Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385575 > unrolled thread

The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 03:36 -0700
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 12:54 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-10 22:03 +0200
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 18:26 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 20:49 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 20:56 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 21:05 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-11 12:23 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-12 12:44 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 21:20 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-11 00:12 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 11:04 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-11 05:09 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 10:56 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 20:30 +0200
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 09:47 +0200
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-11 02:28 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-11 09:55 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 12:53 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 22:15 +0200
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:37 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-12 23:28 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 05:44 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-13 12:42 -0500
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 13:29 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-18 18:49 -0500
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 06:38 +0200
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:13 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:34 +0200
                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:21 -0700
                      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:41 -0700
                      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:35 -0700
                        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:05 -0700
                          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 17:23 +0200
                            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:53 -0700
                              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 18:32 +0200
                                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:32 -0700
                                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:15 -0700
                                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 05:41 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:18 -0500
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:40 +0200
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 12:51 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:39 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 20:34 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 00:13 -0700
                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 08:15 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 03:41 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 11:34 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-13 23:08 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 07:15 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 05:05 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:46 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 12:34 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 14:53 -0700
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 15:03 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#385575 — The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity

An extremely dangerous comment in Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:

http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2015/02/do-black-hole-firewalls-have-observable.html 
 "Amos said... Uncle Al wrote: " Photons and matter never fall identically within a gravitational field, by a factor of 2." What do you mean by that? If, for example, we could measure the deflection of neutrinos (moving at nearly the speed of light) from a distant star as they graze the Sun, are you saying the deflection would differ from the deflection of light by a factor of 2? It's hard for me to imagine such a gross violation of the equivalence principle."

This "factor of 2" is the nightmare of Einstein's general relativity. On the one hand, Einsteinians are forced to teach it insofar as it is essential in the mythology started by Eddington in 1919. On the other, they never discuss questions like the one Amos raises above (Sabine Hossenfelder hasn't even seen Amos' comment):

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 
 "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Only in moments of mental aberration do Einsteinians comment on the "factor of 2", and awful news spreads throughout Einstein schizophrenic world then. Here is an example: In a gravitational field, the speed of falling photons must increase twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons must be 2g):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf 
 Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Other Einsteinians, in moments of mental aberration, are curious to know what Einstein himself has said about the speed of light in a gravitational field, and the horror becomes even greater. The "factor of 2" is still there, but the speed of falling photons absurdly DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g): 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm 
 "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." 

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm 
 "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm 
 "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77227/speed-of-light-in-a-gravitational-field 
 John Rennie: The variation of the velocity of light with distance from the black hole looks like: 

http://i.stack.imgur.com/XlKh0.gif 

Finally, in moments of mental aberration, some Einsteinians teach that the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. This is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course and the horror becomes unbearable:

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm 
 Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." 

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#385621

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 3:36:11 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> An extremely dangerous comment in Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:

I'm shaking in my boots.

> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf 
>  Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
> 
> Other Einsteinians,

There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
as well lay off it. It makes you look foolish.

> in moments of mental aberration, are curious to know what Einstein himself has said about the speed of light in a gravitational field, and the horror becomes even greater.

This is not any problem. I cannot teach you general relativity over an
ASCII forum like this so the ball is in your court. In the meantime,
I suggest you stop wasting your time on asinine posts and take time
to study physics instead (I'm assuming you are interested in learning it?)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385623

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...

|There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might

Gobbledygook!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385635

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> 
> Gobbledygook!

No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.

(BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385639

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> >
> > Gobbledygook!
> 
> No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> 
> (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> 
> --
> Jan



There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.


Relativity is just another word for...perspective.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385640

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > >
> > > Gobbledygook!
> >
> > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> >
> > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> 
> Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> 


The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.


Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.


Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385641

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > >
> > > > Gobbledygook!
> > >
> > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > >
> > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> >
> > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> >
> 
> The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> 
> Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> 
> Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> 


...and Jan PB, if you knew *anything* about Einstein himself, there is no bigger critic and denier than Einstein himself!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385687

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > > >
> > > > > Gobbledygook!
> > > >
> > > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > > >
> > > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> > >
> > > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> > >
> >
> > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> >
> > Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> >
> > Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> >
> 
> ...and Jan PB, if you knew *anything* about Einstein himself, there is no bigger critic and denier than Einstein himself!



> > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.


Okay, here is a question for not the einstein critics, but for the "relativity deniers"...


(The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that  einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.)


Albert Einstein wrote in 1905 in his book "The Principle of Relativity":


"It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a
high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the
test." -Albert Einstein

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf


The question I put to you is...



What kind of "test" did Einstein had in mind?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385747

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gobbledygook!
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > > > >
> > > > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > > > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> > > >
> > > > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> > >
> > > Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> > >
> > > Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> > >
> >
> > ...and Jan PB, if you knew *anything* about Einstein himself, there is no bigger critic and denier than Einstein himself!
> 
> > > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> 
> Okay, here is a question for not the einstein critics, but for the "relativity deniers"...
> 
> (The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that  einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.)
> 
> Albert Einstein wrote in 1905 in his book "The Principle of Relativity":
> 
> "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a
> high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the
> test." -Albert Einstein
> 
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
> 
> The question I put to you is...
> 
> What kind of "test" did Einstein had in mind?


I didn't expect anyone to....'come out of the closet'.

There is only one way to "put to the test" that mass and energy were equivalent, and that's by building an atomic bomb.


From 1905 fast forward to 1939...


"...new 'radium'-like elements would be generated. Now it appears

almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

      This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,

and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-

ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed." -albert einstein




Put it to the test.
'If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385642

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > >
> > > > Gobbledygook!
> > >
> > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > >
> > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > 
> > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> > 
> > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> > 
> 
> 
> The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> 
> 
> Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> 
> 
> Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> 
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Are you trying to pick a fight?

Remember:  Einstein doesn't know what weapons WWIII would  
be fought with.

For example, some might end it quickly.

You make the fallacy of putting all the good with the bad 
there, because "relativity" is the same thing that each 
object has its own frame of reference.  The constancy of 
light speed, then, is the special theory, but the "constant" 
there might not be so "constant" as you think it to be, as 
a value, instead that it is the "fastest thing in a vacuum 
there is", not just 3.0e8 m/s, but in a world defined by 
the speed of things, infinity.  (Gravity is even faster.)

So, there's a difference between "relativity deniers" and 
"anti-Semites", and Einstein was a Jew, and Arabs are Semites, 
too.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/albert-einstein/

So, you can leave the Holocaust right on out of it.


Einstein didn't build the bomb.


Then, "SR is always right" as "constancy and limit of 
light speed", but, maybe not in the terms of the very 
definition of "mathematical constancy" as one might 
otherwise expect.  Also, various highly energetic 
systems establish their own local conditions (of the 
framework, not the course).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385644

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > > >
> > > > > Gobbledygook!
> > > >
> > > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > > >
> > > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> > >
> > > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> >
> >
> > Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> >
> >
> > Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> >
> > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> 
> Are you trying to pick a fight?
> 
> Remember:  Einstein doesn't know what weapons WWIII would
> be fought with.
> 
> For example, some might end it quickly.
> 
> You make the fallacy of putting all the good with the bad
> there, because "relativity" is the same thing that each
> object has its own frame of reference.  The constancy of
> light speed, then, is the special theory, but the "constant"
> there might not be so "constant" as you think it to be, as
> a value, instead that it is the "fastest thing in a vacuum
> there is", not just 3.0e8 m/s, but in a world defined by
> the speed of things, infinity.  (Gravity is even faster.)
> 
> So, there's a difference between "relativity deniers" and
> "anti-Semites", and Einstein was a Jew, and Arabs are Semites,
> too.
> 
> http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/albert-einstein/
> 
> So, you can leave the Holocaust right on out of it.
> 
> Einstein didn't build the bomb.



You're a classic "relativity denier".

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385678

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 12:12:16 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gobbledygook!
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > > > > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > > > >
> > > > > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > > > > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> > > > Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.
> > > >
> > > > Relativity is just another word for...perspective.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> > > einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.
> > >
> > >
> > > Those are in fact, relativity deniers. And they should be shot.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hung from a tree...or thrown inside a pizza oven.
> > >
> > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
> > 
> > Are you trying to pick a fight?
> > 
> > Remember:  Einstein doesn't know what weapons WWIII would
> > be fought with.
> > 
> > For example, some might end it quickly.
> > 
> > You make the fallacy of putting all the good with the bad
> > there, because "relativity" is the same thing that each
> > object has its own frame of reference.  The constancy of
> > light speed, then, is the special theory, but the "constant"
> > there might not be so "constant" as you think it to be, as
> > a value, instead that it is the "fastest thing in a vacuum
> > there is", not just 3.0e8 m/s, but in a world defined by
> > the speed of things, infinity.  (Gravity is even faster.)
> > 
> > So, there's a difference between "relativity deniers" and
> > "anti-Semites", and Einstein was a Jew, and Arabs are Semites,
> > too.
> > 
> > http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/albert-einstein/
> > 
> > So, you can leave the Holocaust right on out of it.
> > 
> > Einstein didn't build the bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a classic "relativity denier".
> 
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Aha!  But what if I agree?


Like continuum mechanics and symmetry and conservation in 
quantities (observed, measured), I think that underneath 
that part of the theory is more theory for the mechanics of 
truth and conservation of truth as information as quantity, 
for some notions of information and entropy in structure 
from what all is only constructive and true.

Then the goal is that the mathematical physics is not very 
much above the mathematics at all, that we should find right 
there in the mathematics all the features in effect in the 
very numbers themselves as what equip physical objects in 
the physical universe with all their features (theoretically, 
also, besides here mechanically).  This "consistent, complete, 
concrete, platonic, scientific, theory of mathematical physics" 
is first a theory then of mathematics then of physics (with 
that falsifiability allows the correction of cognitive or 
interpretive error).  

That is rather comprehensive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385653

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 9:55:39 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The only "relativity deniers" that exist are those that deny that
> einstein built the atomic bomb using his relativity theory.

And he split the beer atom and married Marie Curie, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385675

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:49:15 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
> > >
> > > Gobbledygook!
> > 
> > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is simply a fact and
> > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> > 
> > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't expect me answering
> > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.

In traditional usage "critic" is someone who can provide arguments for his position, or
the "critical apparatus". The "critics" here are simply ignorant doodlers who cannot discuss
simplest issues in basic Newtonian physics. This makes their opinions on relativity good
for entertainment value only(*).

(*) Expect Maciej Wozniak to cut and paste the above phrase as his own soon.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385681

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:62a956b2-c797-419f-83bd-6f3fb3b1e694@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:49:15 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so 
> > > might
> > >
> > > Gobbledygook!
> >
> > No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is 
> > simply a fact and
> > I'm sorry I am powerless to change it.
> >
> > (BTW, as always, I'm not talking to you but for the record, so don't 
> > expect me answering
> > your posts with any "consistency" from your POV.)
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
>
>
> There are no "relativity deniers", there are only relativity critics.
> Like a movie critic..or a howard stern critic.

|In traditional usage "critic" is someone who can provide arguments for his 
position, or

Gobledygook!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385648

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c7b6ce8f-0273-41c9-a426-c0fe2788ff79@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dab0a89e-4b70-438b-9d78-5b62fb087eb9@googlegroups.com...
>
> |There is no such thing as "Einsteinians". This is crackpot usage so might
>
> Gobbledygook!

|No, the phrase "Einsteinian" is used only by relativity deniers. This is 
simply a fact and

Gobbledygokgobbledygook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385649

Just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm 
 Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." [That is what the emission theory says - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g.] 

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."  x 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."  x

However, as in the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment 
 "The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity."

So, as in the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, we have an exact experiment apparently compatible with two mutually incompatible theories. This cries for explanation but Einsteinians will remain forever silent - you cannot expect fraudsters to explain their fraud. The problem can only be be dealt with by antirelativists (cranks, crackpots, trolls etc.). Are there (two) logically valid approaches allowing the Pound-Rebka experiment to be compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's relativity? The answer is yes. The following arguments are both valid: 

Argument 1 (consistent with Newton's emission theory of light) 

Premise 1: If the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f (as measured by the emitter), an observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2). (This is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.)

Premise 2: There is no gravitational time dilation. 

Premise 3: The wavelength remains unchanged as the light falls. 

Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is g, like the acceleration of ordinary falling objects. The observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2). 

Argument 2 (consistent with Einstein's relativity): 

Premise 1: If the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f (as measured by the emitter), an observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2). (This is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.)

Premise 2: There IS gravitational time dilation. 

Premise 3: The wavelength decreases as the light falls - if it is λ at the top of the tower, it will be λ'=λ/(1+gh/c^2) at the bottom. 

Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is NEGATIVE, -2g (that is, the speed of the light DECREASES as the light falls). Yet the observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be c (unchanged). 

The conclusion above, although validly deducible from the premises, is idiotically unrealistic and can be regarded as an answer to the following question: What ad hoc hypothesis should be introduced if one wishes gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect Einstein fabricated in 1911, to remain consistent with the theory? Answer: The speed of falling photons should DECREASE - in the gravitational field of the Earth their acceleration should be NEGATIVE, -2g.

Analogously, in 1889 FitzGerald and Lorentz essentially asked the question: What ad hoc hypothesis should be introduced if one wishes the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light, a tenet of the ether theory, to remain consistent with the theory? The answer was: Any material body should be contracted in the direction of its motion by a factor of (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2).

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385665

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Are there (two) logically valid approaches allowing the 
> Pound-Rebka experiment to be compatible with both 
> Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's relativity? 
> The answer is yes. The following arguments are both valid: 

Argument 2 is valid, but Argument 1 is not, for the reason explained below.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Argument 1 (consistent with Newton's emission theory of light) 
> Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is g, like the 
> acceleration of ordinary falling objects. The observer on the 
> ground will measure the speed of the light to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2). 

That is not a valid argument, because, for a consistent sequence of particles, pulses, wavecrests, or any other entities going from one fixed location to another, each entity in the sequence takes the same amount of time to make the journey, regardless of whether the entities accelerate during the journey, so the frequency of arrival equals the frequency of emission.  (The “javelin” concept is logically incoherent, for the reasons that have been explained previously.)

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Argument 2 (consistent with Einstein's relativity): 
> Premise 2: There IS gravitational time dilation. 
> Premise 3: The wavelength decreases as the light falls - if it 
> is λ at the top of the tower, it will be λ'=λ/(1+gh/c^2) at the bottom. 

Yes, this is a valid account of gravitational redshift.  A difference between the frequencies of emission and reception for a uniform sequence of entities between two stationary locations logically implies different effective time standards at the two locations (i.e., “time dilation”).

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is NEGATIVE, 
> -2g (that is, the speed of the light DECREASES as the light falls).
> Yet the observer on the ground will measure the speed of the 
> light to be c (unchanged). 

The numerical values of quantities such as ordinary velocity and acceleration depend on the coordinates in which they are expressed. It’s true that, in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates, the radial speed of light is lower near a massive body, so the coordinate velocity of a pulse of light approaching a massive body decreases, and hence (in this sense) the light decelerates as it falls. The same is true for massive particles moving at relativistic speeds. On the other hand, in terms of any local free-falling inertial coordinates, the speed of light (and the limiting speed for massive particles) is c.  This is not contradictory, it is consistent with the existence of time dilation and the resulting relationship between the global Schwarzschild coordinates and local free-falling inertial coordinates.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> This cries for explanation but Einsteinians will remain forever silent...

All this is explained - in excruciating detail - in any good book on relativity.  It's true that one can also find erroneous popular explanations of this subject, but that's true of any subject.  To really understand a subject, a person needs some independent reasoning ability, to distinguish valid from invalid explanations.  See above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385748

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-7, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > This cries for explanation but Einsteinians will remain forever silent...
> 
> All this is explained - in excruciating detail - in any good book on relativity.  It's true that one can also find erroneous popular explanations of this subject, but that's true of any subject.  To really understand a subject, a person needs some independent reasoning ability, to distinguish valid from invalid explanations.

Pentcho never did any serious study, all his time is spent on cutting and pasting links. He
also rarely has time to read any responses to his posts (he keeps asking the same questions,
after they have been answered) and to even read the links he posts (they frequently say
the opposite of what he claims but he only has time to quickly scan the headline).

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385750

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c39c3b5a-faf4-4ee4-85eb-d5cd76a41138@googlegroups.com...

|Pentcho never did any serious study, all his time is spent on cutting and 
pasting links. He

Gobledygook!Gobledygook!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web