EINSTEINIANS: EINSTEIN'S EQUATION IS WRONG
Pentcho Valev
speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential. The equation is consistent with
the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
field.
Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
Paul B. Andersen wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> Photons move in a gravitational field and either undergo acceleration
> >>> (e.g. their speed becomes c'>c=300000km/s) or do not undergo
> >>> acceleration (that is, their speed remains c=300000km/s). If they
> >>> undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is
> >>> due to the variable speed of light, in accordance with the formula
> >>> c'=Lf', where L is wavelength and f is frequency. If the photons do not
> >>> undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is
> >>> due to gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength, in
> >>> accordance with the formula c=L'f'. It is easy to see that c'=Lf' and
> >>> c=L'f' are the only possibilities. Roughly speaking, either variable
> >>> speed of light and no gravitational time dilation, or gravitational
> >>> time dilation and constant speed of light.
> >>>
> >>> Initially Einstein chose c'=Lf':
> >>> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :
> >>> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in
> >>> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> >>> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
> >>> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> >>> of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front,
> >>> taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at
> >>> different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to
> >>> derive the deflection of the light by the star.
> >>> Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
> >>> "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen
> >>> der Physik, 35, 1911.
> >>> which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
> >>> about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
> >>> find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of
> >>> Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
> >>> derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
> >>> potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> >>> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
> >>> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> >>> speed of light c0 is measured."
> >>
> >> It is a well known fact that this line of thought
> >> give the wrong result. Considering light to be "falling"
> >> like Einstein did in this paper, does _not_ give the same
> >> prediction for the bending of light as GR does, it
> >> predicts only half the angle.
> >> Later observations have proven GR to give the correct
> >> prediction.
> >>
> >> This shows that the bending of light cannot be explained
> >> by light falling in a Newtonian gravitational field.
> >> Einstein's paper:
> >> "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
> >> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
> >> was simply wrong.
> >
> > So Einstein's 1911 formula
> >
> > c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
> >
> > is wrong?
>
> Yes.
Pentcho Valev
va...@cox.net
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
> speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential. The equation is consistent with
> the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
> variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
> DILATION.
You couldn't be more wrong. You're probably the most ignorant poster in
the history of this newsgroup.
Bruce
Eric Gisse
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1911
Why are you so fucking stupid?
Paul B. Andersen
> In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
> speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential.
5 years before GR.
> The equation is consistent with
> the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
> variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
> DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
> converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
> the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
> field.
>
> Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
> in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
> Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
Einstein himself obviously 'declared the equation wrong'
in 1916 when he published GR.
Einstein was wrong in 1911.
He corrected it in 1916.
Why do you find this so hard to accept?
Don't you think Einstein ever could be wrong? :-)
Paul
Sorcerer
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:eigg32$a0t$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
| > speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
| > where V is the gravitational potential.
|
| 5 years before GR.
|
|
| > The equation is consistent with
| > the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
| > variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
| > DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
| > converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
| > the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
| > field.
| >
| > Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
| > in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
| > Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
|
| Einstein himself obviously 'declared the equation wrong'
| in 1916 when he published GR.
|
| Einstein was wrong in 1911.
| He corrected it in 1916.
| Why do you find this so hard to accept?
| Don't you think Einstein ever could be wrong? :-)
|
| Paul
In 1920 he brought it back again.
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with
the Principle of Relativity
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which
light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes
he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a
velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.
Do you think ... oops.... of course not.
Do not you ever have the opinion that Einstein was a
self-contradictory shithead like you? :-)
Why do you find this so hard to accept?
And to add Dork Van de merde's psychotic question:
How old are you?
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
Quite.
Einstein wasted most of his adult life on a theory which lead nowhere.
In his later years he contributed very little to physics,
and was considered an old 'tusseladd' out of touch with current physics.
But SR and GR still made him one of the greatest physicist of
the 20th century.
Paul
Sorcerer
The 20th century was the age of lunacy. Being a lunatic yourself,
naturally you'd worship him as your hero.
He didn't waste his life, though. He was first and foremost a gambler
and second a philanderer. I sure he was happy.
a.. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in
the opposite direction." - Einstein.
a..
You lack that courage, Tusselad.
a.. "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." -
Einstein.
a.. (Like you, he didn't have any education)
See what a shit you are, interfering with education?
a.. "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
a.. "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when
we created them."
Still insisting the B-field is in phase with the E-field, dingbat?
"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at
it." (and I don't)
a.. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
I'm untouchable, shithead, I do not have a theory, I rely on empirical data
only :-)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
ROFL!
Androcles.
Double-A
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
> speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential. The equation is consistent with
> the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
> variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
> DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
> converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
> the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
> field.
>
> Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
> in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
> Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light
in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in
the special theory of relativity and to which we have already
frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature
of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation
of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence
of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory
of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot
claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as
we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the
phenomena (e.g. of light). Albert Einstein - 1920.
Light passing near the Sun slows down as measured from the Earth. But
if one measured its speed on location in the gravitational field of the
Sun, measurements done there would indicate the light was travelling at
c due to the effect of the time dilatation there on the measurements.
Why is there any contradiction here?
Double-A
Sorcerer
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:1162657418....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
You can't even measure the speed of Mercury from Earth without
using the speed of light, let alone measure the speed of light using
the speed of light. You are a fucking bullshitter.
Androcles
Ajay Sharma
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of
Relativity
Einstein’s June 1905, paper is known as Special Theory of
Relativity?
The reference to this paper
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
In this paper Einstein stated two postulates and here we will discuss
the second postulate.
Part I
Second postulate of Special Relativity as re-stated by
Einstein
(i) “The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one
or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory
motion”.
It refer to that law of physics are the same, if two systems or
observers are UNIFROM MOTION (zero acceleration).
I t is well known that in this paper Einstein did not give any REFRENCE
to the existing literature, which implies that all this postulate is
his work .
Part II
Galileo is inventor of Second postulate of special Relativity.
Galileo has given second postulate of Special Theory in his book
Galileo’ Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems),
Ref.
Galileo, G. 1632, Dialogues concerning the two chief world systems,
trans. S.Drake, 2nd edition 1967, University of California Press.
For this book was published by Galileo in 1632 and was persecuted for
this book.
Galileo quoted an example in the Dialogue [14] , that if a ship is
moving with uniform velocity then from motion of fish in bottle one can
not judge that whether ship is moving with uniform velocity or at rest.
Thus Galileo stated
“ the mechanical laws of physics are the same for every observer
moving uniformly with constant speed in a straight line".
It refer to that law of physics are the same, if two systems or
observers are UNIFROM MOTION (zero acceleration).
The Einstein has simply re-stated in 1905, the existing in the
literature since 273 years. It is against ethics of research. Einstein
should have given due credit to Galileo. Even at this time it I not too
late to honour Galileo for basics of Special Theory of Relativity.
Ref BOOK 100 Years of E=mc2
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
(Book will be published in Dec. 2006, By NOVA Science, New York, USA)
Even Pope John has pardoned Galileo in 1992 for the book, he was
persecuted.
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Second Post
Which mathematical equation from Einstein’s Sep. 1905 derivation
predicts that when Light Energy is emitted, MASS OF BODY INCREASES?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which mathematical equation from Einstein’s Sep. 1905
derivation predicts that when Light Energy is emitted, MASS OF BODY
INCREASES?
BRIEF
Einstein has speculated E= Δm c2 from L= Δm c2 in his Sep 1905
paper. This derivation ( under SPECIAL CONDITIONS) predicts that when
Light Energy is emitted mass of body decreases. It is true. But the
same derivation under general conditions ALSO predicts that when body
emits light energy its mass must increase. It is inconsistent
prediction from Einstein’s derivation and contradiction of Law of
Conservation of Matter or Energy. Einstein did not discuss this aspect
in his work. This aspect is highlighted here.
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
( book will be published in Dec 2006 , by NOVA Science in New York ,
USA)
1. What is Einstein’s Sep 1905 paper in few words?.
AJAY SHARMA : In this paper Einstein derived a relationship between
Light energy emitted (L) and corresponding decrease in mass (Δm =
Mb-Ma ) as
L = ( Mb-Ma)c2 or Mb–Ma = L/c2
From here Einstein speculated E=mc2
Practically, Einstein considered a body at rest emitting light energy.
Einstein measured the magnitude of light energy in a moving system. And
then he derived a relation between ENERGY EMITTED (L) and DECREASE IN
MASS (Δm) of body.
2. Under which conditions Einstein derived this equation L = Δmc2 ?
AJAY SHARMA: In Einstein’s derivation , there are four variables i.e.
(a) Number of light waves emitted by body
(b) Magnitude of energy of light waves
(c) Angles at which waves are emitted by body
(d) Velocity of measuring system w.r.t. body emitting light energy.
Einstein took SPECIAL CONDITIONS to derive L =mc2 and speculated from
it E=mc2
(a) Einstein took , Just two light waves
(b) Energy of light wave is equal
(c) Waves are emitted in opposite directions
(d) Velocity measuring system w.r.t body is in classical region.
Thus under these conditions Einstein’s derivation is OK. The result
is
When body emits light energy, its mass decreases i.e. L = ( Mb-Ma)c2
It is correct.
3. What about Law of Conservation of momentum?
AJAY SHARMA : After emission of light energy body
(i) May remain at rest.
(ii) May tend to move
(iii) May move apparently or visibly
the law of conservation of momentum is always obeyed. The velocity of
recoil can be calculated by applying equation,
Initial Momentum = Final Momentum
The velocity of recoil of gun is determined by this method.
Einstein has considered first case ONLY.
4. Which is the mathematical equation obtained by Einstein in Sep 1905
paper which predict that
When light energy is emitted, mass decreases?
AJAY SHARMA: The final equation in this regard is
Δm = L /c2
or Ma ( mass of body after emission) = Mb ( mass of body before
emission) – L/c2
Thus mass of body decreases when light energy is emitted.
Einstein has derived this equation under SPECIAL CONDITIONS by
considering two light waves of equal energy( 0.5L each ) , emitted in
opposite directions etc.
5. Which is mathematical equation which follows from Einstein’s
derivation and implies that
when Light Energy is Emitted mass of body Increases?
AJAY SHARMA There are numerous equations to this fact
which follows from Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation and predict that
when
Light Energy is emitted, Mass of Body Increases.
It is contradiction of LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER OR ENERGY.
One case is e.g. when body emits TWO LIGHT WAVES of energies 0.501L
and 0.499L , emitted in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. Thus all conditions are
same as that in Einstein’s derivation except magnitude of Light
energy (Einstein has taken energy equal to 0.5L each).
Exactly repeating the calculation as done by Einstein in Sep 1905 paper
we get
Δ m = Mass of body before emission (Mb)–Mass of body after emission
(Ma)
= – 0.004L/cv + L/c2
(16)
or Ma = 0.004L/cv – L/c2 + Mb
Thus
Mass of body after emission of light energy (Ma)
= Positive Quantity + Mass of body before
emission.
Hence mass Increases, when light energy is emitted.
It is not CORRECT prediction FROM Einstein’s derivation.
Third Post
Why Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation CONTRADICTS Law of
Conservation of Matter?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation CONTRADICTS Law of Conservation
of Matter ?
Part I
Reason for this incorrect deductions.
The central equation in Einstein derivation is very complex .
(i) The basic equation Einstein used is
ℓ* = ℓ{1 – v cos φ/c } /√[1 – v2 /c2] (1)
ℓ* is light energy measured in moving in frame and ℓ is energy
measured in rest frame. Einstein has given eq.(1) in his June 1905
paper, known as Special Theory of Relativity and called eq.(1) as
Doppler principle for any velocities whatever. Link for paper of
Special Theory of Relativity
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(ii) Thus there are many variables in derivation.
(a) Number of light waves
(b) Magnitude of energy of light waves
(c) Angles at which waves are emitted
(d) Velocity of measuring system w.r.t. body emitting light energy.
Einstein took special conditions to derive L =mc2 or E=mc2
(a) Einstein took , Just two light waves
(b) Energy of light wave is equal
(c) Waves are emitted in opposite directions
(d) Velocity measuring system w.r.t body is in classical region.
Thus under these SPECIAL conditions Einstein’s derivation is OK. The
result is
When body emits light energy , its mass decreases.
Part III
Experimentally law of inter conversion of mass energy holds good in all
cases. Theoretically large number of cases is possible (Einstein ‘s
derivation is valid under these conditions also).
(p) Body may emit large number of waves
(q) The waves may be emitted at different angles.
(r) The waves may have different energies.
(t) Velocity may be in relativistic region.
THUS UNDER GEENRAL CONDITIONS EINTEIN’S SEP. 27 1905 DERIVATION DOES
NOT WORK WELL.
You have commented about sign CHANGE it follows from Einstein’s
derivation, hence it has limitation.
If you think , I have INCORRECTLY induced it , let me know. Write down
the correct equations for the readers.
So Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation is true under special conditions
only. This is the THEME of the paper.
References
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If somebody disagree then one can write to Editor Physics Essays
addressing the following issues.
What is Einstein’s Sep 1905 paper?
What are conditions under which it is derived?
What is Planck’s observation regarding it?
Under what conditions experimentally it holds good?
Why Einstein did not generalize the same?
How to generalize it under all conditions?
What is Ajay Sharma’s Interpretation?
How Ajay Sharma’s paper is different from Einstein’s Sep 1905
paper.
How Editors/referees who have published it are WRONG?
How Ajay Sharma’s interpretation is incorrect (if it)?
What are the correct interpretations AND EQAUTIONS?
My paper answers all above questions.
It follows from Einstein’s derivation under legitimate conditions,(in
some cases) that
when Light Energy is Emitted , mass of body INCREASES.
It is incorrect deduction from Einstein’s derivation.
Part IV
References.
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow, (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
( book will be published in Dec 2006 , by NOVA Science in New York ,
USA)
AJAY SHARMA 5 NOV 2006
Sorcerer
"Ajay Sharma" <ajay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162721624.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip river of shit]
Start here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Empirical data has to be interpreted correctly to make sense.
nightbat
Double-A wrote:
nightbat
Because there is a real world and a fantasy sci fi or human
multi imaginary one. Dr. Einstein cautioned in reference to his theories
that they could not be viewed or claim unlimited validity due to real
world reality of gravity fields. The time dilatation factor is a real
one due to the diversified fields attempts at rectification to perfect
momentum. The actual unified field has never existed in our space time
therefore no comparative frame has ever existed to observe or verifiably
permit casual or mathematical affirmation. Dr. Einstein shun no evidence
imaginary or what he considered metascience (Quantum Theory solution) as
too intricate and uncertain. He always sought physical applicable
provable solutions and concrete supportive evidence to hopeful field
unity which he never achieved or realized. He did not uncertain quantum
theory or on chance concur that God plays dice with the world. He was
correct the field is reciprocal to itself.
But not until the nightbat and my united field equation /\ = TS4 was the
field able to finally be viewed from base present reality of disturbed
perfect uniform energy momentum. No physical observable present known
energy designer, force, or natural mechanism exists to place the field
back into uniform energy momentum in which it seeks, (field latent
memory). This premise is in compliance with conservation of energy
principle, Newton law, Einstein relativity, multi religious
understanding, and real world observation.
It's therefore not enough to be just applied mathematical correct but
the real world reality should coincide and not be restricted based to
human limited fundamental reason understanding or interpretation,
including when permitting demanding comfirmable observation. Rely more
on cause and effect and if there is an effect search out the base cause
via pointing actual physical evidentiary effects. That which is
invisible and unseen but which leaves physical tracks or effects is a
cause mechanism and can be considered real even though not condensed
mass physical or observable itself. Quantum applied field theory works
because of the verified effects.
Continue your excellent inquiries Commander into deep quantum micro
understanding and time differential effects.
carry on,
the nightbat
AJAY SHARMA
------------------------
-------------------------------------
-===============
Thus should Galileo be given credit for doing pioneering work in the
field of SPECILA THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
It is the basic question.
See the references below.
Existing reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Einstein's references
Title of Einstein's paper ( June 2006) , which is well known as
SPECILA THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Title of paper
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES.
Print Reference
Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik, 17 891-921 (1905).
Web. Reference
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The two postulates are quoted in section
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and
on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two
principles we define as follows:--
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body.
So whatever I have written is based upon these facts.
Further references
100 Years of E=mc2
(Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
USA)
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
AJAY SHARMA 5TH Nov 2006.
Art Deco
What do the symbols in your "equation" stand for, frootbat?
>No physical observable present known
>energy designer, force, or natural mechanism exists to place the field
>back into uniform energy momentum in which it seeks, (field latent
>memory). This premise is in compliance with conservation of energy
>principle, Newton law, Einstein relativity, multi religious
>understanding, and real world observation.
>
>It's therefore not enough to be just applied mathematical correct but
>the real world reality should coincide and not be restricted based to
>human limited fundamental reason understanding or interpretation,
>including when permitting demanding comfirmable observation. Rely more
>on cause and effect and if there is an effect search out the base cause
>via pointing actual physical evidentiary effects. That which is
>invisible and unseen but which leaves physical tracks or effects is a
>cause mechanism and can be considered real even though not condensed
>mass physical or observable itself. Quantum applied field theory works
>because of the verified effects.
>
>Continue your excellent inquiries Commander into deep quantum micro
>understanding and time differential effects.
>
> carry on,
> the nightbat
For his profound quantum applied field word salad, I nominate frootbat
for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award for Nov. 2006.
Any seconds?
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
Hi, fanbois!
honestjohn
"Art Deco" <er...@netcabal.com> wrote in message
> For his profound quantum applied field word salad, I nominate frootbat
> for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award for Nov. 2006.
>
> Any seconds?
>
I can never get enough of hearing about your perversion!
HJ
------
"I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear Papa !" - Colorado Carl
[a.k.a. Art Deco]
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.men/msg/3f27f0cc153e109b?dmode=source
Ajay Sharma
--------------------------
the latest
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein-is-inventor-of-second-postulate.htm
honestjohn
H.J.
honestjohn
stewed:
> Pierced sexpot with infected chumino and non-functional ottomans goes
> hungry for half-pint monkey for unending backseat mambo. Mail me at
> <hones...@centurytel.net>
honestjohn
nobility, palpitated:
> that contained so much information about time travell and the
> knowledge of the Super universes... But the constant experience of Me,
> the constant persistent recognition of My Work in daily happenings -
> the ever accumulating weight of evidence in support of My Guidance -
> the numberless instances in which seeming chance or wonderful
> coincidence can be, must be, traced back to My loving forethought --
> all these gradually engender a feeling of wonder, certainty,
> gratitude, followed in time by Joy... Food supply's will be poisoned,
> Watershortage all over the world, and the uncontrollable weather
> conditions... Please ask Charlie Chan if he working late these days
> than get back in touch with his old boss... Jesus... It must be
> rebuild before we can ettlablish Contact with the pirates of Space...
> when they shouted loud tiil the X generation your are doomed...
> Freewill and pre-determination are not necessarily mutually
> exclusive... This mission is not as complicated as it looks... and
> Atlas I think is on the back my of my upper arm left, but I am not
> sure anymore... Why you keep reading what I post... I did not fill the
> boat with fishes without effort on their part... Here you have the
> Great theft of the Baraka that rulled the Lands and so we got the
> birth of the Pirate Nation what was become the Moorish Civilisation of
> light... So you zionist garbage can continue to tel lies to world...
> All else follows so naturally, and union with Me may be the result of
> just consciousness of My Presence... BUT DOES MAN WANT TO SURVIVE
> remains for me a open question... Dr Horwall becomes our eyes and ears
> as all the news channels scramble to cover the impending
> catastrophe... Ha Ha Ha... But are you sure that this are the Marks of
> the Sun of man, were we are talking about... with Doom of Coffee boy's
> Monsters and some were even killed with Meteors... Ta-da! No, you are
> a zionist coward, who is afraid to give his life, as all the jews are
> afraid of their own shadow now!!!
Double-A
But you can measure the speed of radio waves passing near the Sun on
their way to Earth from Mars, and they do slow down as measured from
Earth.
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
Double-A
Sorcerer
| http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
Oh, I see. You think its that simple, huh?
Not a bad gif, even if wrong. Let me explain why.
Take a look at this:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Are we not "on the roundabout"?
The ball doesn't follow a straight line as seen from the roundabout,
does it?
What I suggest you do (merely a suggestion) is to animate
a single "bounce" with two curved paths between Earth and Mars.
Then if you want to get really fancy, exaggerate the eccentricity
of the orbits as a teaching aid. I'll leave it to you to get it right,
but your straight lines assume the speed of light is infinite.
In reality it'll take half an hour get a signal to Mars and another
30 minutes back again for a one hour round trip, but 30 minutes
is not exactly half an hour for the trips.
Something like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro.JPG
This may help you with frame shifting, both of which allow
a change of observer point-of-view.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/applets/Retro/frame.html
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
When you've done that you can write a paper, because the
data is very much affected by the coriolis effect, which is the
curvature predicted by Newton that was different to the curvature
predicted by Einstein that Eddington sought and the result was found
to be inconclusive.
You can use Shapiro's raw data, just remember to use Newton's
real physics instead of Einstein's incompetent bullshit.
Real physics and mathematics are a lot tougher than you think.
Androcles
Double-A
Well, I'll admit this much, those were some fun applets you provided!
Double-A
Sorcerer
Yeah well, just quit trying to con anyone with more than half a brain
that Einstein knew anything, eh? The guy was a better huckster than
I'll ever be, but still a huckster. Mathematician and physicist he was not,
even if he took you and your teachers for a ride down the garden path.
The name "Einstein" comes up more in the popular press than
any other scientist, you don't have to be an Einstein to see that.
And the popular press is the "National Enquirer", read by imbeciles.
It's all about money, son. Bread and circuses.
I'll go to my grave KNOWING something I found out for myself,
and that gives me more contentment than spending a lifetime
as a fakir.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
Double-A
These are interesting animations, and I would hope others in
alt.astronomy would take a look at them. I hope they will also take a
look at the gravity simulation animations you submitted earlier in the
thread. I especially liked the simulations where the careening moon
ended up crashing into the planet! That might very well be the sort of
thing that will happen with that asteroid Apophis that David Tholen
discovered when in makes its close approaches to Earth in the 2030's!
But since you hold that the speed of light varies depending on the
velocity of the source, how do you explain the results of the
experiments of De Sitter and his successors, who verified that the
double images of binary stars that would be expected if the speed of
the light received equaled c + v where in fact never seen, even though
they observed many binary stars?
That is what you would need to explain.
Double-A
Double-A
Koobee Wublee
> > In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
> > speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> > where V is the gravitational potential.
>
> 5 years before GR.
4 years before GR. You are off by 25%. If your background is physics,
it is no big deal. On the other hand, if your background is
engineering, 25% off is absolutely fatal.
> > The equation is consistent with
>
> > the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
> > variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
> > DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
> > converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
> > the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
> > field.
>
> > Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
> > in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
> > Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
>
> Einstein himself obviously 'declared the equation wrong'
> in 1916 when he published GR.
Einstein did not understand anything at the end of 1915 and afterwards.
> Einstein was wrong in 1911.
Einstein was wrong in all cases. After 1915, he became a puppet. On
the subjects of GR, it was totally absurd and wrong.
> He corrected it in 1916.
You mean Hilbert's BS Lagrangian had a different point of view.
> Why do you find this so hard to accept?
No, it is so easy.
> Don't you think Einstein ever could be wrong?
Einstein is always wrong. Starting with his 1905 papers, they were
full of mistakes. Again, does anyone want to go through them line by
line in which I would be more than happy to oblige? His own version of
the principle of Equivalence does not have any impact at all in the
development of physics afterwards. His fantasy about himself with
Grossmann in free fall did not go anywhere in the development of GR.
Koobee Wublee
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that, in a gravitational field, the
> > speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> > where V is the gravitational potential. The equation is consistent with
> > the redshift factor 1+V/c^2 which means that the redshift is due to
> > variable speed of light and therefore there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME
> > DILATION. Finally, the application of the equivalence principle
> > converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of
> > the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational
> > field.
Yes, this showed Einstein did not know what he was talking about. In
1905, after declaring a constancy in the speed of light by
reverse-engineering the Lorentz transform, the issue should be settled
in accordance to Einstein/Poincare/Lorentz's logic.
> > Clearly the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is fatal for Einstein's theory so,
> > in order to save the theory, Einsteinians are forced to declare
> > Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) wrong:
>
> "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
> theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light
> in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in
> the special theory of relativity and to which we have already
> frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature
> of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation
> of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence
> of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory
> of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
> case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot
> claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as
> we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the
> phenomena (e.g. of light). Albert Einstein - 1920.
This is more of a blunder than the Cosmological constant. This shows
Einstein did not really have any grasp in the real world physics.
<shrug>
> Light passing near the Sun slows down as measured from the Earth. But
> if one measured its speed on location in the gravitational field of the
> Sun, measurements done there would indicate the light was travelling at
> c due to the effect of the time dilatation there on the measurements.
> Why is there any contradiction here?
If light was traveling at c at any point in space and any moment in
time, how do you account for the gravitational time dilation?
Sorcerer
[snipping old material]
|
| These are interesting animations, and I would hope others in
| alt.astronomy would take a look at them. I hope they will also take a
| look at the gravity simulation animations you submitted earlier in the
| thread. I especially liked the simulations where the careening moon
| ended up crashing into the planet! That might very well be the sort of
| thing that will happen with that asteroid Apophis that David Tholen
| discovered when in makes its close approaches to Earth in the 2030's!
|
| But since you hold that the speed of light varies depending on the
| velocity of the source, how do you explain the results of the
| experiments of De Sitter and his successors, who verified that the
| double images of binary stars that would be expected if the speed of
| the light received equaled c + v where in fact never seen, even though
| they observed many binary stars?
|
| That is what you would need to explain.
To whom? Let's back up a tad. The issue was:
"Was Einstein right or wrong?"
The key to answering that is to examine what he said and compare
that to the empirical data.
Are the observations consistent with a complex theory, a simple theory
or both?
For that we invoke Ockham's Razor.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
Look at this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif
In the image the straw is broken, I can see it is.
That sounds simple, but in reality it is an extremely complex
theory. As I slowly immerse the straw into the water it breaks
off at the air/water interface and magically grows beneath it.
The simple explanation is that the velocity of light changes.
We call that refraction.
DeSitter says that's what he sees. He then says...
IF (what I see isn't what is there),
THEN (I should see a double image).
Ok, why can't he see two stars for Algol?
He can see three stars for the nearest star system.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030323.html
Can you?
He can see two stars for Sirius.
Here they are in x-ray:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html
It's only 8 light years away and takes 50 years to orbit.
Easy to see, right?
So why can't he see two stars for Algol?
Would you like to see a double image of one star?
Try this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
There it is, a double image, VERIFIED.
You want me to tell others.
You tell the Pope and millions of Catholics that Jesus Christ
was not born of a virgin. When you've convinced them, tell me
what drug you used on them and I'll have a go at the astronomers.
People want to believe in magic, charlatans and fortune-tellers
have been with us for millennia and they always disguise themselves
as holy men, witch doctors, priests, scientists. Nostradamus
foretold the future... but he left out the atom bomb and the Apollo
moon landings. Now we're burdened with conspiracy theorists,
the US government caused two planes to crash into the World
Trade Centre. The pilots were really working for George Bush
and wanted to be martyrs to the Republicans in the interests
of US politics.
I'm sure the London bombings were carried out by Tony Blair, too.
Get used to the idea ... people are NUTS.
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from
Androcles. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in
the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
Sorcerer
Wackypedia is the worst crap imaginable, written by fuckwits.
"Ritz's theory would force us to assume that the motion of the double stars
is governed not by Newton's law, but by a much more complicated
law,depending on the star's distance from the earth, which is evidently
absurd. "
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-3e.htm
DeSitter was evidently absurd.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/image021.jpg
Androcles
Painius
Careful, AA, remember what happened when Adam
took a bite of Eve's applet!
(This one has all the earmarks of a trolling coffeeboi.)
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.painellsworth.net
http://www.savethechildren.org
Sorcerer
"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2U16h.260697$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| (This one has all the earmarks of a trolling coffeeboi.)
|
You sure do.
Androcles.
honestjohn
"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
> (This one has all the earmarks of a trolling coffeeboi.)
>
DANGER!...DANGER!...will Robinson.
C.H.J.
Double-A
Relax. Sorcerer (Androcles) is not a coffee boy. He is well known in
sci.physics and is more like those the coffee boys like to troll.
Double-A
honestjohn
Have you dried-out yet?
C.H.J.
Double-A
Still raining, but only lightly.
I was spared any damage by last night's windstorm.
Double-A
honestjohn
weather changes?
It was sad.
C.H.J.
Sorcerer
Metaphorically speaking, it takes skill to cut a rough diamond, but
with the right approach you'll have more facets than the Cullinan.
You have the intelligence to recognise one from among the zirconia,
as do I.
Diamond:
Uncut:
http://www.diamondtutorials.com/famousdiamonds/roughcullinan.jpg
Cut:
http://tinyurl.com/y2wra8
Zirconia:
Raw:
http://www.chemsoc.org/visElements/pages/data/graphic/zr_data.jpg
Cooked:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilliant.jpg
All that glitters is not gold.
Can you cut it?
Androcles
Double-A
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote in message
> news:1163402537....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snipping old material]
>
> |
> | These are interesting animations, and I would hope others in
> | alt.astronomy would take a look at them. I hope they will also take a
> | look at the gravity simulation animations you submitted earlier in the
> | thread. I especially liked the simulations where the careening moon
> | ended up crashing into the planet! That might very well be the sort of
> | thing that will happen with that asteroid Apophis that David Tholen
> | discovered when in makes its close approaches to Earth in the 2030's!
> |
> | But since you hold that the speed of light varies depending on the
> | velocity of the source, how do you explain the results of the
> | experiments of De Sitter and his successors, who verified that the
> | double images of binary stars that would be expected if the speed of
> | the light received equaled c + v where in fact never seen, even though
> | they observed many binary stars?
> |
> | That is what you would need to explain.
>
> To whom?
Inquiring minds.
> Let's back up a tad. The issue was:
> "Was Einstein right or wrong?"
> The key to answering that is to examine what he said and compare
> that to the empirical data.
> Are the observations consistent with a complex theory, a simple theory
> or both?
> For that we invoke Ockham's Razor.
> http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
>
> Look at this:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif
>
> In the image the straw is broken, I can see it is.
> That sounds simple, but in reality it is an extremely complex
> theory. As I slowly immerse the straw into the water it breaks
> off at the air/water interface and magically grows beneath it.
> The simple explanation is that the velocity of light changes.
> We call that refraction.
>
> DeSitter says that's what he sees. He then says...
> IF (what I see isn't what is there),
> THEN (I should see a double image).
> Ok, why can't he see two stars for Algol?
Algol is too far away.
> He can see three stars for the nearest star system.
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030323.html
> Can you?
>
> He can see two stars for Sirius.
> Here they are in x-ray:
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html
If light speed depended on the velocity of the star, he should have
seen three stars at times.
> It's only 8 light years away and takes 50 years to orbit.
> Easy to see, right?
> So why can't he see two stars for Algol?
Algol is 93 light years away and the companion is too dim.
> Would you like to see a double image of one star?
> Try this:
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
> There it is, a double image, VERIFIED.
But that is a double image because it is a double star. What we would
need to see is a double image of one of the stars (a triple image).
> You want me to tell others.
> You tell the Pope and millions of Catholics that Jesus Christ
> was not born of a virgin. When you've convinced them, tell me
> what drug you used on them and I'll have a go at the astronomers.
> People want to believe in magic, charlatans and fortune-tellers
> have been with us for millennia and they always disguise themselves
> as holy men, witch doctors, priests, scientists. Nostradamus
> foretold the future... but he left out the atom bomb and the Apollo
> moon landings. Now we're burdened with conspiracy theorists,
> the US government caused two planes to crash into the World
> Trade Centre. The pilots were really working for George Bush
> and wanted to be martyrs to the Republicans in the interests
> of US politics.
> I'm sure the London bombings were carried out by Tony Blair, too.
> Get used to the idea ... people are NUTS.
Except for us of course.
I will buy all of that, if you can come up with the proof.
Double-A
Painius
in message news:7326h.159295$lT5....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Fishing for lions? "Androcles"?
I'm more of a giraffe, myself.
I respect Albert Einstein, and i fear we haven't
seen the last of his E=mc².
And don't bother... your anti-Einstein BS is too
old and smelly to be worth your time or mine.
Sorcerer
Most stars are far away, but they can be seen.
Certainly Algol can be seen, it's the second brightest star in Perseus.
Why doesn't deSitter see TWO stars for Algol? Goodricke could see
two stars (in his head).
|
|
| > He can see three stars for the nearest star system.
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030323.html
| > Can you?
CAN YOU ?
| >
| > He can see two stars for Sirius.
| > Here they are in x-ray:
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html
|
|
| If light speed depended on the velocity of the star, he should have
| seen three stars at times.
Should he? Why?
|
|
| > It's only 8 light years away and takes 50 years to orbit.
| > Easy to see, right?
| > So why can't he see two stars for Algol?
|
|
| Algol is 93 light years away and the companion is too dim.
I see. But we've got Hubble, and x-ray, and infra-red, and false
colour enhancement, so we should see two stars for Algol now, right?
After all, a mere 93 light years is our own backyard when we can see
cepheids in the Magellanic clouds, right? This is an important star,
really nearby. And we've got lots of "artists impressions".
So where are the photographs?
Here's an artist's impression of the real thing:
http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/images/2600/cta2895-holiday02a.jpg
|
|
| > Would you like to see a double image of one star?
| > Try this:
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
| > There it is, a double image, VERIFIED.
|
|
| But that is a double image because it is a double star. What we would
| need to see is a double image of one of the stars (a triple image).
|
How about this triple image?
http://www.ce.gatech.edu/brownbag/images/city.gif
|
| > You want me to tell others.
| > You tell the Pope and millions of Catholics that Jesus Christ
| > was not born of a virgin. When you've convinced them, tell me
| > what drug you used on them and I'll have a go at the astronomers.
| > People want to believe in magic, charlatans and fortune-tellers
| > have been with us for millennia and they always disguise themselves
| > as holy men, witch doctors, priests, scientists. Nostradamus
| > foretold the future... but he left out the atom bomb and the Apollo
| > moon landings. Now we're burdened with conspiracy theorists,
| > the US government caused two planes to crash into the World
| > Trade Centre. The pilots were really working for George Bush
| > and wanted to be martyrs to the Republicans in the interests
| > of US politics.
| > I'm sure the London bombings were carried out by Tony Blair, too.
| > Get used to the idea ... people are NUTS.
|
|
| Except for us of course.
I may be crazy enough to give a damn about science, but I'm not
delusional and I'm not gullible.
1) Proof absolute - mathematics
Example:
LEMMA I.
Quantities, and the ratios of quantities, which in any finite time converge
continually to equality, and before the end of that time approach nearer the
one to the other than by any given difference, become ultimately equal.
Proof:
If you deny it, suppose them to be ultimately unequal, and let D be their
ultimate difference. Therefore they cannot approach nearer to equality than
by that given difference D; which is against the supposition.
-- Sir Isaac Newton. (http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/booki1.htm)
(That is the essence of calculus)
2) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - criminal law
Example:
O.J. Simpson didn't commit murder. He was allowed to go free.
3) Proof to a preponderance of the evidence - civil law
Example:
O. J . Simpson committed murder. He was made to pay money.
4) Proof by "everybody knows"- Astronomy and Physics.
Example:
Galileo was wrong for saying the Earth moves, everybody knew it didn't.
Four levels of proof. What's a proof?
Look at the difference in style between Newton and Einstein:
Newton: "If YOU deny it"... (he's right in your face).
Einstein: "In agreement with experience WE further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c." - begging you to believe, and associating you with the
flock ("WE") .
A wolf in sheep's clothing.
Einstein wasn't a scientist, he was pressing palms and kissing babies just
like
any politician.
If you consider the Republicans will serve your personal best interests,
don't vote Democrat.
If you consider the Democrats will serve your personal best interests,
don't vote Republican.
You ask me for proof.
Do you accept proof level 4 from Einstein because the sheep do and
demand proof level 1 from me?
I ask Einstein for proof level 1, that's what I expect and what I get
from Newton.
Look to the sheep nearby. They warn you that I'm dangerous.
I am. I might make you think. I may take you out of the green
lush meadow and up the rocky hillside, an arduous journey
where you can lose your step and fall. And the only reward is
the view at the top. It's magnificent. Or... I might eat you. Right
now I'm nipping at your heels, I do not wear sheep's clothing.
Look to your own prejudices when you ask for proof.
Androcles
Sorcerer
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote...
| in message news:7326h.159295$lT5....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > "Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:2U16h.260697$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | (This one has all the earmarks of a trolling coffeeboi.)
| >
| > You sure do.
| > Androcles.
|
| Fishing for lions? "Androcles"?
No.
|
| I'm more of a giraffe, myself.
Get you long neck out of the guillotine before it drops, I consider
you a dullard troll and shithead.
| I respect Albert Einstein, and i fear we haven't
| seen the last of his E=mc².
Sheep.
|
| And don't bother... your anti-Einstein BS is too
| old and smelly to be worth your time or mine.
|
Fuck off, cunt.
*plonk*
Androcles
Double-A
How about this?
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm
This supports your assertions very well, without all the theatrics.
Double-A
Sorcerer
Bob Fritzius got tired of these newsgroups and its trolls.
Vladimir Sekerin made his discoveries about the same time
I made mine, but we were on opposite sides of an iron
curtain with no world wide web in '87. Lighten up, enjoy the fun
of chewing up brainless sheep who can all bleat the same tune
but cannot think for themselves.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
Remember, the velocity of light is the same in all inertial axes.
Ride an escalator, shine a laser pointer at the ceiling and prove it.
Spacetime has six axes, not four.
honestjohn
> And don't bother... your anti-Einstein BS is too
> old and smelly to be worth your time or mine.
>
Painius, I don't think that Sorker likes you.
HJ
Painius
news:qc6dnRFnZrgZZcTY...@centurytel.net...
I cannot *begin* to describe my loss, Honest.
Painius
in message news:UWd6h.159445$lT5....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:kB66h.262543$QZ1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> | "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote...
> | in message news:7326h.159295$lT5....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | > "Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
> | > news:2U16h.260697$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> | > |
> | > | (This one has all the earmarks of a trolling coffeeboi.)
> | >
> | > You sure do.
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | Fishing for lions? "Androcles"?
>
> No.
Then what *are* you fishing for, little troll?
How's life treatin' ya under the bridge?
> |
> | I'm more of a giraffe, myself.
>
> Get you long neck out of the guillotine before it drops, I consider
> you a dullard troll and shithead.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... but i bet some of your best
friends are dullard trolls and shitheads.
> | I respect Albert Einstein, and i fear we haven't
> | seen the last of his E=mc².
>
> Sheep.
Wolf...
(I see you like to disassemble the herd. Sounds
to me like you have a hungry agenda. If you wanna
eat me so bad, then eat me.)
> | And don't bother... your anti-Einstein BS is too
> | old and smelly to be worth your time or mine.
> |
>
> Fuck off, cunt.
> *plonk*
> Androcles
And you call *me* a sheep.
What a hoot.