The law of conservation of energy

[Arindam Banerjee]

It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.

[Paul Alsing]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
> So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.

OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Doppler changes light energy. That is an example of no conservation.
Drop something and it instantly gains kinetic energy of its own.
Energy is not borrowed from the gravity field. Fall is an extra energy
created by gravity force.

The first scientific principle of energy conservation
is also the first to go...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:40:27 UTC+10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 11:01:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
> > > So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
> > OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.
> >
> > Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
> Doppler changes light energy. That is an example of no conservation.
> Drop something and it instantly gains kinetic energy of its own.
> Energy is not borrowed from the gravity field. Fall is an extra energy
> created by gravity force.

Yes, this energy turns to heat and is dissipated.

>
> The first scientific principle of energy conservation
> is also the first to go...

Yes, out with it.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

[Sylvia Else]

The law of conservation of energy has long been superseded by the law of
conservation of mass-energy, reflecting the fact that mass and energy
different ways of measuring the same thing.

As the sun radiates, its mass is reducing, and mass-energy is conserved.

Sylvia

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The energy of the Sun creates its gravity strength.
Radiating energy would cause the Sun's gravity
to always be dropping in strength. What does that
do to the Solar system?

How is fusion borrowing energy from the whole atom?
How does energy from every particle of the whole
arrive and get radiated? Does fusion radiate from
all of its particles at the same time or does it
move to one particle to radiate?

There is no energy drain. Fusion is new energy.
Fission is also. The Sun's gravity won't drain
away...

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> Sylvia

[Sylvia Else]

On 25-May-23 12:07 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:43:46 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25-May-23 11:35 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
>>>>> So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
>>>> OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.
>>>>
>>>> Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
>>>
>>> Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
>>> Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
>>> Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.
>> The law of conservation of energy has long been superseded by the law of
>> conservation of mass-energy, reflecting the fact that mass and energy
>> different ways of measuring the same thing.
>>
>> As the sun radiates, its mass is reducing, and mass-energy is conserved.
>
> The energy of the Sun creates its gravity strength.
> Radiating energy would cause the Sun's gravity
> to always be dropping in strength. What does that
> do to the Solar system?

The planets would gradually spiral outwards. But I emphasise
"gradually". The reduction in mass is very small compared with the sun's
overall mass.

Sylvia.

[Paul Alsing]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:07:20 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is no energy drain. Fusion is new energy.
> Fission is also. The Sun's gravity won't drain
> away...

Evidence for your left-field claim, Mitch? Got any?

[Volney]

On 5/24/2023 9:35 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>> It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.

"It is obvious" is a phrase that has no place in physics.
Provide actual evidence for your claim or admit you made it up.

>>> So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
>> OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.
>>
>> Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
>
> Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
> Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
> Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.

Nope. The sun's radiated energy goes outward on and on forever unless
intercepted by something. (in which case it becomes another form, such
as heat).

We can see galaxies some 13 billion years old. Perhaps they'll see 13
billion year old light from the sun and Milky Way some day (sun is
4.something billion years old).

[Paul Alsing]

Where do *you* get your energy, Arindam? What is it that allows you to stay alive?

From food? Where does food come from? Plants? Animals? Where do the plants and animals get their energy? Animals get theirs mainly from plants, and plants get theirs from the Earth and from sunlight. Ever heard of photosynthesis? No, I didn't think so... but sunlight drives plant life and plants drive animal life, so obviously the energy of the Sun gets modified into creating people! I guess it is not destroyed after all! Of course, it is MUCH more complex than this, and I could go on and on about it, but your poor little brain cannot comprehend much more than this in one sitting... so NO, the radiant energy from the Sun is not destroyed at all!

[Arindam Banerjee]

Typical e=mcc rubbish.
Mass and energy are not the same thing.
Only the most absurd of all the unspeakables on this planet hold so.
Mass is what is tangible materially.
Energy is the intangible capacity for work.

>
> As the sun radiates, its mass is reducing, and mass-energy is conserved.

More rubbish.
The sun loses hydrogen yes, so it will become dark matter eventually.
Its energy is caused by deuterium fissioning, mainly, in its atmosphere.
Deuterium is thus destroyed, but also created, in an eternal process.

All elaborated in:
The way the universe operates:

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
>
> Sylvia

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 14:40:10 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 9:35 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
> "It is obvious" is a phrase that has no place in physics.

While all sorts of bullshit like entropy, relativity, quantum, black hole, big bang, wormhole, etc. are.

> Provide actual evidence for your claim or admit you made it up.

Provide actual claim that makes sense, as opposed to posting links, about the evidence for entropy, relativity, quantum, black hole, wormhole, big bang, etc.

> >>> So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
> >> OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Go ahead, I cannot part fools from their follies, just hope they will die out asap for the good of future generations.

> >>
> >> Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
> >
> > Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
> > Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
> > Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.
> Nope. The sun's radiated energy goes outward on and on forever unless
> intercepted by something. (in which case it becomes another form, such
> as heat).

Yes, as the universe is infinite, it all becomes zero at infinity.
That is how all the energies get destroyed, by the infinity of the universe.

>
> We can see galaxies some 13 billion years old. Perhaps they'll see 13
> billion year old light from the sun and Milky Way some day (sun is
> 4.something billion years old).

Irrelevant. The infinite universe is also eternal.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 15:06:40 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:35:16 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
> > > > So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
> > > OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.
> > >
> > > Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
>
> > Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
> > Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
> > Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.
> Where do *you* get your energy, Arindam? What is it that allows you to stay alive?

The blessings from the Gods and Goddesses, of course. That makes it worthwhile to stay alive. And enjoy life. Create good things, be useful to those near and dear, as well as those afar and unborn.

> From food? Where does food come from? Plants? Animals? Where do the plants and animals get their energy? Animals get theirs mainly from plants, and plants get theirs from the Earth and from sunlight.

Ding a ling ling, Alsing.

[Enes Richard]

Gravity is not the determining factor, rules the principle of conservation of angular momentum
... since the genesis of the solar system. Sun only have 1% .

Btw. In globular clusters, stars orbit a center of mass without a central body.

[Enes Richard]

Wow...what curves space in globular clusters if there is no central body?
Hasn't the GTR theory of gravity arrived there yet?

[Sylvia Else]

Angular momentum is conserved because the planets slow down as the orbit
radius increases.

> Btw. In globular clusters, stars orbit a center of mass without a central body.

They orbit about their common centre of gravity. The same is true of the
objects in the solar system, but that the sun's mass dominates.

Sylvia.

[Enes Richard]

...yes, they slow down because their moment of inertia mR^2 increases.

> > Btw. In globular clusters, stars orbit a center of mass without a central body.
> They orbit about their common centre of gravity. The same is true of the
> objects in the solar system, but that the sun's mass dominates.
>
> Sylvia.
>

Without the Sun, they would also orbits, conserving the angular momentum of the system.
But what would then curved space for planets movement according to GTR ?

[Sylvia Else]

You're conflating cause and effect.

>
>>> Btw. In globular clusters, stars orbit a center of mass without a central body.
>> They orbit about their common centre of gravity. The same is true of the
>> objects in the solar system, but that the sun's mass dominates.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
> Without the Sun, they would also orbits, conserving the angular momentum of the system.
> But what would then curved space for planets movement according to GTR ?

If the sun abruptly disappeared, then the planets would continue in
whatever direction they were going in at that instant, affected only by
the small gravitational fields of the other bodies in the solar system.
Their paths would be almost straight. Angular momentum would still be
conserved - objects do not need to be travelling a curved path to have
angular momentum.

Sylvia.

[Volney]

On 5/25/2023 2:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 15:06:40 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:35:16 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>> Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
>>> Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
>>> Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.
>> Where do *you* get your energy, Arindam? What is it that allows you to stay alive?
>
> The blessings from the Gods and Goddesses, of course. That makes it worthwhile to stay alive. And enjoy life. Create good things, be useful to those near and dear, as well as those afar and unborn.

So you wouldn't have a problem being locked in a room with no food for a
month or so? We'll allow you to have any (non-edible) religious icons
you wish so you can get all the blessings possible.

[Volney]

The question was about the effects of gravity, but the slowing of the
planets in their orbit counteracts the increased orbital radius, so
angular momentum is still conserved. There must be tidal effects just
like how the earth is transferring angular momentum to the moon as the
moon's orbital radius increases due to tides.

>>
>> Btw. In globular clusters, stars orbit a center of mass without a central body.
>
> Wow...what curves space in globular clusters if there is no central body?
> Hasn't the GTR theory of gravity arrived there yet?

The orbits of the stars is a Newtonian gravity problem, not specific to GR.

It is a N body problem (with N large), a problem Newton himself
realized. If you apply GR math you'll get essentially the same answer as
Newtonian gravity. The GR curvature of space is the total GR curvature
of all the stars in the cluster.

For the most part, the stars orbit the mutual center of gravity just
like the solar system, but if you look in detail, stars near the center
will (at that time) feel no net force, just like an object near the
center of the earth feels no force of gravity. The star at that time
will move in a near straight line until it moves away from the center
and the gravitational forces become lopsided and its path starts curving
around the center.

[alex zuber]

This is good stuff to read.

[Enes Richard]

These are unprovable speculations and are in contradiction with the facts (rotation must also be maintained).
This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
and have not diverged along straight lines.

[Volney]

On 5/25/2023 2:03 PM, Enes Richard wrote:

> This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
> and have not diverged along straight lines.

I wouldn't claim the stars are following a closed curve. This is an
extreme case of Newton's multiple body problem, which doesn't have a
closed form solution for even three gravitating bodies, much less
millions. Trying to "blame" GR with this "fault" is wrong since, unless
there's a black hole in there, the GR and Newtonian versions are nearly
identical, so saying globular clusters are evidence against GR without
saying globular clusters are evidence against Newton is deliberately
misleading. (it's wrong for both anyway)

Think of a swarm of gnats or bees or flock/murmuration of birds, or a
school of fish. The ones on the outer edges will turn toward the swarm
to stay in it, but the ones on the inside follow different paths. Stars
on the outside of a globular cluster will be attracted back to it by
gravity while those on the inside, while still reacting to gravity,
follow paths not really describable as orbital.

[Enes Richard]

Indeed, writing about closed curves was hasty, even in the solar system there is no motion along closed curves...

Anyway, without a central body, the others bodies don't fly straight (as Sylvia would like).

Interesting GR defense using Newton, are you a lawyer?

[Enes Richard]

It's all rather unprovable... but the explanations look reasonable and convincing.

It should be much easier for 2 bodies. What curves space around the center
of mass and keeps bodies moving in ellipses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#/media/File:Orbit5.gif

[Volney]

On 5/25/2023 3:26 PM, Enes Richard wrote:

> Interesting GR defense using Newton, are you a lawyer?

Why would you say that? (and no I am no lawyer)

Unless the stars are moving at a significant percentage of c, or there
are gravity extremes like black holes, the difference in predictions of
GR and Newton's laws of gravity are insignificant. It's like if you are
measuring the relative speed of two cars heading toward each other at 60
miles/hr. You can use Newtonian speed addition and come up with 120 mph
or you can use the SR speed combination formula, which is more math, and
come up with something like 119.999999999999 mph, a difference not even
measurable. Or go all out with GR, LOTS more math, and still come up
with about 119.999999999999 mph.

[Paul Alsing]

I'm not the ding-a-ling here, Banjo-Boy. Only a ding-a-ling would insist that the core of all stars are cold!

You are a D-K posterboy, just like the other guy... neither one of you knows what he doesn't know.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 13:48:31 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 11:14:41 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 15:06:40 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:35:16 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:13:03 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is obvious that energy is always getting created and destroyed.
> > > > > > So it is high time the law of conservation of energy got abolished.
> > > > > OOPS, once again you have failed to provide evidence in support of your claim, sop it can be dismissed out-of-hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Talk is cheap and evidence rules... got any?
> > >
> > > > Yes, look at the sun, Alsing.
> > > > Like all stars, it creates radiant energy.
> > > > Which gets destroyed in the infinite universe.
> > > Where do *you* get your energy, Arindam? What is it that allows you to stay alive?
>
> > The blessings from the Gods and Goddesses, of course. That makes it worthwhile to stay alive. And enjoy life. Create good things, be useful to those near and dear, as well as those afar and unborn.
>
> > > From food? Where does food come from? Plants? Animals? Where do the plants and animals get their energy? Animals get theirs mainly from plants, and plants get theirs from the Earth and from sunlight.
>
> > Ding a ling ling, Alsing.
> I'm not the ding-a-ling here, Banjo-Boy.

You are, you are, Alsing. See, your name rhymes so beautifully with ding a ling ling, Alsing. You were born ding a ling ling, and brought up by Einsteinian pseudoscientists to be a dinger ling ling.
Note: dinger ling ling is a bigger ding a ling ling. An expanded Alsing, thus.

> Only a ding-a-ling would insist that the core of all stars are cold!

The greatest genius of all time, ahem, would be, naturally, the one to first point out that from deductive logic - given the fact of the constant magnetic fields of stars all-sorts, that inevitably caused by permanent high electric currents, thus proving cold iron cores supporting such superconducting currents.

The entire globe from North to South, East to West, is composed of innumerable fruit-fly type ding a ling lings chanting e is mcc and fusion and big bang and black holes... curious twisted creatures, stuck in an unalterable cranial-rectal situation.

[Volney]

>> You are a D-K posterboy, just like the other guy... neither one of you knows what he doesn't know.

Banjo needs to learn that the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is
you don't think that you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club.

[Enes Richard]

czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 20:27:42 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):

> On 5/25/2023 2:03 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> > This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
> > and have not diverged along straight lines.
> I wouldn't claim the stars are following a closed curve. This is an
> extreme case of Newton's multiple body problem, which doesn't have a
> closed form solution for even three gravitating bodies, much less
> millions. Trying to "blame" GR with this "fault" is wrong since, unless
> there's a black hole in there, the GR and Newtonian versions are nearly
> identical, so saying globular clusters are evidence against GR without
> saying globular clusters are evidence against Newton is deliberately
> misleading. (it's wrong for both anyway)
>

The observable universe at large distances is simply perfectly flat (3D Euclidean),
which is confirmed by observations.

Thus, it is possible that Newton's laws apply to the universe as a whole (perfect isolated system),
while locally it is not so ideal and there may be smaller or larger deviations (curvatures and other differences),
for which GR must be responsible ... or another theory.

[Volney]

On 5/26/2023 5:35 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 20:27:42 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
>> On 5/25/2023 2:03 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>
>>> This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
>>> and have not diverged along straight lines.
>> I wouldn't claim the stars are following a closed curve. This is an
>> extreme case of Newton's multiple body problem, which doesn't have a
>> closed form solution for even three gravitating bodies, much less
>> millions. Trying to "blame" GR with this "fault" is wrong since, unless
>> there's a black hole in there, the GR and Newtonian versions are nearly
>> identical, so saying globular clusters are evidence against GR without
>> saying globular clusters are evidence against Newton is deliberately
>> misleading. (it's wrong for both anyway)
>>
>
> The observable universe at large distances is simply perfectly flat (3D Euclidean),
> which is confirmed by observations.

???

If light moved at c+v, there would still be the issues of bizarre light
curves as "fast" light outpaces "slow" light emitted earlier.

>
> Thus, it is possible that Newton's laws apply to the universe as a whole (perfect isolated system),
> while locally it is not so ideal and there may be smaller or larger deviations (curvatures and other differences),
> for which GR must be responsible ... or another theory.

It would violate the first postulate of SR where all laws of physics are
the same everywhere. If GR applied nearby only it would imply that the
physics of "nearby" are special or at least different.

[Volney]

The space curvature is centered on the masses. In GR the masses follow a
"null" geodesic which, if you do the ugly math, is an ellipse around the
barycenter which is at one of its foci, if the gravity is weak
enough/speeds slow enough. But see Mercury's precession: the sun is
massive enough so that a deviation is measurable.

Newtonian physics predicts the same ellipse, but without effects for
mass or speeds (so it doesn't predict Mercury's precession)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#/media/File:Orbit5.gif

[Enes Richard]

The "Gravity Probe B" mission probably proved that different laws apply in the vicinity of the Earth than in the rest of the Universe. She confirmed GR (the curvature of space around the Earth) with an accuracy of 1% without the need to invoke dark matter and energy (supposedly it has 95% of the influence in the further Universe).

[Enes Richard]

This is hardly convincing yet.
Does each star bend space for its own motion or for the motion of the other star?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 03:31:17 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 5/26/2023 5:35 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 20:27:42 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> >> On 5/25/2023 2:03 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
> >>> and have not diverged along straight lines.
> >> I wouldn't claim the stars are following a closed curve. This is an
> >> extreme case of Newton's multiple body problem, which doesn't have a
> >> closed form solution for even three gravitating bodies, much less
> >> millions. Trying to "blame" GR with this "fault" is wrong since, unless
> >> there's a black hole in there, the GR and Newtonian versions are nearly
> >> identical, so saying globular clusters are evidence against GR without
> >> saying globular clusters are evidence against Newton is deliberately
> >> misleading. (it's wrong for both anyway)
> >>
> >
> > The observable universe at large distances is simply perfectly flat (3D Euclidean),
> > which is confirmed by observations.
> ???
>
> If light moved at c+v, there would still be the issues of bizarre light
> curves as "fast" light outpaces "slow" light emitted earlier.

With light at c+v there is no warping of space, no curves, but light will bend from purely optical effects when it goes through denser medium.

[Physfitfreak]

On 5/24/2023 8:42 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> The law of conservation of energy has long been superseded by the law of
> conservation of mass-energy, reflecting the fact that mass and energy
> different ways of measuring the same thing.

And as of 1915 (I think) all conservation laws have been replaced by
symmetry, and can be drawn from it.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 10:29:32 UTC+10, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 8:42 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > The law of conservation of energy has long been superseded by the law of
> > conservation of mass-energy, reflecting the fact that mass and energy
> > different ways of measuring the same thing.
> And as of 1915 (I think) all conservation laws have been replaced by
> symmetry, and can be drawn from it.

That too, meaning inertia, has been busted with my new design rail gun showing no reaction, or asymmetry.

[Volney]

On 5/26/2023 6:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 03:31:17 UTC+10, Volney wrote:

>> If light moved at c+v, there would still be the issues of bizarre light
>> curves as "fast" light outpaces "slow" light emitted earlier.
>
> With light at c+v there is no warping of space, no curves, but light will bend from purely optical effects when it goes through denser medium.

I see you are apparently unfamiliar with the issue of binary stars, when
the orbit is seen edge-on from earth.

Consider one of the stars. Crackpots will claim the light heads toward
earth at speed c+v for part of its orbit and c-v for another part, half
an orbit later. (v=orbital velocity around barycenter) Consider light
emitted when the star is moving away, it's purportedly moving toward us
at c-v. It will also be redshifted. Half an orbit later the star emits
light toward us, this time at speed c+v. It will also be blueshifted. As
the light emitted at c+v heads toward us, it catches up to and even
passes the light emitted half an orbit earlier. What would that look
like through a telescope from a real star, as the c+v light repeatedly
catches up to and passes the c-v light (and the light in other parts of
the orbit). It would be a mess.

Real binary stars appear just fine, with light from only one part of the
orbit reaching us at a time. No overlapping red/blue shifted light, no
mess. As we watch it we see the light go from redshift to neutral to
blueshift to neutral to redshift..., nice and neat. This is because the
crackpots are wrong, all the light from the binary star reaches us at c.

[Volney]

If you don't know enough about it so that you don't know the answer to
that, you probably have a bit of learning to do.

Each mass produces its own curvature that affects the other mass.

[Volney]

On 5/26/2023 4:54 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 19:31:17 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
>> On 5/26/2023 5:35 AM, Enes Richard wrote:

>>> Thus, it is possible that Newton's laws apply to the universe as a whole (perfect isolated system),
>>> while locally it is not so ideal and there may be smaller or larger deviations (curvatures and other differences),
>>> for which GR must be responsible ... or another theory.

>> It would violate the first postulate of SR where all laws of physics are
>> the same everywhere. If GR applied nearby only it would imply that the
>> physics of "nearby" are special or at least different.
>>
> The "Gravity Probe B" mission probably proved that different laws apply in the vicinity of the Earth than in the rest of the Universe.

No, it didn't. It was measuring the twisting of spacetime caused by the
rotation of the earth. It is a very tiny effect.

The twisting of spacetime will happen from all rotating bodies, the more
massive they are and faster they are spinning, the larger the effect.
Earth is comparatively small in mass and rotates only once in 24 hours
so it was expected to be small, but measurable.

> She confirmed GR (the curvature of space around the Earth) with an accuracy of 1% without the need to invoke dark matter and energy (supposedly it has 95% of the influence in the further Universe).

It was never intended to measure dark matter/energy.

The amount of dark matter in the solar system according to theories
which invoke it, is actually quite small, if it's relatively evenly
distributed in interstellar space.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 03:31:17 UTC+10, Volney wrote:

> On 5/26/2023 5:35 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 20:27:42 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> >> On 5/25/2023 2:03 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is contradicted by globular clusters without a central body, where even millions of stars move along closed curves,
> >>> and have not diverged along straight lines.
> >> I wouldn't claim the stars are following a closed curve. This is an
> >> extreme case of Newton's multiple body problem, which doesn't have a
> >> closed form solution for even three gravitating bodies, much less
> >> millions. Trying to "blame" GR with this "fault" is wrong since, unless
> >> there's a black hole in there, the GR and Newtonian versions are nearly
> >> identical, so saying globular clusters are evidence against GR without
> >> saying globular clusters are evidence against Newton is deliberately
> >> misleading. (it's wrong for both anyway)
> >>
> >
> > The observable universe at large distances is simply perfectly flat (3D Euclidean),
> > which is confirmed by observations.
> ???
>
> If light moved at c+v, there would still be the issues of bizarre light
> curves as "fast" light outpaces "slow" light emitted earlier.

Yes, so what.
The light that comes from a star or galaxy going away moves slower than the light from same coming towards.
No problem at all.

> >
> > Thus, it is possible that Newton's laws apply to the universe as a whole (perfect isolated system),
> > while locally it is not so ideal and there may be smaller or larger deviations (curvatures and other differences),
> > for which GR must be responsible ... or another theory.

No need.
SR et al are as wrong as wrong can be given the Earth is moving and the universe being eternal and infinite.
It makes some sense with conformal mapping with the Earth still in aether and space twisted about, making the Aristotle model alive again.
But that is a mapping process, nothing physical, only mathematical to get some simplifications for say GPS.

> It would violate the first postulate of SR where all laws of physics are
> the same everywhere. If GR applied nearby only it would imply that the
> physics of "nearby" are special or at least different.

Forget both. The relativistic effects on or near earth are due to light NOT travelling any marked out distance as the Earth it moves.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 14:43:11 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 5/26/2023 6:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 03:31:17 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>
> >> If light moved at c+v, there would still be the issues of bizarre light
> >> curves as "fast" light outpaces "slow" light emitted earlier.
> >
> > With light at c+v there is no warping of space, no curves, but light will bend from purely optical effects when it goes through denser medium.
> I see you are apparently unfamiliar with the issue of binary stars, when
> the orbit is seen edge-on from earth.

I take it that at a given moment in time and space many years ago light came at a speed c+v from a star coming towards us and light came from the other star going in the opposite direction at a speed c-v.

> Consider one of the stars. Crackpots will claim the light heads toward
> earth at speed c+v for part of its orbit and c-v for another part, half
> an orbit later.

Sane, honest people will think so, not the Einsteinian bunglers and frauds, yes.
They will note that for that star the Doppler shift will happen for that star after several months or years, depending upon masses and ranges.

(v=orbital velocity around barycenter) Consider light
> emitted when the star is moving away, it's purportedly moving toward us
> at c-v. It will also be redshifted.

Certainly.

> Half an orbit later the star emits
> light toward us, this time at speed c+v.

Yes. Six months or six years later it will blueshift. While the other star will redshift.

> It will also be blueshifted. As
> the light emitted at c+v heads toward us, it catches up to and even
> passes the light emitted half an orbit earlier.

So what?
All it will show when it lands up on Earth will be its blueshifted light at the time and from the place it was many years ago.
This is when a snap is taken just for the star at that particular point of time and place.

> What would that look
> like through a telescope from a real star,

What real star?
Who is going to put a telescope on a real star? Anyone from the Marvel journal of superscience?

> as the c+v light repeatedly
> catches up to and passes the c-v light (and the light in other parts of
> the orbit). It would be a mess.

Totally irrelevant.
Any mess, like the entire MMI bungling, can be made so, so, with dishonesty and bungling. A snapshot of a star can only give the light from a point in time and space. No question of any mess. Positions of the star at other times are irrelevant. The light that comes to the telescope from a star has nothing to do with the light from the star at other places and times.


> Real binary stars


So what sort of stars you were talking about just now above?

appear just fine, with light from only one part of the
> orbit reaching us at a time. No overlapping red/blue shifted light, no
> mess. As we watch it we see the light go from redshift to neutral to
> blueshift to neutral to redshift..., nice and neat. This is because the
> crackpots are wrong, all the light from the binary star reaches us at c.

No, the shifts happen because when the star goes away or comes toward, with different light speeds. If it was all c there would be no shifts at all.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Volney]

What do you mean "so what?"

> All it will show when it lands up on Earth will be its blueshifted light at the time and from the place it was many years ago.
> This is when a snap is taken just for the star at that particular point of time and place.

Nope.

I'll simplify the situation more since you seem to be unable to see the
problem.

Let's ignore the other star. Say it is very massive so it doesn't "move"
much while the two orbit but it emits little light. Say a neutron star
or black hole.

Let's say the light from the approaching side, moving at c+v according
to cranks, catches up to the light purportedly moving at c-v, exactly
when the light reaches earth.

>> What would that look
>> like through a telescope from a real star,
>
> What real star?

I should have said "of a real star", the telescope on earth is observing
the binary star.

What does the observer see as the light from the approaching part of the
orbit catches up to the receding orbital light when both reach earth?

They'd see two star images, on each side of the other star, one
blueshifted, one redshifted. Yet there is only one star.

(actually there's all the light from the in-between orbital time which
is why we'd see a mess)

However, in real life, if we watch the star over several orbits, we'd
see one simple image of the star, moving side to side while alternating
between blueshift and redshift.

> A snapshot of a star can only give the light from a point in time and space.

And that's what we see. We don't see the c+/-v mess.

> No question of any mess. Positions of the star at other times are irrelevant. The light that comes to the telescope from a star has nothing to do with the light from the star at other places and times.

Apparently you are unable to understand what happens when faster light
catches up to slower light when both reach earth.

>
>
>> Real binary stars
>
>
> So what sort of stars you were talking about just now above?

Binary stars in the bizarre alternate universe where light moves at c+v.

>
> appear just fine, with light from only one part of the
>> orbit reaching us at a time. No overlapping red/blue shifted light, no
>> mess. As we watch it we see the light go from redshift to neutral to
>> blueshift to neutral to redshift..., nice and neat. This is because the
>> crackpots are wrong, all the light from the binary star reaches us at c.
>
> No, the shifts happen because when the star goes away or comes toward, with different light speeds.

Different light speeds means we'd see light from different times in the
past as the star moves. One at x/(c+v) the other at x/(c-v). They are
different.

> If it was all c there would be no shifts at all.

Nope. Einstein worked out the Doppler effect as affected by SR.

Since you are delusional, perhaps you don't understand the concept of
how actual scientific evidence/observations always overrules theory.
Light moving at c+/-v means that binary stars would look bizarre through
a telescope. Light moving at c predicts they'd appear simple, what you'd
expect, one star moving side to side of the other star while alternating
redshift and blueshift. We'd see how the binary system appeared x/c
years ago, where x is distance. That's what we see, which rules out
c+/-v light.

[Volney]

This was mentioned in another thread recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment

Now look at the animated second image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment#/media/File:De_Sitter_argument_against_emission_theory.gif
That's what I mean by we'd see a mess. It shows Doppler blueshifted
light catching up to and passing "slower" redshifted light.

Perhaps some day an animated image could be created of what that double
star would look like in a telescope in a bizarre c+v alternate universe.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 1:54:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:

> The "Gravity Probe B" mission probably proved that different laws apply in the vicinity of the Earth than in the rest of the Universe. She confirmed GR (the curvature of space around the Earth) with an accuracy of 1% without the need to invoke dark matter and energy (supposedly it has 95% of the influence in the further Universe).

Once again you display your complete ignorance of the subject matter. Gravity Probe B was a success.

https://www.universetoday.com/85401/gravity-probe-b-confirms-two-of-einsteins-space-time-theories/

What evidence can you provide to support your claim that GP B "proved that different laws apply in the vicinity of Earth". I should also note that no actual scientist would ever use the word "proved" when taking of a theory because theories can never be proven.

[Enes Richard]

You can't prove a theory, but you can prove a theory wrong.
The experiment showed the correct operation of the GR near the Earth. Farther away in the Universe, however,
GR fails because 95% of the energy is missing and the Universe is "flat" (3D Euclidean) instead of curved.
Different places, different experiment results.

[Enes Richard]

We should not believe uncritically what we see or what comes out of experiments using light.
The perspective convinces that the reality can be quite different...

Look at the sky, in one image you see both what was a second ago and what happened billions of years ago.
The farther, the more uncertain, neither where you see nor what you see, you don't know if it's still there...

[Paul Alsing]

Of course we don't know if it's still there, but what does that have to do with anything? We see it as it was when the light left the object and that is all we have to work with now, and in the past. For example 100 years ago, we were able to see an object as it was then, and from the differences between 100 years ago and now we have data that we can use to create/modify models, and those models are constantly being updated as time goes by. Science then makes predictions about what changes to expect in the future. Take supernova 1987A, for example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

This object is about 168,000 light-years away. It was a spectacular event HERE in 1987 and was easily observed by tens of thousands of observers and has been studied ever since then, and the changes have been dramatic, and have contributed greatly to the study of supernovae ever since. We are not able to know what the thing looks like *now*, in real time, we need to wait another 168,000 years to actually find out!

You are using the word "perspective" improperly when speaking about astronomical observations. We cannot worry about changes that have already happened THERE but have not yet been observed HERE. This would be a Fool's Errand. You would have a better chance by going to an auto parts store and ordering some muffler bearings...

[Enes Richard]

It is foolish to underestimate the threats and countermeasures.
Wouldn't you like to know in advance that a supernova has exploded nearby, before the deadly radiation hits the Earth?

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:

When you first see a supernova, the radiation is already here.

The *reality* is that we have no way of predicting a supernova to that degree of accuracy. We will only know about it *after* the fact. Do you have evidence to indicate otherwise?

Betelgeuse, for example, is predicted to go supernova "any day now"...

https://www.altairspaceacademy.com/blog/Betelgeuse-supernova#:~:text=Betelgeuse's%20Future%20%2D%20When%20Will%20it,within%20the%20next%20100%2C000%20years.

"It's impossible to predict exactly when Betelgeuse will go supernova, but scientists have been able to narrow down the time frame. Based on their observations, they believe that the Betelgeuse supernova could occur within the next 100,000 years."

Understand that 100,000 years is just a blink of an eye in astronomical parlance... and "within 100,000 years" could definitely mean "tomorrow".

So, tell me... if you knew for sure that a star was going to go supernova tomorrow, what exactly would you be able to do about it? Hide under your bed?

[Arindam Banerjee]

I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.

In this case, you think the binary star is stuck in space, while also revolving, so in this peculiarly schizophrenic state, like de Broglie, you posit that there will be interference between the fast and slow light.

What is amazing is how totally warped your mindset is, which led to my exclamation "so what".

> > All it will show when it lands up on Earth will be its blueshifted light at the time and from the place it was many years ago.
> > This is when a snap is taken just for the star at that particular point of time and place.
> Nope.

Yes, and nothing else.

>
> I'll simplify the situation more since you seem to be unable to see the
> problem.

Looks like you will start the imaginative conjectural woolly stuff now.

>
> Let's ignore the other star.

Why the hell, we were talking of binary stars weren't we.

> Say it is very massive so it doesn't "move"
> much while the two orbit but it emits little light. Say a neutron star
> or black hole.

Okay let us ignore the imaginary conjectural stuff and let us thus say there is a very large dark star with no hydrogen cover around which the much smaller bright star revolves.

> Let's say the light from the approaching side, moving at c+v according
> to cranks, catches up to the light purportedly moving at c-v, exactly
> when the light reaches earth.

Let me emphasize this is pure, absolute, moronic nonsense worthy of all the criminal Einsteinian frauds calling themselves scientists.
We see the light from any star at a given time when it is just at one point in space. Never ever from elsewhere.
So there is never any issue of light coming from the same star months or years later from some other point in space.
Of course the light moving faster will reach sooner. With proper focus, light from other sources are naturally filtered out or drowned, so its velocity is known by Doppler effect.
Any snap of any star can and will only show its redshift or blueshift if moving radially to us.

> >> What would that look
> >> like through a telescope from a real star,
> >
> > What real star?
> I should have said "of a real star", the telescope on earth is observing
> the binary star.
>
> What does the observer see as the light from the approaching part of the
> orbit catches up to the receding orbital light when both reach earth?

It is totally irrelevant. The observer will see just one star and its light whether it is shifted red or blue or not.
The telescope will show the light and frequency of the star at the time and place it was snapped.
****** important***
The light from what happened six years say later that came from the same star in another part of space from which currently at this angle there is no light at all, is totally irrelevant.
****** end important *****
Point is now, will the moron Moroney get it, or will it remain as moronic as ever?
Remember that the star is moving, like Earth and other heavenly bodies.
Dull simple robotic minds like Moroney soooooooo need the Aristotle static stuff.
Centuries after Copernicus, Galileo and Newton have not changed uthem.

>
> They'd see two star images, on each side of the other star, one
> blueshifted, one redshifted. Yet there is only one star.

They will never do that , save in your wrong, corrupt, idiotic, ridiculous, incompetent thought-experimental imagination. I explained why earlier. Hope you have some wits in your moronic brain to grasp that. Hint: the star moves.

>
> (actually there's all the light from the in-between orbital time which
> is why we'd see a mess)

Do some focussing. Focus on one star and see its shift. That is all. Too easy to confuse by bungling, to show a mess to justify fake nonsense notions posing as theories.

>
> However, in real life, if we watch the star over several orbits, we'd
> see one simple image of the star, moving side to side while alternating
> between blueshift and redshift.

Absolutely correct. Take snaps of it with focus and that will show how the Doppler effect works with varying light speed.

> > A snapshot of a star can only give the light from a point in time and space.
> And that's what we see. We don't see the c+/-v mess.

Certainly we see that from the redshift or blueshift. Works very well for the distant galaxies as shown by a leaked Hubble photograph at the point when space was supposed to show edge of the universe.

> > No question of any mess. Positions of the star at other times are irrelevant. The light that comes to the telescope from a star has nothing to do with the light from the star at other places and times.
> Apparently you are unable to understand what happens when faster light
> catches up to slower light when both reach earth.

Nothing to do with getting the faster or slower light to join up, for reasons earlier explained.

> >
> >
> >> Real binary stars
> >
> >
> > So what sort of stars you were talking about just now above?
> Binary stars in the bizarre alternate universe where light moves at c+v.

That is the real universe

> >
> > appear just fine, with light from only one part of the
> >> orbit reaching us at a time. No overlapping red/blue shifted light, no
> >> mess. As we watch it we see the light go from redshift to neutral to
> >> blueshift to neutral to redshift..., nice and neat. This is because the
> >> crackpots are wrong, all the light from the binary star reaches us at c.
> >
> > No, the shifts happen because when the star goes away or comes toward, with different light speeds.
> Different light speeds means we'd see light from different times in the
> past as the star moves. One at x/(c+v) the other at x/(c-v). They are
> different.
> > If it was all c there would be no shifts at all.
> Nope. Einstein worked out the Doppler effect as affected by SR.

More bungling by Einstein, then, with twisting ofbthe wavelenght lengths, absolutely criminal fraud there too. If c cannot change, lambda must! Ugh, this was the isdue , the sole one, that bothered my daighter in physics. I told her the background, that helped. Sooner they revise the textbooks the better for sanity.

That bungler could not work out the truth behind the nulls in MMI, which happen with light speed variance.
I made that clear in 2005 and also recentl.

[Volney]

Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein? If the speed of
light is constant, light emitted later can NEVER catch up to light
emitted earlier! But c+v can catch up to c-v.

Do you even understand the concept of something that moves faster than
something else but starts after it, will catch up to and eventually pass
it, so it arrives first? Perhaps think of what really happens with
Achilles and the tortoise?

Instead, you show lack of understanding and try to insert paranoid
anti-Semitic rants instead.

>
> In this case, you think the binary star is stuck in space, while also revolving, so in this peculiarly schizophrenic state, like de Broglie, you posit that there will be interference between the fast and slow light.

??? Not "interference" but the fast light catches up to the slow light,
so there would be two images, the fast light image and the slow light image.

>
> What is amazing is how totally warped your mindset is, which led to my exclamation "so what".

The whole point is easy enough to understand that a small child
understands it. (c+v can catch up to c-v) Yet you don't, so you respond
"so what"????

>
>
>>> All it will show when it lands up on Earth will be its blueshifted light at the time and from the place it was many years ago.
>>> This is when a snap is taken just for the star at that particular point of time and place.

>> Nope.

> Yes, and nothing else.
>>
>> I'll simplify the situation more since you seem to be unable to see the
>> problem.

> Looks like you will start the imaginative conjectural woolly stuff now.
>
>>
>> Let's ignore the other star.
>
>
> Why the hell, we were talking of binary stars weren't we.

I'm trying to simplify it so that even you can understand it.

>
>> Say it is very massive so it doesn't "move"
>> much while the two orbit but it emits little light. Say a neutron star
>> or black hole.
>
> Okay let us ignore the imaginary conjectural stuff and let us thus say there is a very large dark star with no hydrogen cover around which the much smaller bright star revolves.
>
>
>> Let's say the light from the approaching side, moving at c+v according
>> to cranks, catches up to the light purportedly moving at c-v, exactly
>> when the light reaches earth.
>
> Let me emphasize this is pure, absolute, moronic nonsense worthy of all the criminal Einsteinian frauds calling themselves scientists.
> We see the light from any star at a given time when it is just at one point in space. Never ever from elsewhere.
> So there is never any issue of light coming from the same star months or years later from some other point in space.
> Of course the light moving faster will reach sooner. With proper focus, light from other sources are naturally filtered out or drowned, so its velocity is known by Doppler effect.
> Any snap of any star can and will only show its redshift or blueshift if moving radially to us.

You do realize, don't you, that this entire blurb depends on a CONSTANT
speed of light! If we see the redshifted star and half an orbit time
later we see the blueshifted star, and the distances in both cases are
the same (true for binary star seen edge-on), and the time in both cases
are the same, that means both speeds must be the same! Therefore
disproving two different speeds of c-v and c+v!

>
>
>>>> What would that look
>>>> like through a telescope from a real star,
>>>
>>> What real star?
>> I should have said "of a real star", the telescope on earth is observing
>> the binary star.
>>
>> What does the observer see as the light from the approaching part of the
>> orbit catches up to the receding orbital light when both reach earth?
>
> It is totally irrelevant. The observer will see just one star and its light whether it is shifted red or blue or not.
> The telescope will show the light and frequency of the star at the time and place it was snapped.

You mean what it looked like at the time and place the light was emitted?

> ****** important***
> The light from what happened six years say later that came from the same star in another part of space from which currently at this angle there is no light at all, is totally irrelevant.

But according to cranks' c-v and c+v beliefs, that fast light reaches us
not 6 months later, but at a different time. In my example it arrives AT
THE SAME TIME as the slow light! So we see two images.

> ****** end important *****
> Point is now, will the moron Moroney get it, or will it remain as moronic as ever?
> Remember that the star is moving, like Earth and other heavenly bodies.

The barycenter is stationary relative to us in this example, if I didn't
make it clear and you didn't understand it. Are you trying to confuse
matter by introducing an additional motion?

> Dull simple robotic minds like Moroney soooooooo need the Aristotle static stuff.
> Centuries after Copernicus, Galileo and Newton have not changed uthem.
>
>
>>
>> They'd see two star images, on each side of the other star, one
>> blueshifted, one redshifted. Yet there is only one star.
>
> They will never do that , save in your wrong, corrupt, idiotic, ridiculous, incompetent thought-experimental imagination. I explained why earlier. Hope you have some wits in your moronic brain to grasp that. Hint: the star moves.

It orbits the other star. Or are you trying to confuse matter by
introducing an additional motion?

>>
>> (actually there's all the light from the in-between orbital time which
>> is why we'd see a mess)
>
> Do some focussing. Focus on one star and see its shift. That is all. Too easy to confuse by bungling, to show a mess to justify fake nonsense notions posing as theories.

Which is why I tried to simplify things so that even you could
understand it. Apparently you still don't. Do I have to type slower as well?

>
>>
>> However, in real life, if we watch the star over several orbits, we'd
>> see one simple image of the star, moving side to side while alternating
>> between blueshift and redshift.
>
>
> Absolutely correct. Take snaps of it with focus and that will show how the Doppler effect works with varying light speed.

And it shows that the light from both ends of the orbit take the same
time to reach us.

>>> A snapshot of a star can only give the light from a point in time and space.
>> And that's what we see. We don't see the c+/-v mess.
>
> Certainly we see that from the redshift or blueshift.

And we'd see the fast light overtaking the slow light as well.

> Works very well for the distant galaxies as shown by a leaked Hubble photograph at the point when space was supposed to show edge of the universe.

Trying to distract from the discussion? BTW you need to provide a
pointer to the original with the original definition of what the false
colors indicate, rather than making up your own crap about "leaked
images", if it is to be evidence of anything.

>
>>> No question of any mess. Positions of the star at other times are irrelevant. The light that comes to the telescope from a star has nothing to do with the light from the star at other places and times.

>> Apparently you are unable to understand what happens when faster light
>> catches up to slower light when both reach earth.
>
> Nothing to do with getting the faster or slower light to join up, for reasons earlier explained.

You don't understand the concept of faster light emitted later would
catch up to, and eventually pass, slower light? You don't even
understand how we'd see clear images of how the star appeared a fixed
time ago supports a constant speed of light? You are as confused as the
janitor who keeps reversing things to try to disprove time-related
things. Here, you are using evidence for the constancy of the speed of
light to claim the speed of light isn't constant! How stooopid is that?

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Real binary stars
>>>
>>>
>>> So what sort of stars you were talking about just now above?
>> Binary stars in the bizarre alternate universe where light moves at c+v.
>
> That is the real universe

Not according to what we see.

>>> appear just fine, with light from only one part of the
>>>> orbit reaching us at a time. No overlapping red/blue shifted light, no
>>>> mess. As we watch it we see the light go from redshift to neutral to
>>>> blueshift to neutral to redshift..., nice and neat. This is because the
>>>> crackpots are wrong, all the light from the binary star reaches us at c.
>>>
>>> No, the shifts happen because when the star goes away or comes toward, with different light speeds.
>> Different light speeds means we'd see light from different times in the
>> past as the star moves. One at x/(c+v) the other at x/(c-v). They are
>> different.

>>> If it was all c there would be no shifts at all.

>> Nope. Einstein worked out the Doppler effect as affected by SR.

> More bungling by Einstein, then, with twisting ofbthe wavelenght lengths, absolutely criminal fraud there too. If c cannot change, lambda must!

And it does as shown by diffraction gratings.

> That bungler could not work out the truth behind the nulls in MMI, which happen with light speed variance.
> I made that clear in 2005 and also recentl.

The MMX cannot differentiate between a ballistic theory of light and SR.
It merely disproved a certain form of aether.

Other experiments (including the binary stars in this topic) disprove
c+/-v theories of light.

>>
>> Since you are delusional, perhaps you don't understand the concept of
>> how actual scientific evidence/observations always overrules theory.
>> Light moving at c+/-v means that binary stars would look bizarre through
>> a telescope. Light moving at c predicts they'd appear simple, what you'd
>> expect, one star moving side to side of the other star while alternating
>> redshift and blueshift. We'd see how the binary system appeared x/c
>> years ago, where x is distance. That's what we see, which rules out
>> c+/-v light.

And you try to use a constant speed of light to show the speed of light
is not constant! How dumb is that?

[Enes Richard]

You see, but something was known before the explosion, and it arrived faster than the light of the explosion.

You should put GR aside and straighten your thinking. Then maybe you can learn to see through the darkness and see the mass and radiation of the universe with your eyes closed... from the outside.

Even the Guru of relativism complained about the ghostly effects at a distance (immediately). It is possible to detect an explosion almost immediately, but you have to get down to business and not rave like blind people in the fog (e.g. unnecessarily value the masses of Sgr A* stars).

> So, tell me... if you knew for sure that a star was going to go supernova tomorrow, what exactly would you be able to do about it? Hide under your bed?
>

Depends on what explodes, when, where and how far.... You don't know better places on Earth and underground than under the bed?

[Enes Richard]

At least part of the plane (2D) is required to curve a straight line (1D).
At least some space (3D) is needed to curve a plane (2D).
To bend 3D space, you need 4D space.

Is there evidence for the discovery of the fourth GEOMETRIC dimension?

You can't propagate science fiction. Some space deformation is possible with
massive objects, but it has to be (and is possible) within 3D space.

[whodat]

On 5/28/2023 12:18 PM, Volney wrote:

[...]

> And you try to use a constant speed of light to show the speed of light
> is not constant! How dumb is that?

I wonder why people like Banerjee think light can travel faster
or slower but seem to accept that sound cannot catch and pass
a sound that was dispatched earlier.

[Paul Alsing]

Sorry, you are still completely clueless about physics and these last claims of yours do not justify a response, it would be yet another waste of time,

Have a nice day.

[Arindam Banerjee]

But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.
The telescope will see only c+v light for one position and after half an orbit c-v light.
The first light won't affect the second light and vice versa, for only one kind of light will be seen.

If the speed of
> light is constant, light emitted later can NEVER catch up to light
> emitted earlier! But c+v can catch up to c-v.

I never denied that obvious, of course c+v catches up with c-v, theoretically, provided they are running the same length of the course and starting from the same time with the c-v runner given the head start.
But in the case of the binary star race3, the c-v light would be emitted from another point in space and time, and will not interact.

>
> Do you even understand the concept of something that moves faster than
> something else but starts after it, will catch up to and eventually pass
> it, so it arrives first?

Do you understand that if I run a race now in Melbourne, and you run a race in Timbuktu 6 months later, I cannot catch up with you no matter how much faster I run?
Again, get this in your head, the stars they move, and move fast.
Our sun moves at 800,000Km/hr, which is very fast.
One light from the binary start at c+v speed starts at some point in space, another of c-v speed some great distance away. No contest.
It may ****seem**** to be starting at the same place but reality is different. The star has moved away from the original c+v point, just as our Sun and Earth also did, with respect to the c-v point which to repeat happened several months or years later. Not to accept this basic fact, is the usual, well-known criminal Einsteinian fraud, now totally global, disgustingly.
Just as the light from the galaxies represent their instantaneous positions - going and coming towards us - some ten billion years ago, or something. Ten billion years have passed since! What is happening there now will only be known after another ten billion years.


- snip -

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 06:39:01 UTC+10, whodat wrote:

> I wonder why people like Banerjee think light can travel faster
> or slower

Practical fact of life, shown in any prism held in air with light allowed in.
Light travels slower in denser media.
Which is why we have refraction.

but seem to accept that sound cannot catch and pass
> a sound that was dispatched earlier.

As every thunder shows, the low frequency rumbling sounds from the same source come later than the higher frequency crackling sounds.
This shows that sound of higher frequency come at greater speed.
Doppler works for sound as well as light.
Yes, wavelengths are the same, in length, as seen from land, but with greater speed of the wave, they pass a point faster, so the frequency of the wave motion at that point is higher.

Consider a duck flapping its feet on a still pond.
One side where the vibrations are faster the ripples move faster, the other side slower.
More frequency, more speed; less, less.

Such is way the universe works, whodumbo.
One needs to stay away from the water, observe from land, the water waves, and other waves.
When in the water, one thinks the wavelengths have got smaller or bigger.
When on land, one knows what is what, what is going on.

At the kindest, Einsteinians are dumb ducks floundering in water to observer bigger or smaller wavelengths - and then concluding that the whole universe is twisted as the waves they actually get smaller or bigger, twisted up!
Get on land, fools.
Which will mean accepting the solid absolute reality of aether, the straight Newtonian universe, eternal and infinite, where mass energy relationship is kinetic, and all forces are electrical (static and magnetic), all matter protons and electrons.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

More chance of a volcano erupting under your bed than some distant star bothering you.

[Volney]

On 5/28/2023 10:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 03:18:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/28/2023 5:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 02:08:59 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2023 7:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>>>> So what?

>>>> What do you mean "so what?"
>>>
>>> I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.
>> Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
>> c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein?

> But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.

Why wouldn't it? As I stated we are viewing the star at the time the
light from both ends of the orbit arrive at the location of the
telescope at the same time.

> The telescope will see only c+v light for one position and after half an orbit c-v light.

You are very, very confused. If we see the light from one part of the
orbit and half an orbital time later we see the light from the other
half of the orbit, then both the light beams took the same time to reach
us as both travel the same distance. That is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to
one beam traveling at c+v and the other at c-v. Both beams must travel
at the same speed since they travel the same distance during the same
length of time. Let's call that speed "c".

> The first light won't affect the second light and vice versa,

They don't "affect" each other, they just arrive at the same time. So we
see two images of the star.

> for only one kind of light will be seen.

And why would you believe that?

> If the speed of
>> light is constant, light emitted later can NEVER catch up to light
>> emitted earlier! But c+v can catch up to c-v.
>
> I never denied that obvious, of course c+v catches up with c-v, theoretically, provided they are running the same length of the course and starting from the same time with the c-v runner given the head start.

"Starting from the same time with the c-v runner given the head start."
That sentence contradicts itself. If the c-v light has a head start,
obviously it doesn't start at the same time as the c+v light.

So with the situation given (binary star system edge on, stationary
relative to the solar system, does light from the side of the orbit
where the star is receding from earth at speed v get emitted as the
light emitted at the other end of the orbit, where the star is now
approaching earth at speed v? Or does it get emitted 1/2 the orbital
period later?

> But in the case of the binary star race3, the c-v light would be emitted from another point in space and time, and will not interact.

Not "interact", but both arrive at the telescope at the same time
(initial condition of the problem). Or at least that's what the cranks
would tell us.

>>
>> Do you even understand the concept of something that moves faster than
>> something else but starts after it, will catch up to and eventually pass
>> it, so it arrives first?
>
> Do you understand that if I run a race now in Melbourne, and you run a race in Timbuktu 6 months later, I cannot catch up with you no matter how much faster I run?

We are talking about light from a binary star system that's stationary
wrt to earth sending light to the exact same point (the telescope
aperture), not a race in Timbuktu.

> Again, get this in your head, the stars they move, and move fast.

OK, so you are deliberately trying to confuse matters, by adding a
motion to the star system I never mentioned.

> Our sun moves at 800,000Km/hr, which is very fast.
> One light from the binary start at c+v speed starts at some point in space, another of c-v speed some great distance away.

Again, you are deliberately trying to confuse matters by adding some
sort of motion. Some stars are so distant that no motion is detectable,
the light from the ends of the orbit will appear to come from the same
point in space.

> No contest.

Yes instead of admitting you are wrong (you probably don't even realize
that), you try to mess up the problem and make a fool of yourself.

> It may ****seem**** to be starting at the same place but reality is different. The star has moved away from the original c+v point, just as our Sun and Earth also did, with respect to the c-v point which to repeat happened several months or years later. Not to accept this basic fact, is the usual, well-known criminal Einsteinian fraud, now totally global, disgustingly.

Once again the binary star system is stationary relative to the earth.
That means the distance from it to earth remains constant. That means
the time for the light to get here is x/c (according to scientists) or
x/(c-v) and x/(c+v) (according to crackpots).

> Just as the light from the galaxies represent their instantaneous positions - going and coming towards us - some ten billion years ago, or something. Ten billion years have passed since! What is happening there now will only be known after another ten billion years.

Are you now claiming that we won't know the star is still orbiting a
half orbit later until the light gets here?

Why not work out the problem and see what Newtonian light does?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 14:51:39 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 5/28/2023 10:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 03:18:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2023 5:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 02:08:59 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/27/2023 7:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >>>>> So what?
>
> >>>> What do you mean "so what?"
> >>>
> >>> I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.
> >> Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
> >> c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein?
>
> > But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.
> Why wouldn't it?

Because that was a race that started in another place and another time.
As I am saying for the n'th time.
And for the last time, too.
Educating pigheaded morons like Moroney - who is also biased and mendacious - is for those intelligent and kindly persons with talent for educating morons, and I lack that talent.
- snip -

[Volney]

On 5/29/2023 9:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 14:51:39 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/28/2023 10:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 03:18:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2023 5:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 02:08:59 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2023 7:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>
>>>>>> What do you mean "so what?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.
>>>> Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
>>>> c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein?
>>
>>> But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.

>> Why wouldn't it?

> Because that was a race that started in another place and another time.

Yes it's an orbital diameter in a different place and 1/2 orbital period
different. But the time difference becomes irrelevant since the c+v
light catches up to the c-v light at the telescope. Or at least that's
what crackpots claim. (remember, this is an initial condition of this
thought experiment)

If the orbital diameter is large enough so that the star at the two ends
of its diameter can be resolved, we'll see two images of the star, one
redshifted and one blueshifted. (ignoring all the "in between" light, of
course)

> As I am saying for the n'th time.
> And for the last time, too.

You are trying to confuse matters by messing with the situation. In this
case proper motion of the star system. (most stars are far enough away
that this can be ignored anyway).

Why not examine the problem as already given, and that includes the star
system being stationary relative to the earth, so none of your
misleading blather is relevant? Oh, that's right. You know I would be
shown to be correct and you as wrong.

> and I lack that talent.

You lack any talent at physics, as well.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 15:14:30 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 5/29/2023 9:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 14:51:39 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2023 10:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 03:18:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/2023 5:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 02:08:59 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/27/2023 7:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> So what?
> >>
> >>>>>> What do you mean "so what?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.
> >>>> Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
> >>>> c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein?
> >>
> >>> But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.
>
> >> Why wouldn't it?
>
> > Because that was a race that started in another place and another time.
> Yes it's an orbital diameter in a different place and 1/2 orbital period
> different.

Glad you got that at last

> But the time difference becomes irrelevant since the c+v
> light catches up to the c-v light at the telescope.

Only the stupidest of dumbfucks can think that, but there are evidently university loads of Einsteinian professors who fit that bill.
A tireless racer that starts a race in Melbourne will run more than one than a slower racer starts in Timubuktu six years later, over endless time, but they will never meet at the same finishing post.
Not that I expect that this simple fact will penetrate the dull moronic mind of the moron Moroney, but who knows, wonders may never cease.


- snip -

[Volney]

On 5/28/2023 4:06 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 07:00:38 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
>> On 5/26/2023 5:27 PM, Enes Richard wrote:

>>> This is hardly convincing yet.

It is impossible to convince someone who is totally locked into preset
beliefs. May as well try to convince the Pope that Hinduism is the
correct religion or something.

>>> Does each star bend space for its own motion or for the motion of the other star?
>> If you don't know enough about it so that you don't know the answer to
>> that, you probably have a bit of learning to do.
>>
>> Each mass produces its own curvature that affects the other mass.
>>
>
> At least part of the plane (2D) is required to curve a straight line (1D).
> At least some space (3D) is needed to curve a plane (2D).
> To bend 3D space, you need 4D space.
>
> Is there evidence for the discovery of the fourth GEOMETRIC dimension?

Time. Note that "GEOMETRIC" is a restriction YOU added.

>
> You can't propagate science fiction. Some space deformation is possible with
> massive objects, but it has to be (and is possible) within 3D space.

Which is what we see.

[whodat]

On 5/30/2023 12:14 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 5/29/2023 9:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

<...>

> You lack any talent at physics, as well.

Like the wannabe concert pianist who never quite gets the scales
being practiced quite right.

[Enes Richard]

wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 17:34:50 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> On 5/28/2023 4:06 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 07:00:38 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> >> On 5/26/2023 5:27 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> >>> This is hardly convincing yet.
> It is impossible to convince someone who is totally locked into preset
> beliefs. May as well try to convince the Pope that Hinduism is the
> correct religion or something.
>

Yes, I am closed to quantum mechanics and mainstream cosmology due to
the experimental discredit of these branches of physics and the lack of 3D models.
Any other ideas have a better chance of being correct.

> >>> Does each star bend space for its own motion or for the motion of the other star?
> >> If you don't know enough about it so that you don't know the answer to
> >> that, you probably have a bit of learning to do.
> >>
> >> Each mass produces its own curvature that affects the other mass.
> >>
> >
> > At least part of the plane (2D) is required to curve a straight line (1D).
> > At least some space (3D) is needed to curve a plane (2D).
> > To bend 3D space, you need 4D space.
> >
> > Is there evidence for the discovery of the fourth GEOMETRIC dimension?
> Time. Note that "GEOMETRIC" is a restriction YOU added.
>

You say time. Start with the easiest case and show/tell us how to curve
a 1D straight line in time (in two dimension space-time).

> >
> > You can't propagate science fiction. Some space deformation is possible with
> > massive objects, but it has to be (and is possible) within 3D space.
> Which is what we see.
>

Maybe even similar, but there is a completely different nature of gravity
very close to Newton's intuition.

[Arindam Banerjee]

It is electrostatic.

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 2:24:09 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 17:34:50 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > On 5/28/2023 4:06 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 07:00:38 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > >> On 5/26/2023 5:27 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >
> > >>> This is hardly convincing yet.

> > It is impossible to convince someone who is totally locked into preset
> > beliefs. May as well try to convince the Pope that Hinduism is the
> > correct religion or something.
> >
> Yes, I am closed to quantum mechanics and mainstream cosmology due to
> the experimental discredit of these branches of physics and the lack of 3D models.

Exactly which experiments have discredited quantum mechanics and mainstream cosmology? Please be specific. Also, what makes you think that 3D models are not being implemented in cosmology?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/07/22/3d-map-of-universe-lon-orig-na.cnn
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.590295/full
https://chandra.si.edu/tinkercad/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/cosmic-superbubbles-magnetic-field-charted-3d-first-time

> Any other ideas have a better chance of being correct.

Any and all other ideas need to be supported by EVIDENCE. Which ides that you personally like have such evidence? Please be specific. Keep in mind that your guesses are not evidence!

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 2:24:09 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 17:34:50 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > > On 5/28/2023 4:06 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > > sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 07:00:38 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > > >> On 5/26/2023 5:27 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> This is hardly convincing yet.
>
> > > It is impossible to convince someone who is totally locked into preset
> > > beliefs. May as well try to convince the Pope that Hinduism is the
> > > correct religion or something.

Good idea. If not already Hinduised the Catholics got socialised, and then became symbolic, thanks to the long-ago inputs of someone I know. They need to follow the Vedic approaches relating to infinity for far greater success.
The Catholics educated Hindus, so high time for their return gift.

> > >
> > Yes, I am closed to quantum mechanics and mainstream cosmology due to
> > the experimental discredit of these branches of physics and the lack of 3D models.
> Exactly which experiments have discredited quantum mechanics and mainstream cosmology?

Refraction experiment, using a prism and some pins on paper. I did that in school.

Please be specific. Also, what makes you think that 3D models are not being implemented in cosmology?
>
> https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/07/22/3d-map-of-universe-lon-orig-na.cnn
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.590295/full
> https://chandra.si.edu/tinkercad/
> https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/cosmic-superbubbles-magnetic-field-charted-3d-first-time
> > Any other ideas have a better chance of being correct.
> Any and all other ideas need to be supported by EVIDENCE. Which ides that you personally like have such evidence? Please be specific. Keep in mind that your guesses are not evidence!

My experiments showing violation of inertia.
The fact that energy is continuously generated and destroyed.
My new formula for mass energy relationship.
Doppler effect showing variable light speed.
The proper analysis of MMI showing light speed variance and how the so called relativistic effects happen.
My explanations for gravity, nova and supernova, deuterium fissioning, existence of dark matter as cold cores of stars from the fact of magnetic fields and ionic matter loss.

All you terrorists and robots got against these evidences are ad hominem attacks, which fail miserably, being desperate abuse, as big lies as your entire selves.

>
> "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Terrorists in power make up faux facts and suppress real ones.

> - John Adams

[Volney]

More like a toddler who smashes his hands on the piano keyboard and then
laughs because he made such a noisy racket.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

If doppler is changing energy it is not conserved.
Light changes in energy by gravity. that's another
non conservation. Conservation must be staying
exact the same but clearly it is not. How do you conserve
an average of anything?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Where is the new atom being generated outside of fusion and fission?
Energy is constantly changing. Quantum mechanics generating new
energy has no observation backing it up. Where is the new light or atom
from QM? There is no measurements backing that QM up.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes, between creation and destruction.

Quantum mechanics generating new
> energy has no observation backing it up. Where is the new light or atom
> from QM? There is no measurements backing that QM up.

Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Good question.
In the Sun, there is deuterium with two protons and one electron holding them together in the nucleus.
When there is impact or very strong aetheric distubance nearby, that bond snaps, creating two protons going in opposite ways. The electron can no longer hold on to either, and is free. It may find another proton to form a hydrogen atom.
This is the force which creates the unending energy from stars.
Now, the deuterium gets reformed from fusion.
Instead of forming a hydrogen atom, the proton can hit a free electron and form a neutron.
It will be attracted by gravity towards the centre of the Sun.
As it falls, it may encounter a loose proton.
With the correct positioning, this proton will attach to the neutron to form a charged deuterium nucleus.
This is the endless cycle of energy formation.
Which gets destroyed in infinite space.

[Volney]

On 5/30/2023 3:16 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 15:14:30 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/29/2023 9:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 14:51:39 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2023 10:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 03:18:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2023 5:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 02:08:59 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2023 7:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean "so what?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean you are talking your usual Einsteinian nonsense, totally irrelevant except for showing your static, inert notion of the Earth still in space now being extended to the stars. In short, a repeat of millenia of unscientific stupor. Einsteinsm is a backdoor sanction of static Earth following Aristotle and from that, the busted Jewish metaphysics.
>>>>>> Do you realize that the c+v light catching up to and passing the slower
>>>>>> c-v light is what NEWTON would predict, not Einstein?
>>>>
>>>>> But one of that light will not be seen at the telescope, which is the main point you fail to grasp.
>>
>>>> Why wouldn't it?
>>
>>> Because that was a race that started in another place and another time.
>> Yes it's an orbital diameter in a different place and 1/2 orbital period
>> different.
>
> Glad you got that at last
>
>
>> But the time difference becomes irrelevant since the c+v
>> light catches up to the c-v light at the telescope.
>

> A tireless racer that starts a race in Melbourne will run more than one than a slower racer starts in Timubuktu six years later, over endless time, but they will never meet at the same finishing post.

Idiot, the finish line is the telescope lens! The slower runner starts
running toward the telescope first, and some time later the faster one
starts running toward the telescope, so they reach it at the same time.
Or the faster one outruns the slower one and reaches the telescope
first. Both runners run the same distance. What would the operator of
the telescope see?

Both runners run the same distance, L. The faster one takes L/(c+v)
seconds to reach the telescope, while the slower one takes L/(c-v)
seconds. The faster one starts (L/(c-v)-L/(c+v)) seconds (or 2Lv/(c²-v²)
seconds) later. They arrive at the same time. So the telescope operator
will see the orbiting star twice at that time, one image on one side of
the other star and redshifted, the other on the other side of the other
star and blueshifted.

We see something similar with so-called "Einstein rings" or "Einstein
crosses" where GR causes us to see a distant galaxy multiple times. We
even got to see supernovas a few times and even knew when it would start
the second time! This is caused by a different effect, different light
paths of different lengths curved by the gravity (or space curvature) of
a foreground object so both end at earth.

> Not that I expect that this simple fact will penetrate the dull moronic mind of the moron Moroney, but who knows, wonders may never cease.

It appears that you have overranked yourself. You aren't Newton's stinky
#2, but more like ArchiePOO's #2.

[Enes Richard]

Have you already curved a straight line in space-time (1D + Time)?
This is the fundamental problem (Enes' prize awaits You), and You
are haggling over a minor matter like a pushy vendor at the market...

[Arindam Banerjee]

Listen, silly moron, there is always a finish line in every race.
When you run a race in Melbourne, there is a finish line.
When you run a race in Timubuktu, there is finish line.
it is not the same finish line.
You may take the finishing line tape from Melbourne to Timbuktu, if the race starts there later.
But it is a different race, different time, different place, different course.
Does not matter how fast the runners run, moron Moroney.

So the light from a star runs a different race (different course, different start, different finish) than light from that star six months or six years afterwards.

- snip -

Morons like Moroney can never learn, so will repeat the same moronic line moronically eternally as their little minds cannot expand nor edit - just no space there!

But tenacity needs reward; so, following Keats:

O what doth ail thee, moron Moroney,
Morose and moronically mewling?
Busted is the fake physics from emceecee
No point in thy wretched, mournful howling.