Einstein misses one important detail
The Gas Warden
speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
big brown poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
scientists, this is the case. Would the US government go out of its way
to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why the science
text books in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
issue with a ten-foot condom.
--
The Gas Warden
Phineas T Puddleduck
Nonsense. There are already VSL cosmology theories.
Cite sources.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
The Gas Warden
Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4642529a$0$4949$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> The Gas Warden <gas_w...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
>> speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
>> big brown poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
>> scientists, this is the case. Would the US government go out of its way
>> to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why the science
>> text books in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
>> issue with a ten-foot condom.
>
>
> Nonsense. There are already VSL cosmology theories.
>
> Cite sources.
Gladly.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/index.html
"How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
* Verity Edwards
* November 07, 2005
ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a maverick physicist from Adelaide.
But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old theories of relativity are wrong.
The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
up with Einstein."
There's one, and there's another from Macquarie University and the
Australian Centre for Astrobiology. 1) Lack of adequate funding and 2)
political consequences keep the message from getting out to the
mainstream.
Androcles
"The Gas Warden" <gas_w...@msn.com> wrote in message news:4642529a$0$4949$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> speed of light is a variable and not a constant?
The same thing that happens to virgin births. It continues as the religion it
already is among the Neanderthals and it's High Priests continue to get rich.
Eric Gisse
> In <phineaspuddleduck-080E70.00172210052...@news.octanews.com> Phineas T
>
>
>
> Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <4642529a$0$4949$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>,
> > The Gas Warden <gas_war...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> >> speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
> >> big brown poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
> >> scientists, this is the case. Would the US government go out of its way
> >> to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why the science
> >> text books in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
> >> issue with a ten-foot condom.
>
> > Nonsense. There are already VSL cosmology theories.
>
> > Cite sources.
>
> Gladly.
>
>
> "How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
>
> * Verity Edwards
> * November 07, 2005
>
> ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a maverick physicist from Adelaide.
> But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old theories of relativity are wrong.
>
> The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
> up with Einstein."
No, the problem for Professor Cahill is that he is an idiot who does
not know what he is doing.
karand...@yahoo.com
Cahill is a well known idiot, his papers have been proven to be
invalid. His "experiments" are trumped by prior experiments (that were
done properly), his measurements are shoddy and his theory is plain
wrong.
Phineas T Puddleduck
The Gas Warden <gas_w...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Gladly.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/index.
> html
>
Not a source, just a CNN article from 5 years ago.
> "How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
>
> * Verity Edwards
> * November 07, 2005
>
> ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a
> maverick physicist from Adelaide.
> But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old
> theories of relativity are wrong.
>
> The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
> up with Einstein."
>
> There's one, and there's another from Macquarie University and the
> Australian Centre for Astrobiology. 1) Lack of adequate funding and 2)
> political consequences keep the message from getting out to the
> mainstream.
Another Cahill slurper?
The reason why it gets no funding is that it is internally inconsistent.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"The Gas Warden" <gas_w...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4642529a$0$4949$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's
> discovered that the speed of light is a variable and
> not a constant?
It won't matter to General Relativity.
> It goes right out that big brown poop-shoot in the sky.
No.
> According to several Australian scientists, this is the
> case.
Got a citation to peer reviewed literature?
> Would the US government go out of its way to cover
> this up for the masses?
Oh hell no. They'd claim Saddam or the Taliban did it.
> Of course, and that's why the science text books in
> western schools are unlikely to ever touch this
> sensitive issue with a ten-foot condom.
You obviously haven't seen any relativity textbooks in 50 years
then.
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
> big brown poop-shoot in the sky.
Hmmm. As pointed out many times, there are situations for which the
vacuum speed of light is predicted to be different from c; all such
situations are over a non-local path. The Shapiro time delay is such an
instance.
> According to several Australian
> scientists, this is the case.
If this is Cahill, you _GREATLY_ overstate the case.
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/index.html
Hmmmm. That entire article is written in the subjunctive case, and
doesn't actually claim anything. But their discussion of speed of light
is quintessentially non-local (see above).
> "How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
> * Verity Edwards
> * November 07, 2005
What is this? It seems unrelated to the above link.
> ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a maverick physicist from Adelaide.
> But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old theories of relativity are wrong.
> The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
> up with Einstein."
Cahill's theory has basic conceptual errors at its foundation, and his
experiment has no _SIGNIFICANT_ "signal". But he does not understand
modern experimental physics and error analysis, and refuses to learn.
> There's one, and there's another from Macquarie University and the
> Australian Centre for Astrobiology. 1) Lack of adequate funding and 2)
> political consequences keep the message from getting out to the
> mainstream.
This is utter nonsense. A clear and reproducible demonstration that
relativity is incorrect would be FRONT-PAGE NEWS in scientific journals
around the world. This would be Nobel Prize material, _IF_ it is clear
and REPRODUCIBLE. So far, not a single experiment that claims to see an
anisotropy or other local variation in the vacuum speed of light is
either believable or reproducible. Including Cahill's (yes, he doesn't
use vacuum). Including that link above.
[Cahill claims a long list of experiments he thinks are
consistent with his result. But he makes comparisons without
errorbars, and EVERY ONE of those experiments is actually
consistent with the null result predicted by SR, because the
errorbars are so large. Including his.]
The reason Cahill (and other similar authors) cannot get their papers
published in peer-reviewed journals is their technique is woefully
inadequate. His papers are just riddled with elementary errors. Ditto
for many/most other "dissident" authors who claim relativity is wrong.
Tom Roberts
Uncle Al
>
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> speed of light is a variable and not a constant?
Lightspeed is an exact value not a measurement. What happens when
somebody shoves Lorentz Invariance up your ass? This happens,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sam Wormley
Cahill doesn't understand General Relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts wrote:
> The Gas Warden wrote:
> > What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> > speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
> > big brown poop-shoot in the sky.
>
> Hmmm. As pointed out many times, there are situations for which the
> vacuum speed of light is predicted to be different from c; all such
> situations are over a non-local path.
And in such situations the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 is
consistent with the variable speed of light isn't it hmmm Roberts
Roberts? If you hmmm Roberts Roberts and your student Paul Andersen
had not declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) for the
variable speed of light wrong, one would think the redshift factor is
consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation as well. Now hmmm Roberts
Roberts one does not know what to think: the redshift factor 1+V/c^2
and the variable speed c'=c(1+V/c^2) look indeed consistent but when
the Albert Einstein of our generation tells you Einstein was wrong
about c'=c(1+V/c^2)..... And hmmm Roberts Roberts you are really the
Albert Einstein of our generation aren't you.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
news:1178783279....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> And in such situations the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 is
> consistent with the variable speed of light isn't it hmmm Roberts
> Roberts? If you hmmm Roberts Roberts and your student Paul Andersen
> had not declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) for the
> variable speed of light wrong, one would think the redshift factor is
> consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation as well. Now hmmm Roberts
> Roberts one does not know what to think: the redshift factor 1+V/c^2
> and the variable speed c'=c(1+V/c^2) look indeed consistent but when
> the Albert Einstein of our generation tells you Einstein was wrong
> about c'=c(1+V/c^2)..... And hmmm Roberts Roberts you are really the
> Albert Einstein of our generation aren't you.
Sounds like gibberish to me
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> As pointed out many times, there are situations for which the
>> vacuum speed of light is predicted to be different from c; all such
>> situations are over a non-local path.
>
> And in such situations the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 is
> consistent with the variable speed of light isn't it
No. One such instance is the Shapiro time delay, in which radar beams
were sent round trip to venus and mars from earth. When the light path
grazes the sun, the return is "delayed", which is equivalent to saying
the speed of light is less than c over this path. But V (the
gravitational potential) at both ends remains unchanged. The actual
computation involves an integral over the connection and the tangent
vector of the light path, not your overly simplistic formula.
As I have said before, Einstein made mistakes on the road to GR. But he
at least had the wit to correct them; you act completely witless.
I repeat: rather than wasting your time posting nonsense to the net, you
should LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > As pointed out many times, there are situations for which the
> >> vacuum speed of light is predicted to be different from c; all such
> >> situations are over a non-local path.
> >
> > And in such situations the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 is
> > consistent with the variable speed of light isn't it
>
> No. One such instance is the Shapiro time delay, in which radar beams
> were sent round trip to venus and mars from earth. When the light path
> grazes the sun, the return is "delayed", which is equivalent to saying
> the speed of light is less than c over this path. But V (the
> gravitational potential) at both ends remains unchanged. The actual
> computation involves an integral over the connection and the tangent
> vector of the light path, not your overly simplistic formula.
My overly simplistic formula??? I have just used
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
according to which the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 is
consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing the
variation of the speed of light. Do you agree they are consistent
Roberts Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
Igor
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> speed of light is a variable and not a constant?
Absolutely nothing, since spacetime would still be hyperbolic.
Igor
> In <phineaspuddleduck-080E70.00172210052...@news.octanews.com> Phineas T
>
>
>
>
>
> Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <4642529a$0$4949$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>,
>
> >> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> >> speed of light is a variable and not a constant? It goes right out that
> >> big brown poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
> >> scientists, this is the case. Would the US government go out of its way
> >> to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why the science
> >> text books in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
> >> issue with a ten-foot condom.
>
> > Nonsense. There are already VSL cosmology theories.
>
> > Cite sources.
>
> Gladly.
>
>
> "How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
>
> * Verity Edwards
> * November 07, 2005
>
> ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a maverick physicist from Adelaide.
> But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old theories of relativity are wrong.
>
> The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
> up with Einstein."
>
> There's one, and there's another from Macquarie University and the
> Australian Centre for Astrobiology. 1) Lack of adequate funding and 2)
> political consequences keep the message from getting out to the
> mainstream
First of all, E = mc^2 is a consequence of relativity and not the
basis of the theory. Just another example of popular science writing
gone amok.
Sam Wormley
Spacetime on the large scale is flat.
Igor
But that can be true of elliptical metrics or hyperbolic metrics. By
the way, I wasn't referring to the curvature, but to the metric
itself.
The_Man
wrote:
> "The Gas Warden" <gas_war...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:4642529a$0$4949$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> > What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's discovered that the
> > speed of light is a variable and not a constant?
>
> The same thing that happens to virgin births.
"virgin birth" (parthenogenesis) is actually rather widespread among
both plants and animals. Yet another example of Androcles ignorance.
> It continues as the religion it
> already is among the Neanderthals and it's High Priests continue to get rich.
It's "its" and not "it's".
>
>
>
> > It goes right out that
> > big brown poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
> > scientists, this is the case. Would the US government go out of its way
> > to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why the science
> > text books in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
> > issue with a ten-foot condom.
>
> > --
>
> > The Gas Warden- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
There's another esteemed scientist (Ed Conrad) who has proof that
certain lumps of coal are human femurs, proof that humans were around
from the days of dinosaurs. Would the US government go out if its way
to cover this up for the masses? Of course, and that's why science
textbooks in western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
issue with a ten-foot diaphragm.
But just as an interesting note, it does beg the question why an
esteemed Australian scientist can't get a reputable Australian
textbook publisher to print a textbook for Australian schools that
does touch the aforementioned sensitive issue. Must be the threat of
an American invasion or NATO-imposed economic sanctions if such a book
were published.
PD
mathematician
If I remember right:
The speed of light in vacuum and the universal constant of gravity
are both really constants in the Universe (writings about
H-M's Universe have been in the net in the years 1992-2007).
Hannu
Dave L. Renfro
> What happens to the Theory of Relativity when it's
> discovered that the speed of light is a variable and
> not a constant? It goes right out that big brown
> poop-shoot in the sky. According to several Australian
> scientists, this is the case. Would the US government
> go out of its way to cover this up for the masses?
> Of course, and that's why the science text books in
> western schools are unlikely to ever touch this sensitive
> issue with a ten-foot condom.
The correct word is "if", not "when". Even if the speed
of light is variable, this might never be discovered.
Mankind might die out of something before learning this,
for all we know now.
But I think you're overlooking the most important issue. It's
not that Einstein was wrong about certain things -- he almost
certainly was, given the past development of physics. Rather,
it's being able to explain all the effects of relativity
in the context of whatever theory replaces relativity.
The effects I'm talking about are the large number of
results that have been experimentally supported and the
even larger number of predictable results that arise
from daily calculations which take into account relativistic
effects.
Incidentally, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone
in the U.S. government who is involved with public school
issues is paying any attention to cutting edge research
in theoretical physics, or even has the background to.
In fact, I can't even think of a reasonable explanation
for why someone who knows the least bit about the backgrounds
of educational policy makers and theoretical physicists
would even think this is possible.
Dave L. Renfro
karand...@yahoo.com
You forgot to add "idiot" to the description:
Androcles
"mathematician" <hapo...@luukku.com> wrote in message news:1178855618.9...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
And you call yourself a mathematician?
If I remember right all velocities are relative to something, therefore you remember wrong.
The Gas Warden
> In article <46425b6a$0$5102$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> The Gas Warden <gas_w...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gladly.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/index.
>> html
>>
>
> Not a source, just a CNN article from 5 years ago.
2005 was 5 years ago? And you claim to be a graduate student? If
that's true, it must have something to do with affirmative action.
>> "How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking
>>
>> * Verity Edwards
>> * November 07, 2005
>>
>> ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a
>> maverick physicist from Adelaide.
>> But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old
>> theories of relativity are wrong.
>>
>> The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line
>> up with Einstein."
>>
>> There's one, and there's another from Macquarie University and the
>> Australian Centre for Astrobiology. 1) Lack of adequate funding and 2)
>> political consequences keep the message from getting out to the
>> mainstream.
>
>
> Another Cahill slurper?
>
> The reason why it gets no funding is that it is internally inconsistent.
The opinion of someone who can't perform single-digit arithmetic means
absolutely SQUAT to me.
karand...@yahoo.com
> In <phineaspuddleduck-037B18.02155610052...@news.octanews.com> Phineas T
>
> Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <46425b6a$0$5102$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>,> >> Gladly.
>
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspe....
> >> html
>
> > Not a source, just a CNN article from 5 years ago.
>
> 2005 was 5 years ago? And you claim to be a graduate student? If
Cretin, look at your link, 2002 is how many years ago? No wonder at 34
you still live with your mother and you can't find any other woman..
mathematician
wrote:
> "mathematician" <hapor...@luukku.com> wrote in messagenews:1178855618.9...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Maybe the correct statement should be stated more clearly that the
local velocity of light
in vacuum is really constant in the Universe (and also that the
universal constant of gravity
is relally constant in the Universe). (This would mean that these
constants
does not vary with time.)
Hannu
Androcles
: On May 12, 10:47 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
How long does it take to get a signal to the Cassini space probe
at Saturn, and how long does it take to get an answer?
Points to remember:
1) The Earth is moving at 18.5 miles a second.
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/uninow/orrery/
so I want a figure for this current month while Earth is moving away.
2) speed is distance/time.
3) Cassini's clock is set to UTC
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
"From Saturn, one-way light time can range from about one hour and 14
minutes to one hour and 24 minutes. "
The Gas Warden
karand...@yahoo.com wrote:
That baseless claim of yours is about as accurate as just about ANYTHING
ever written by Carl Jung -- 100% pure cattle dung. You managed to
cite my correct age, you real-lifing scum bucket, but you got my domestic
situation all wrong. You must be a Neo-Freudian.
THE_ONE
wrote:
> "mathematician" <hapor...@luukku.com> wrote in messagenews:1178855618.9...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, all velocities are relative to the speed of the objects motion
across the dimension of Time. All objects have the same magnitude of
motion within Space-Time. All that can be done is change the
direction of travel within the four dimensions of that Space-Time.
Jeckyl
news:1179369244.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Yep, all velocities are relative to the speed of the objects motion
> across the dimension of Time. All objects have the same magnitude of
> motion within Space-Time. All that can be done is change the
> direction of travel within the four dimensions of that Space-Time.
Gibberish
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> According to several Australian
> scientists, this is the case.
Got a cite?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel