"G. L. Bradford" <***@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:***@insightbb.com...
:
: "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:xS5ri.11621$***@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "G. L. Bradford" <***@insightbb.com> wrote in message
: > news:eOCdnVtgWLo-***@insightbb.com...
: > :
: > : "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: > : news:xiPqi.22961$%***@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : >
: > : > "G. L. Bradford" <***@insightbb.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:***@insightbb.com...
: > : > :
: > : > : "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: > : > : news:tYmqi.30475$***@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "G. L. Bradford" <***@insightbb.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:ptOdnfrYAp4VbTTbnZ2dnUVZ_t-***@insightbb.com...
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : "Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > : news:***@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : > : > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > : > : > : >> Randy Poe wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: > : > : > : >> > On Jul 25, 1:24 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
: > : > : > : >> > > Albert Einstein: "...the law of the constancy of the
: > velocity
: > : > of
: > : > : > : >> > > light
: > : > : > : >> > > in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
: > : > : > assumptions
: > : > : > in
: > : > : > : >> > > the special theory of relativity and to which we have
: > already
: > : > : > : >> > > frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity.
: > A
: > : > : > curvature
: > : > : > : >> > > of rays of light can only take place when the velocity
of
: > : > : > propagation
: > : > : > : >> > > of light varies with position. Now we might think that
as
: > a
: > : > : > : >> > > consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and
: > : > with
: > : > it
: > : > : > the
: > : > : > : >> > > whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But
: > in
: > : > : > reality
: > : > : > : >> > > this is not the case."
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> > > Einstein zombies: "This is not the case, this is not
the
: > : > case,
: > : > : > this
: > : > : > : >> > > is
: > : > : > : >> > > not the case. Divine Albert says this is not the case,
: > and
: > : > since
: > : > : > : >> > > Divine Albert says this is not the case, this is not
the
: > : > case".
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> > You mean there were no words past that point explaining
: > : > : > : >> > why "this is not the case"?
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> > Oh wait, there were... gee, Pentcho is being
intellectually
: > : > : > : >> > dishonest. I'm shocked.
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> > "... in reality this is not the case. We can only
conclude
: > that
: > : > : > : >> > the special theory of relativity cannot claim an
unlimited
: > : > : > : >> > domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we
are
: > : > : > : >> > able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields
on
: > : > : > : >> > the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> Randy Randy giving a small quotation and referring to the
: > : > original
: > : > : > : >> source where everybody can find the rest of the text is NOT
: > : > : > : >> intellectual dishonesty. Anyway, our interpretations of
: > honesty/
: > : > : > : >> dishonesty are not very important; let us see whether you
: > : > understand
: > : > : > : >> Divine Albert's thoughts. Consider the following text
devised
: > by
: > : > a
: > : > : > : >> great hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult called Clifford
: > Will:
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : >
: >
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
: > : > : > : >> Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY":
"The
: > : > first
: > : > : > : >> glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th
century,
: > in
: > : > the
: > : > : > : >> writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John
: > : > Michell.
: > : > : > : >> Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light
: > would
: > : > be
: > : > : > : >> attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light
: > emitted
: > : > from
: > : > : > : >> the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time
: > the
: > : > light
: > : > : > : >> was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not
know
: > : > special
: > : > : > : >> relativity.)"
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> So Randy Randy Master Clifford Will considers a place "very
: > far
: > : > from
: > : > : > : >> the source" where the gravitational field is virtually
zero,
: > that
: > : > is,
: > : > : > : >> in Divine Albert's words, "we are able to disregard the
: > : > influences
: > : > of
: > : > : > : >> gravitational fields". And Master Clifford Will seems to
: > suspect
: > : > that
: > : > : > : >> Michell was right - apart from Divine Albert, many other
: > : > hypnotists
: > : > : > : >> have confirmed that the speed of light does vary with the
: > : > : > : >> gravitational potential. However Master Clifford Will knows
: > that,
: > : > : > : >> since the field is virtually zero, the observer there is
: > INERTIAL
: > : > and
: > : > : > : >> since this inertial observer measures a speed of light
lower
: > than
: > : > : > : >> c=300000km/s, Einstein criminal cult is in danger. So
Master
: > : > Clifford
: > : > : > : >> Will introduces an extremely silly but efficient (in
Einstein
: > : > zombie
: > : > : > : >> world) red herring: Michell did not know special
relativity.
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> Two simple questions Randy Randy:
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> 1. Is it true that "the speed of light emitted from the
: > surface
: > : > of
: > : > a
: > : > : > : >> massive body would be reduced by the time the light was
very
: > far
: > : > from
: > : > : > : >> the source"? Yes? No?
: > : > : > : >>
: > : > : > : >> 2. If Divine Albert could somehow meet John Michell and
tell
: > him
: > : > : > about
: > : > : > : >> his special relativity, would John Michell stop claiming
that
: > : > "the
: > : > : > : >> speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body
: > would
: > : > be
: > : > : > : >> reduced by the time the light was very far from the
source"?
: > Yes?
: > : > No?
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Difficult questions aren't they Randy Randy. Even your
masters
: > : > cannot
: > : > : > : > answer them for the moment. Have you noticed your masters
have
: > : > been
: > : > : > : > silent for the last few months? There have been bursts of
: > : > conscience
: > : > : > : > in Einstein criminal cult related to the fact that the speed
: > of
: > : > light
: > : > : > : > varies with the gravitational potential:
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
: > : > : > : > "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_
: > : > constant
: > : > : > : > in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence
principle,
: > : > applies
: > : > : > : > as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference].
: > If
: > : > this
: > : > : > : > were not so, there would be no bending of light by the
: > : > gravitational
: > : > : > : > field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did
the
: > : > : > : > calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the
: > : > Propagation
: > : > of
: > : > : > : > Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the
full
: > : > formal
: > : > : > : > development of general relativity by about four years. This
: > paper
: > : > is
: > : > : > : > widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning
on
: > page
: > : > 99
: > : > : > : > of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will
find
: > in
: > : > : > : > section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the
: > (variable)
: > : > speed
: > : > : > : > of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result
is,
: > : > : > : > c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
: > : > : > : > where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
: > where
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > speed of light c0 is measured."
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first
confirmation
: > of
: > : > a
: > : > : > : > long range variation in the speed of light travelling in
space
: > : > came
: > : > in
: > : > : > : > 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of
a
: > : > : > : > previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory --
: > that
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > speed of light is reduced when it passes through a
: > gravitational
: > : > : > : > field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the
: > second
: > : > : > : > place our result shows that, according to the general theory
: > of
: > : > : > : > relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light
: > in
: > : > : > : > vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
: > assumptions
: > in
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > special theory of relativity and to which we have already
: > : > frequently
: > : > : > : > referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature
of
: > rays
: > : > of
: > : > : > : > light can only take place when the velocity of propagation
of
: > : > light
: > : > : > : > varies with position."......Today we find that since the
: > Special
: > : > : > : > Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so
: > called
: > : > : > : > mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even
: > suggest
: > : > that
: > : > : > : > the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This
is
: > : > somewhat
: > : > : > : > surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper
: > "On
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen
: > der
: > : > : > : > Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with
the
: > : > : > : > gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed
of
: > : > light
: > : > : > : > in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's
: > calculation
: > : > for
: > : > : > : > the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of
: > : > gravity.
: > : > : > : > One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is
: > : > c'=c(1+V/c^2)
: > : > : > : > where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point
: > where
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the
: > GRAVITATIONAL
: > : > : > : > REDSHIFT FACTOR."
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Let us hope one day your masters will inform the world about
: > the
: > : > : > : > fundamental questions that are torturing them every night:
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > 1. Since the gravitational redshift is obviously the result
of
: > the
: > : > : > : > variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field,
in
: > : > : > : > accordance with the equation
: > : > : > : > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength),
: > : > : > : > why do we, hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, continue to
: > : > destroy
: > : > : > : > human rationality by explaining the gravitational redshift
in
: > : > terms
: > : > of
: > : > : > : > gravitational time dilation?
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > 2. Since the speed of light varies with the gravitational
: > : > potential,
: > : > : > : > why don't we, hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, apply
: > : > Einstein's
: > : > : > : > equivalence principle and show that, in the absence of a
: > : > gravitational
: > : > : > : > field, the speed of light varies with v, the relative speed
of
: > the
: > : > : > : > light source and the observer, in accordance with the
equation
: > : > c'=c+v,
: > : > : > : > where c is the initial speed of the photons relative to the
: > light
: > : > : > : > source?
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Pentcho Valev
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : The relative velocity of the light source is [invariably]
: > varyingly
: > : > : > : relative to external observers, or external somethings, never
: > : > internal
: > : > : > to
: > : > : > : the light source. The light source will never have any
velocity
: > of
: > : > its
: > : > : > own.
: > : > : > : It will never have any position of its own, either. That too
: > will
: > : > : > invariably
: > : > : > : be varyingly relative to external observers, or external
: > somethings.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Even a light source's integral space and time, shape and
form,
: > even
: > : > age
: > : > : > in
: > : > : > : time, are never truly its own, these being continuously
adjusted
: > and
: > : > : > : re-adjusted in state by countless external elements and
events,
: > : > : > including
: > : > : > : the more distant external elements and events from an ever
: > bigger
: > : > : > picture
: > : > : > : via the domino effect. The galaxy's gravitational field reach
is
: > : > : > inclusive
: > : > : > : of the Earth, for example. If its gravity were to vary -- or
be
: > : > : > variable --
: > : > : > : even the slightest, Sol and this solar system, thus this
Earth,
: > : > would
: > : > : > : sympathetically "feel" it to whatever degree of that variance
: > and
: > go
: > : > : > into
: > : > : > : some kind of change of state however slight.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : GLB
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > Earth has sympathetic feelings.
: > : > : > Aww... how fuckin' nice.
: > : > :
: > : > : Get peripheral. Acquire periphery or you won't see what is right
in
: > : > front
: > : > : of you, at the very least not in anyway [clearly]. You won't
acquire
: > : > : clarity. You will be blind, so to speak, to what is directly in
: > front
: > of
: > : > : you. Thus you will be consistently reeling, consistently punch
: > drunk,
: > : > from
: > : > : getting blindsided.
: > : > :
: > : > : I described a radical, so there is another, hidden, radical there
: > to --
: > : > : hidden in plain sight. Openly hidden: The speed of light is
: > constant,
: > : > 'c',
: > : > : in vacuum.
: > : >
: > : > Relative to what? All velocities are relative.
: > :
: > : You still don't get it.
: >
: > Yes I do, you are a fucking idiot who can't answer a simple question.
:
: You asked a question for which there is no answer but one.
You still don't get it. *ALL* velocities are relative. Not knowing
that is why Pentcho calls all you idiots "Einstein Zombies" and
hanson calls you "Einstein's Dingleberries". You are too fuckin' stupid
to see that Einstein himself wrote
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Thus you will be consistently reeling, consistently punch
drunk, from getting blindsided by your stupid mysticism.