence Principle for Dummies (1921 version)
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 2:10:17 PM10/1/21
to
It's well known that Newton derived the Equivalence Principle almost 300
years ago by stating:
"The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
so, as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r² and d²x/dt² = K . Me/r² = g "
After the concepts of Energy were developed early in XIX Century, the
concepts of Potential and Kinetic energies were adopted in science.
It was known that Potential Energy for a mass M at an height "h" was:
U = F.h = M.g.h = K . M/h² (for low values of h)
Then, Einstein appeared by 1911 and, using Newton Equivalence Principle
stated:
"Given the certainty that M = E/c² and that Mi = Mg, I declare that the
following assertion is true:
Given the energy E1 of a mass M at ground level being E1 = M.c²
and the Potential Energy of that mass at height "h" being U = M.g.h, then
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h = E1. (1 + g.h/c²)
AND, as g.h = Φ (the newtonian gravitational potential)
I solemnly declare that
E2 = E1. (1 + Φ/c²)
and that frequencies of light follow this equation
f2 = f1. (1 + Φ/c²)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how easy is? And ONLY using E = M.c².
That's the FALLACIOUS derivation on his 1911 paper, still used in GPS.
This 110 years fallacy can be followed by any child, only if BELIEVE
THAT Energy stored in the gravitational potential HAS MASS.
That's why the Pound-Rebka paper had the title:
APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS (1960)
Now discuss or forget.
years ago by stating:
"The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
so, as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r² and d²x/dt² = K . Me/r² = g "
After the concepts of Energy were developed early in XIX Century, the
concepts of Potential and Kinetic energies were adopted in science.
It was known that Potential Energy for a mass M at an height "h" was:
U = F.h = M.g.h = K . M/h² (for low values of h)
Then, Einstein appeared by 1911 and, using Newton Equivalence Principle
stated:
"Given the certainty that M = E/c² and that Mi = Mg, I declare that the
following assertion is true:
Given the energy E1 of a mass M at ground level being E1 = M.c²
and the Potential Energy of that mass at height "h" being U = M.g.h, then
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h = E1. (1 + g.h/c²)
AND, as g.h = Φ (the newtonian gravitational potential)
I solemnly declare that
E2 = E1. (1 + Φ/c²)
and that frequencies of light follow this equation
f2 = f1. (1 + Φ/c²)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how easy is? And ONLY using E = M.c².
That's the FALLACIOUS derivation on his 1911 paper, still used in GPS.
This 110 years fallacy can be followed by any child, only if BELIEVE
THAT Energy stored in the gravitational potential HAS MASS.
That's why the Pound-Rebka paper had the title:
APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS (1960)
Now discuss or forget.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 1, 2021, 2:24:37 PM10/1/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's well known that Newton derived the Equivalence Principle almost 300
> years ago by stating:
>
> "The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
> that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
>
> d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
>
> so, as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
>
> Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r² and d²x/dt² = K . Me/r² = g "
What specifically are you quoting here? And was it specifically written by
> It's well known that Newton derived the Equivalence Principle almost 300
> years ago by stating:
>
> "The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
> that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
>
> d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
>
> so, as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
>
> Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r² and d²x/dt² = K . Me/r² = g "
Newton?
Note that the claim that Mi=Mg is not at all obvious and is not implied by
“the force that makes an apple fall to the ground is the same force that
keeps the Moon orbiting Earth.”
Are you daft?
>
> After the concepts of Energy were developed early in XIX Century, the
> concepts of Potential and Kinetic energies were adopted in science.
>
> It was known that Potential Energy for a mass M at an height "h" was:
>
> U = F.h = M.g.h = K . M/h² (for low values of h)
>
> Then, Einstein appeared by 1911 and, using Newton Equivalence Principle
> stated:
>
> "Given the certainty that M = E/c² and that Mi = Mg, I declare that the
> following assertion is true:
>
> Given the energy E1 of a mass M at ground level being E1 = M.c²
> and the Potential Energy of that mass at height "h" being U = M.g.h, then
>
> E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h = E1. (1 + g.h/c²)
>
> AND, as g.h = Φ (the newtonian gravitational potential)
>
> I solemnly declare that
>
> E2 = E1. (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> and that frequencies of light follow this equation
>
> f2 = f1. (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See how easy is? And ONLY using E = M.c².
>
> That's the FALLACIOUS derivation on his 1911 paper, still used in GPS.
>
> This 110 years fallacy can be followed by any child, only if BELIEVE
> THAT Energy stored in the gravitational potential HAS MASS.
>
> That's why the Pound-Rebka paper had the title:
>
> APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS (1960)
>
> Now discuss or forget.
>
>
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 3:14:28 PM10/1/21
to
used 1,941 WORDS and 5 PAGES in his 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light" to
state the same thing in the first two points. I excluded the 3rd. point, about the variable speed of light.
You can fact-check what I say by copying and pasting in Word.
What a fucker he was! And so many of you adoring him as a demigod here. He was a CHARLATAN and a PLAGIARIST.
Shame on you, relativists!
Huy Dew
Oct 1, 2021, 4:37:14 PM10/1/21
to
Richard Hertz wrote:
> "The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
> that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
>
> d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
war criminal gladys berejiklian resigns
> "The force that makes an apple to fall to the ground is the same force
> that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Therefore
>
> d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r²
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=385AG3UWDYY1
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 4:47:12 PM10/1/21
to
The Equivalence Principle for Dummies (1921 version)
it has to read as
The Equivalence Principle for Dummies (2021 version)
Maybe, this fail is revealing that, unconsciously, I'd like be living in that epoch to unmask the prick
(if I could kept alive. Too many powerful dark forces being there, suppressing critics and pushing the subject).
Maybe living in France? But de Broglie..........
Python
Oct 1, 2021, 5:20:09 PM10/1/21
to
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 12:43:27 AM10/2/21
to
A summary of the basic development in the OP cover the points:
§ 1. A Hypothesis as to the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field
§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy
§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
of the Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light", just
by using Newton's theory of gravity, E =mc² and E = h.f (the first 5 pages of such paper).
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS IN THE OP AT THIS THREAD:
Using Newton's Equivalence Principle, as it was applied since 1700s, we have:
d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r² , as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r²
g = d²x/dt² = K . Me/r²
Being the Potential Energy for a mass M at an height h:
U = F.h = M.g.h = K . M/h² (for low values of h),
and being the energy of a mass M at ground level equal to E1 (an arbitrary value before 1905),
then, the total energy E2 at an height h, being M stationary is:
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h
Einstein, on his 1911 paper, made use of E = mc² appeared by 1911 and, using Newton Equivalence Principle
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h = E1 + E1.g.h/c² = E1. (1 + g.h/c²) , the equation (1) at § 2.
as g.h = K.Me/(R+h) = Φ (the newtonian gravitational potential), then the equation (1a) is obtained:
(1a) E2 = E1. (1 + Φ/c²)
and, using Planck's E = h.f, the equation (2a) at § 3 is obtained:
(2a) f2 = f1. (1 + Φ/c²)
Now, extending the reach of the OP, in the final part of § 3 Einstein ventured this hypothesis:
"If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a location with
the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation
(3) c = cₒ. (1 + Φ/c²)
The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different
form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
NOTE: I used the same name for this equations and the ones that appear on the 1911 paper. It's important
to observe that (3) is derived from (2a) by just multiplying both sides with an arbitrary wavelength λ, so that
c = λ.f2 and cₒ = λ.f1 (value of c at ground level)
This final concept, from 1911, didn't gain any traction but the concept of equation (2a) persists until today.
The final point "§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field" gives a deflection α = 0.75" (same value
and equation than that of von Soldner, 1801):
α = 2k.M/(Δ.c²)
which is exactly HALF the value of the 1915 equation, which gives α = 1.5" (allegedly measured by Eddington in 1919)
α = 2Φ/c² (with Φ as the gravitational potential in the surface of the Sun).
which is TWICE the value obtained in equation (3), by obtaining the relative difference of the speed of light under Φ :
(c - cₒ)/cₒ = Φ/c² = α/2
Just saying. Einstein liked to play with elementary algebra. Maybe, a "passing by" effect on light path lit his eyes by then,
thinking how to conserve the constancy of the speed of light in his prediction of deflection by the Sun.
At point § 4, he wrote:
"The angle of deflection per unit of path of the light-ray is thus
- 1/c . ∂c/∂n' , or by (3) - 1/c² . ∂Φ/∂n'
Finally, we obtain for the deflection α; which a light-ray experiences toward the side n' on any path (s) the expression
α = - 1/c² . ∫ ∂Φ/∂n' ds = 1/c² . ∫ k.M/r² . cos θ ds = 2k.M/(Δ.c²) [ ∫ between -π/2 and +π/2 ]
where k denotes the constant of gravitation, M the mass of the heavenly body, Δ the distance of the ray from the center
of the body (and r and θ are as shown in Fig. 3). A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection by
the amount of 4 .10^6 = 0.83 seconds of arc."
NOTE: ∫ cos θ/r² . ds = 2/Δ [ ∫ between -π/2 and +π/2 ] is a fudged result. Anyone who may check with Fig.3 in the paper,
will observe that r.sin θ = S, so (ds = dr . sin θ + r . cos θ) and the integration of an UNKNOWN path between -π/2 and +π/2
gives an ARBITRARY value, which was fixed as 2/Δ to equate von Soldner value. Probably Einstein thought that nobody was
going to claim for additional explanation upon this final part.
§ 1. A Hypothesis as to the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field
§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy
§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
of the Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light", just
by using Newton's theory of gravity, E =mc² and E = h.f (the first 5 pages of such paper).
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS IN THE OP AT THIS THREAD:
Using Newton's Equivalence Principle, as it was applied since 1700s, we have:
d/dt(Mi.v) = K . Me.Mg/r² , as Mi = Mg is invariant with time, then
Mi.dv/dt = K . Me.Mg/r²
Being the Potential Energy for a mass M at an height h:
U = F.h = M.g.h = K . M/h² (for low values of h),
and being the energy of a mass M at ground level equal to E1 (an arbitrary value before 1905),
then, the total energy E2 at an height h, being M stationary is:
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h
stated:
"Given the certainty that M = E/c² and that Mi = Mg, I declare that the
following assertion is true:
Given the energy E1 of a mass M at ground level being E1 = M.c², obtained:
"Given the certainty that M = E/c² and that Mi = Mg, I declare that the
following assertion is true:
E2 = E1 + U = E1 + M.g.h = E1 + E1.g.h/c² = E1. (1 + g.h/c²) , the equation (1) at § 2.
as g.h = K.Me/(R+h) = Φ (the newtonian gravitational potential), then the equation (1a) is obtained:
(1a) E2 = E1. (1 + Φ/c²)
and, using Planck's E = h.f, the equation (2a) at § 3 is obtained:
(2a) f2 = f1. (1 + Φ/c²)
Now, extending the reach of the OP, in the final part of § 3 Einstein ventured this hypothesis:
"If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a location with
the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation
(3) c = cₒ. (1 + Φ/c²)
The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different
form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
NOTE: I used the same name for this equations and the ones that appear on the 1911 paper. It's important
to observe that (3) is derived from (2a) by just multiplying both sides with an arbitrary wavelength λ, so that
c = λ.f2 and cₒ = λ.f1 (value of c at ground level)
This final concept, from 1911, didn't gain any traction but the concept of equation (2a) persists until today.
The final point "§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field" gives a deflection α = 0.75" (same value
and equation than that of von Soldner, 1801):
α = 2k.M/(Δ.c²)
which is exactly HALF the value of the 1915 equation, which gives α = 1.5" (allegedly measured by Eddington in 1919)
α = 2Φ/c² (with Φ as the gravitational potential in the surface of the Sun).
which is TWICE the value obtained in equation (3), by obtaining the relative difference of the speed of light under Φ :
(c - cₒ)/cₒ = Φ/c² = α/2
Just saying. Einstein liked to play with elementary algebra. Maybe, a "passing by" effect on light path lit his eyes by then,
thinking how to conserve the constancy of the speed of light in his prediction of deflection by the Sun.
At point § 4, he wrote:
"The angle of deflection per unit of path of the light-ray is thus
- 1/c . ∂c/∂n' , or by (3) - 1/c² . ∂Φ/∂n'
Finally, we obtain for the deflection α; which a light-ray experiences toward the side n' on any path (s) the expression
α = - 1/c² . ∫ ∂Φ/∂n' ds = 1/c² . ∫ k.M/r² . cos θ ds = 2k.M/(Δ.c²) [ ∫ between -π/2 and +π/2 ]
where k denotes the constant of gravitation, M the mass of the heavenly body, Δ the distance of the ray from the center
of the body (and r and θ are as shown in Fig. 3). A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection by
the amount of 4 .10^6 = 0.83 seconds of arc."
NOTE: ∫ cos θ/r² . ds = 2/Δ [ ∫ between -π/2 and +π/2 ] is a fudged result. Anyone who may check with Fig.3 in the paper,
will observe that r.sin θ = S, so (ds = dr . sin θ + r . cos θ) and the integration of an UNKNOWN path between -π/2 and +π/2
gives an ARBITRARY value, which was fixed as 2/Δ to equate von Soldner value. Probably Einstein thought that nobody was
going to claim for additional explanation upon this final part.
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 1:55:43 AM10/2/21
to
On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 11:10:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
<a long list of cretinisms>
Dumbestfuck
The EINSTEIN Equivalence Principle is at the basis of the Pound-Rebka experiment and at the basis of explaining the gravitational time dilation in the 1911 Einstein paper, prior to the full explanation based on the Schwarzschild solution to the EINSTEIN Field Equations that is the basis of the GPS functionality.
Give the fact that you were born an imbecile, you are an imbecile and that you will die an imbecile, you will never understand any of the above.
<a long list of cretinisms>
Dumbestfuck
The EINSTEIN Equivalence Principle is at the basis of the Pound-Rebka experiment and at the basis of explaining the gravitational time dilation in the 1911 Einstein paper, prior to the full explanation based on the Schwarzschild solution to the EINSTEIN Field Equations that is the basis of the GPS functionality.
Give the fact that you were born an imbecile, you are an imbecile and that you will die an imbecile, you will never understand any of the above.
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 2, 2021, 2:21:59 AM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, 2 October 2021 at 07:55:43 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 11:10:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
>
> <a long list of cretinisms>
>
> Dumbestfuck
>
> The EINSTEIN Equivalence Principle is at the basis of the Pound-Rebka experiment and at the basis of explaining the gravitational time dilation in the 1911 Einstein paper, prior to the full explanation based on the Schwarzschild solution to the EINSTEIN Field Equations that is the basis of the GPS functionality.
A lie, of course, your moronic Shit (personally - Tom, and some
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 11:10:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
>
> <a long list of cretinisms>
>
> Dumbestfuck
>
> The EINSTEIN Equivalence Principle is at the basis of the Pound-Rebka experiment and at the basis of explaining the gravitational time dilation in the 1911 Einstein paper, prior to the full explanation based on the Schwarzschild solution to the EINSTEIN Field Equations that is the basis of the GPS functionality.
others as well) announce GPS to be broken, because its clocks
are measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always were.
Dirk Van de moortel
Oct 2, 2021, 7:25:00 AM10/2/21
to
Op 01-okt.-2021 om 23:20 schreef Python:
Euthanasia would be fine.
Or better still, retroactive abortion.
Dirk Vdm
Or better still, retroactive abortion.
Dirk Vdm
J.C. Bosa
Oct 2, 2021, 10:08:05 AM10/2/21
to
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Shame on you, relativists!
>>
>> You should consider medical help Richard.
>
> Euthanasia would be fine. Or better still, retroactive abortion.
> Dirk Vdm
not true. JUst listen to your govt and take the vaccines. I guess you
>>> Shame on you, relativists!
>>
>> You should consider medical help Richard.
>
> Euthanasia would be fine. Or better still, retroactive abortion.
> Dirk Vdm
just did, believing the "science". These people are crazy.
Branimir Maksimovic
Oct 2, 2021, 10:50:50 AM10/2/21
to
--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp
J.C. Bosa
Oct 2, 2021, 11:45:09 AM10/2/21
to
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2021-10-02, J.C. Bosa <e...@sdf.cs> wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>>> Shame on you, relativists!
>>>>
>>>> You should consider medical help Richard.
>>>
>>> Euthanasia would be fine. Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>> not true. JUst listen to your govt and take the vaccines. I guess you
>> just did, believing the "science". These people are crazy.
> If you beleive in C"OR"ONA, you should VACCINATE...
how much do you know? You dont know what a vaccine is?
> On 2021-10-02, J.C. Bosa <e...@sdf.cs> wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>>> Shame on you, relativists!
>>>>
>>>> You should consider medical help Richard.
>>>
>>> Euthanasia would be fine. Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>> not true. JUst listen to your govt and take the vaccines. I guess you
>> just did, believing the "science". These people are crazy.
> If you beleive in C"OR"ONA, you should VACCINATE...
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 12:46:19 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<snip>
> Euthanasia would be fine.
> Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Another death wisher, same shit as Dono.
The only solution that poor resented failure of nature like you can find, instead of refute or discuss, fucking retarded.
Keep doing that way, living in your shitty hole. After all, what did your country for science in the last centuries?
<snip>
> Euthanasia would be fine.
> Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>
> Dirk Vdm
The only solution that poor resented failure of nature like you can find, instead of refute or discuss, fucking retarded.
Keep doing that way, living in your shitty hole. After all, what did your country for science in the last centuries?
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 1:05:50 PM10/2/21
to
Some recent posts on this topic, at
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75220.0
********************************************************
Yes Einstein's (flawed i reckon) space-bending gives the same bending as his time-bending if calculated
from infinity to infinity -- & of course these two bendings are not equal if the observer is at Earth's orbit
(likewise Newtonian bending).
Yes i think that Einstein's (flawed) space curvature effect does indeed differ from theory to theory.
For example -- Charles Lane Poor -- The Relativity Deflection of Light -- 1927 -- calculates that due to Einstein's
Theory Einstein's 1911 number of 0.83 arcsec increases by only 0.27 arcsec to give a total bending of only 1.10 arcsec.
********************************************************
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light. Clifford M. Will.
This article trumpets the usual Einsteinian krapp.
6. The gravitational lens: Einstein’s gift to astronomy..
What krapp. Einstein's gift. Lensing would be there even if Einstein had never been born.
Why didnt Will say for example -- gravity, Einstein's gift to humanity.
********************************************************
Yes there are lots of ways that elevator (chest) equivalence is rubbish. If u do a search in New Theories for elevator u will get 30 results, one of them is the link below which mentions one such non-equivalence in an elevator.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75670.0
********************************************************
It is now obvious that the supposed equivalence of acceleration & gravity re the bending of a ray of light in Einstein's elevator (chest) thortX does not yield the predicted GR bending. It appears that Einstein had no good basis for adding the bendings. He used a double dose of bending, but shouldnt have.
One possible answer is that Einstein's invoking of Huygen's bending (Huygen's bending is a refraction effect due to the slowing of light in a medium such as air water glass) to apply it to the pseudo-medium of the slowing of light near mass is not a valid use of Huygens. The slowing of light near mass has been shown to be real (Shapiro), but there is no good logic saying that it can be considered to be a Huygen's medium.
Hencely we are left with no good explanation for the doubled bending. Worse than that, there is no good explanation for any bending, ie for the simple single bending, if it exists (which might be called ballistic bending, or Newtonian bending). So, there is no good explanation for any such bending of light near the Sun (except bending due to simple refraction due to the corona), certainly there is no good Einsteinian explanation.
********************************************************
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75220.0
********************************************************
Yes Einstein's (flawed i reckon) space-bending gives the same bending as his time-bending if calculated
from infinity to infinity -- & of course these two bendings are not equal if the observer is at Earth's orbit
(likewise Newtonian bending).
Yes i think that Einstein's (flawed) space curvature effect does indeed differ from theory to theory.
For example -- Charles Lane Poor -- The Relativity Deflection of Light -- 1927 -- calculates that due to Einstein's
Theory Einstein's 1911 number of 0.83 arcsec increases by only 0.27 arcsec to give a total bending of only 1.10 arcsec.
********************************************************
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light. Clifford M. Will.
This article trumpets the usual Einsteinian krapp.
6. The gravitational lens: Einstein’s gift to astronomy..
What krapp. Einstein's gift. Lensing would be there even if Einstein had never been born.
Why didnt Will say for example -- gravity, Einstein's gift to humanity.
********************************************************
Yes there are lots of ways that elevator (chest) equivalence is rubbish. If u do a search in New Theories for elevator u will get 30 results, one of them is the link below which mentions one such non-equivalence in an elevator.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75670.0
********************************************************
It is now obvious that the supposed equivalence of acceleration & gravity re the bending of a ray of light in Einstein's elevator (chest) thortX does not yield the predicted GR bending. It appears that Einstein had no good basis for adding the bendings. He used a double dose of bending, but shouldnt have.
One possible answer is that Einstein's invoking of Huygen's bending (Huygen's bending is a refraction effect due to the slowing of light in a medium such as air water glass) to apply it to the pseudo-medium of the slowing of light near mass is not a valid use of Huygens. The slowing of light near mass has been shown to be real (Shapiro), but there is no good logic saying that it can be considered to be a Huygen's medium.
Hencely we are left with no good explanation for the doubled bending. Worse than that, there is no good explanation for any bending, ie for the simple single bending, if it exists (which might be called ballistic bending, or Newtonian bending). So, there is no good explanation for any such bending of light near the Sun (except bending due to simple refraction due to the corona), certainly there is no good Einsteinian explanation.
********************************************************
Dirk Van de moortel
Oct 2, 2021, 1:50:47 PM10/2/21
to
Op 02-okt.-2021 om 18:46 schreef Richard Hertz:
Those here who think they can insert some sense into
a telephone pole, are severely wasting their time.
Dirk Vdm
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Euthanasia would be fine.
>> Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Another death wisher, same shit as Dono.
>
> The only solution that poor resented failure of nature like you can
> find, instead of refute or discuss, fucking retarded.
There's nothing to discuss with a telephone pole.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Euthanasia would be fine.
>> Or better still, retroactive abortion.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Another death wisher, same shit as Dono.
>
> The only solution that poor resented failure of nature like you can
> find, instead of refute or discuss, fucking retarded.
Those here who think they can insert some sense into
a telephone pole, are severely wasting their time.
Dirk Vdm
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 2:27:55 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Yes i think
No one gives a shit about what you think, we are here just to be entertained. By the village xlown named Richard Hertz.
> Yes i think
No one gives a shit about what you think, we are here just to be entertained. By the village xlown named Richard Hertz.
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 2:32:06 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted this fresh imbecility:
> https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75670.0
>
> ********************************************************
>
> It is now obvious that the supposed equivalence of acceleration & gravity re the bending of a ray of light in Einstein's elevator (chest) thortX does not yield the predicted GR bending. It appears that Einstein had no good basis for adding the bendings. He used a double dose of bending, but shouldnt have.
>
> One possible answer is that Einstein's invoking of Huygen's bending (Huygen's bending is a refraction effect due to the slowing of light in a medium such as air water glass) to apply it to the pseudo-medium of the slowing of light near mass is not a valid use of Huygens. The slowing of light near mass has been shown to be real (Shapiro), but there is no good logic saying that it can be considered to be a Huygen's medium.
>
Citing fellow cranks doesn't constitute a valid argument
> https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75670.0
>
> ********************************************************
>
> It is now obvious that the supposed equivalence of acceleration & gravity re the bending of a ray of light in Einstein's elevator (chest) thortX does not yield the predicted GR bending. It appears that Einstein had no good basis for adding the bendings. He used a double dose of bending, but shouldnt have.
>
> One possible answer is that Einstein's invoking of Huygen's bending (Huygen's bending is a refraction effect due to the slowing of light in a medium such as air water glass) to apply it to the pseudo-medium of the slowing of light near mass is not a valid use of Huygens. The slowing of light near mass has been shown to be real (Shapiro), but there is no good logic saying that it can be considered to be a Huygen's medium.
>
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 3, 2021, 1:46:15 AM10/3/21
to
In the meantime in the real world, of course, GPS clocks will
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
0 new messages