Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.
From: hanson on 12 Jul 2010 12:16
Einstein's Dingleberry "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's Dingleberry Mark L. Fergerson, nuny(a)bid.nes wrote:
>> The noble thinker Pentcho Valev<pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
>>> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
>>
Fergie wrote.... :
>> .... Complete nonsense. [.. Fergie does so regularly... ahahaha]
>>
Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
>>> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
>>> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
>>> squared."
>>
Fergie wrote:
>> Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
>> heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
>> state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
>> quanta of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Don't let a little thing like a lack of reading comprehension get in the
> way of his victory dance. He finally got a respected scientific journal
> to agree with his point of view, even if it was in agreement for one
> out-of-context sentence, and that sentence was also completely
> misinterpreted. :)
> Yousuf Khan
>
hanson wrote:
Youssie & Fergie, your "sour grape" comments are touching. So do
the manly thing and follow the lead of Austrian poster Helmut Wabnig
who proudly posted: "I, Wabnig am an Einstein Dingleberry"...
You 3 guys are blossoms of religious Einstein Cultism... ahahaha...
Carry on with your worship of Albert's Sphincter & thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 13:18
On 7/12/10 12:26 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
> and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
> another.
>
> How naive.

Yup -- There has never been an observation that contradicts relativity
theory predictions--not one. General and special relativity remain
very fruitful tools for physicist and astrophysicist.

Helland out to read up on the testing and especially the practical
applications of those theories, such as particle accelerators and
global navigation satellite systems.



From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 13:47
On Jul 12, 12:18 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
> does:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
> in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
> principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
> far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
> particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
> And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
> particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
> relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
> local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
> particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
> introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
> obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
> squared."
>
> (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
> is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
> relativity...")
>
> Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
> assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
> less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

Oh, PV, PV, PV.
Only you would think that if light is subject to gravitational
deflection (a la Newton), then it must ALSO be ballistic (a la
Newton).
After all, if it exhibits ONE Newtonian property, then it must exhibit
them ALL, eh?
From: Aage Andersen on 12 Jul 2010 15:44

>A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
> far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest;

And ligth from a speeding train has more energy than ligth from a train at
rest.

Aage


From: Pentcho Valev on 15 Jul 2010 02:59
Another unambiguous rejection of Einstein's relativity (Einsteinians
do not react, the rest of the world does not care):

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of the West Indies
"Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light
or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the
receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed
relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in
radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at
speed v << c towards or away from a stationary source intercepts
electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency change arises
because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic radiation at a
relative speed c ± v that is different from the light speed c. Though
special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this light speed
variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly contradicts the
light speed invariance requirement of special relativity."

The silence surrounding Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is equivalent to the silence
surrounding the equality 2+2=5 in Big Brother's schizophrenic world:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

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

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.