 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » WHY EINSTEIN STILL RULES... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pentcho Valev... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
"At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
"Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "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?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
RULES," Michelson said.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72a2eb8a-8d93-4cde-8a3e-43adc739b632 at (no spam) p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
[quote]In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
[/quote]
What a crock of shit, and from New Scientist!
The space between here and a galaxy 500 million light years away is not a
complete vacuum, in fact accumulated over 500 million light years each
photon passes a *lot* of matter.
Light does go slower when not going through a vacuum, that's how lenses
work. Its called diffraction. And this is frequency dependent, which is why
cheap lenses have rainbow effects, this also has been known for centuries.
And longer wavelengths are almost always affected more.
I bet even the short wavelengths were beaten to earth by the Neutrino flux,
which actually outruns light in even the thinnest vacuums.
I expect the next paragraph of the New Scientist went on to explain this,
and you just snipped it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[quote]In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
"At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
"Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "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?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
RULES," Michelson said.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
following hypothesis:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-bumps-no-obstacle-for-light.html
"If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
tiny fluctuations in space-time."
A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my
view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by
no means rejected if this particular observation were the only
evidence.
There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka,
where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental
theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity
but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by
new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of
Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the
following questions:
The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
(A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
(B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation
c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the
speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
(C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis,
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where
v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
(D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field
(E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by
Einstein in 1911
(F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/
c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable
couple.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
"At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
"Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "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?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
RULES,"Michelson said.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tomy tomy... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 10:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
following hypothesis:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b...
"If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
tiny fluctuations in space-time."
A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my
view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by
no means rejected if this particular observation were the only
evidence.
There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka,
where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental
theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity
but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by
new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of
Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the
following questions:
The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
(A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
(B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation
c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the
speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
(C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis,
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where
v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
(D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field
(E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by
Einstein in 1911
(F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/
c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable
couple.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
"At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
"Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "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?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
RULES,"Michelson said.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote]
-----------
THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and
maxwell.
Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper.
Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
Three possible statements about LIGHT:
(A) (Einstein should not rule): "If the observer were to hurry towards
the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That means that, in analogy with
the water wave case, moving observer finds both the frequency and the
speed of light to have increased (while the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)."
(B) (Einstein still rules but things get dangerous since an analogy
frequently used in textbooks - between water waves and light waves -
is explicitly rejected): "If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving
observer would find the frequency of light to have increased (but, in
contrast with the water wave case, he would find the speed of light to
have remained constant and the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
(C) (Einstein is to rule forever; the analogy between water waves and
light waves is only implicitly rejected): John Norton: "Here's a light
wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source
of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently
than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would
find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY
FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE
DECREASED)."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 4:10 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
[/quote]
---------------------------
THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and
maxwell.
Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper.
Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 9:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
=======================================> Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
[/quote]
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the
light! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?[/quote]
========================================
Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:777cbc44-3f1e-4b26-a76e-8794735ef4d7 at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 9:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace
experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
========================================
Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
[/quote]
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the
light!
===============================================
Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn
some physics!
Match the caption to the gif:
A) http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B) http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C) http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D) http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 9:10 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:777cbc44-3f1e-4b26-a76e-8794735ef4d7 at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 9:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace
experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)..
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
=======================================> > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the
light!
==============================================> Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn
some physics!
Match the caption to the gif:
A)http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B)http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C)http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D)http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
[/quote]
========THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and
maxwell.
Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper.
Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 10:10 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:777cbc44-3f1e-4b26-a76e-8794735ef4d7 at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 9:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace
experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)..
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
=======================================> > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the
light!
==============================================
Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn
some physics!
[/quote]
How original!
Learning anything would be way beyond the slime mold that masqeurades
as a brain in your echoing skull.
It slinks, so maybe it is, but all its slinking and 'shit' will not
make a brain of it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One of the crucial episodes in Einsteiniana's history which, if
honestly analysed, will leave no doubt as to why Einstein still
rules:
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the “Einstein shift” in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams’ 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington’s estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury’s anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddington’s estimate and Adams’
measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by
a factor of four."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un
décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données
fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année
suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère
aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans
une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant
était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable
valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus
petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait
Eddington."
See also:
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non
vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves,
issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas.
Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant
à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées
d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:70937ea5-2a6c-405f-a4b4-9494c57caa5f at (no spam) p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 10:10 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:777cbc44-3f1e-4b26-a76e-8794735ef4d7 at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 9:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375 at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace
experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
========================================
Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone
else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the
light!
===============================================
Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit!
Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn
some physics!
[/quote]
How original!
===============
Thank you. Now fuck off, troll.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:17 pm
|
|