Prev: Speed of Light Paradox
Next: "a new cosmology"
From: nuny on 22 Jul 2010 18:15
On Jul 22, 6:10 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
> idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
> equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
> affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
> accelerate two times faster), light particles are massless, that is,
> not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
> journal Nature's text:
>
> "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
> heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."
>
> as
>
> "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> [particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
> per second squared."
>
> Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
> community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
> light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
> and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
> vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
> changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
> civilization was avoided:

See, here's the thing; your "construal" is wrong not because it
disagrees with any fantasized conspiracy of Einsteinian cabalists. It
is wrong because EXPERIMENT shows that there is no "crime".

Your "construal" would be correct IF AND ONLY IF experiment agreed
with it.

Experiment does not agree with you.

The "idiocy" was yours.

You were wrong.

It happens to the best of us.

Basing your sense of self-worth on a false interpretation of
experimentally-verifiable theory is silly.

Get over it.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: nuny on 29 Jul 2010 06:46
On Jul 28, 10:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Genuine honesty:
>

(snip to the crash)

> So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
> affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
> accelerate two times faster),

(Wait... who asserts this?

Theoretical or experimental?)

> light particles are massless, that is,
> not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
> journal Nature's text:
>
> "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
> heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."
>
> as
>
> "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> [particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
> per second squared."
>
> Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
> community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
> light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
> and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
> vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
> changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
> civilization was avoided:

Well, Needless to say, your *mis*construal wasn't accepted etc.

Please. Get over it.

> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
> squared."

The article is not about gravity's effect on electromagnetic
radiation. It's about gravity's effect on a weird state of *matter*.

But so what? Let's talk about gravitation and EM radiation *anyway*;
screw any wannabe censors!

If as you say the speed of light is not constant, let's posit
dropping a battery-powered radio transmitter straight down along its
antenna's line-of-sight toward a convenient plane reflector

Pulse it one time while it's falling at some fraction of c, let's
call it dv. Afterward the antenna is basically just a mirror.

There's a clock midway up that releases the transmitter and later
tells it to pulse, and also tells us at the bottom when all this
happens.

When do we first see photons arrive at the reflector?

If velocities add the way you say they do...

The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons.
For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.

That a problem for you?


Mark L. Fergerson
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Speed of Light Paradox
Next: "a new cosmology"