Discussion:
EINSTEINIANS TEST DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY
Pentcho Valev
2013-09-24 06:33:26 UTC
Einsteinians test time dilation, the glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp14.pdf
"The idea of this experiment is, in effect, to compare the mean time from the creation event to the decay event (i.e. the mean life) of muons at rest with the mean time for muons in motion. Suppose that a given muon at rest lasts for a time tb. Equation 5 predicts that its life in a reference frame with respect to which it is moving with velocity v, is (gamma)tb, i.e. greater than its rest life by the Lorentz factor gamma. This is the effect called relativistic time dilation. (...) In this experiment you will observe the radioactive decay of muons and measure their decay curve (distribution in lifetime) after they have come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator, and determine their mean life. From your previous measurement of the mean velocity of cosmic-ray muons at sea level and the known variation with altitude of their flux, you can infer a lower limit on the mean life of the muons in motion. A comparison of the inferred lower limit with the measured mean life at rest provides a vivid demonstration of relativistic time dilation."

Note that when Einsteinians refer to muons "at rest", they mean that those muons "come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator". That is, any time a muon bumps into an obstacle so that its speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, the forced and quick disintegration of the muon makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in today's science is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons undergo time dilation, as predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, and so live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons. Sane scientists (if there are any) would compare the short lifetime of muons "at rest" with the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall:

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-09-24 06:52:02 UTC
Up to 1970 all experimental confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine Theory were fraudulent (in 1970 or 1971 Einsteinians all over the world suddenly became honest):

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "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. Il aura fallu attendre les années 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité."

"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://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
"C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1979/hetherington.pdf
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "...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..."

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/index.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-09-24 11:32:38 UTC
Einsteinians lying blatantly: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

In fact, Einstein desperately changed his theory several times until eventually it "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. According to Etienne Klein (honest in this particular case), if Popper's criteria had been respected, the failure of Einstein's general relativity to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury should have led to the rejection of the theory:

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/index.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/04/23/einstein-besso-duo-pour-un-eureka_1341703_3244.html
"C'est à ce moment de l'histoire que commence celle, méconnue, du manuscrit Einstein-Besso. Le physicien convoque son ami et confident suisse pour l'aider à mener les calculs et tester son ébauche de relativité générale sur un problème bien connu des astronomes : l'anomalie de l'orbite de Mercure. "Depuis la fin du XIXe siècle, on sait de manière de plus en plus précise que le périhélie de cette planète (le point de son orbite le plus proche du Soleil) avance un peu plus que le prévoient les équations de Newton : l'excédent est de 43 secondes d'arc par siècle, c'est-à-dire l'angle sous lequel on voit un cheveu à une distance d'un mètre, explique Etienne Klein. Einstein se dit simplement que sa théorie sera validée si elle prédit correctement cette "anomalie" de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure." Une part du manuscrit Einstein-Besso est consacrée à ce test crucial. Aux pages d'Einstein, des lignes d'équations, sans ratures, presque vierges de tout texte, succèdent celles de Besso, un peu plus hésitantes et annotées de nombreuses explications. Le résultat est calamiteux. Au lieu d'expliquer le petit décalage de 43 secondes d'arc par siècle, la nouvelle théorie propose une avance de plus de 1 800 secondes d'arc par siècle. Très loin de la réalité des observations astronomiques ! "Mais, un peu plus loin dans le manuscrit, les deux hommes se rendent compte qu'ils se sont trompés sur la masse du Soleil", dit Etienne Klein. Une erreur d'un facteur 10, qu'ils corrigent finalement, pour parvenir à un résultat moins absurde, mais toujours décevant : 18 secondes d'arc par siècle... Echec complet ? Un peu plus loin, en conclusion d'un tout autre calcul, Einstein écrit : "Stimmt" ("Correct"). "En dépit de l'échec de sa théorie à expliquer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, Einstein croit avoir démontré autre chose, au détour d'une équation, décrypte Etienne Klein. En mai 1907, il avait eu l'intuition qu'une chute libre peut "annuler" un champ de gravitation. Ici, il pense avoir démontré qu'un mouvement de rotation peut, lui aussi, être considéré comme équivalent à un champ de gravitation. Il croit avoir généralisé son principe d'équivalence." Mais, plus de deux ans plus tard, Einstein comprend que son calcul était faux : il n'a rien généralisé du tout. C'est alors qu'il accepte d'utiliser dans sa théorie le premier tenseur, jugé trop complexe, que lui avait proposé Grossmann. Et en 1915, il teste ce nouveau tenseur sur l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette fois, le résultat est le bon !"

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-09-26 19:11:39 UTC
The gravitational redshift measured by Einsteinians gloriously confirms the prediction of Divine Albert's Divine Theory that light will lose ENERGY as it is escaping a gravitational field:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-einstein-relativity/
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

Unfortunately, the gravitational redshift measured by Einsteinians also confirms, by no means gloriously, the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light that light will lose SPEED as it is escaping a gravitational field:

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..."

Needless to say, Divine Albert's Divine Theory cannot be wrong - photons lose ENERGY and that's it. They never lose SPEED. Never! Gary Gibbons, FRS, teaches that the refutation of the emission theory's prediction comes from special relativity, more precisely from "the observed fact (which we use when setting up Special Relativity) that the speed of light received here on earth is universal and independent of its source":

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/partiipublic-2006.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "It is interesting to analyze the problem using the Ballistic Theory according to which energy is also conserved. The speed of the 'light particles' which have to climb up the gravitational potential well is reduced. Thus according to the Ballistic Theory, light coming from different sources will have different speeds. In fact in 1784 John Michell predicted precisely this would happen and suggested an experiment with a prism to check it. But his prediction contradicts the observed fact (which we use when setting up Special Relativity) that the speed of light received here on earth is universal and independent of its source."

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2013-09-27 19:14:54 UTC
Another bunch of entirely useless posts. Maybe "Pentcho" is several people or a computer program? If he is real, I truly pity him. What a waste of life, can you imagine?

--
Jan
Dono.
2013-10-23 14:53:13 UTC
On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:14:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> Another bunch of entirely useless posts. Maybe "Pentcho" is several people or a computer program? If he is real, I truly pity him. What a waste of life, can you imagine?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jan

He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
Mahipal Virdy
2013-10-23 15:49:13 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:14:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> > Another bunch of entirely useless posts. Maybe "Pentcho" is several people or a computer program? If he is real, I truly pity him. What a waste of life, can you imagine?
> > Jan
>
> He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.

Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?

Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor? Let's go after the freshmen and send scare them off to the business schools? Yawn.

Pentcho quotes from many many other articles. You, Jan Dono, two have done nothing but been rude and insulting on a personal level. No better than the non interactive Tom Roberts. Your ilk owns the Physics, Math, Philosophy, and the Universe? Got legal title?

Enjo(y)... Cheers! It's 3PM… somewhere.
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"
Dono.
2013-10-23 15:55:22 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:14:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Another bunch of entirely useless posts. Maybe "Pentcho" is several people or a computer program? If he is real, I truly pity him. What a waste of life, can you imagine?
>
> > > Jan
>
> >
>
> > He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
>
>
>
> Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?
>
>
>
> Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor?

Why "take down"? Especially when you are an idiot like Pentcho. Or like you.
Mahipal Virdy
2013-10-23 16:28:21 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:

[trim]

> > > He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
>
> > Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?
>
> > Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor?
>
> Why "take down"? Especially when you are an idiot like Pentcho. Or like you.

Dono, you have a problem leaving others' paragraphs intact. You are a waste in and of time. Thank heavens SR contracts time, for the slow ones, so that there's less of it wasted on posts like yours.

Enjo(y)... Cheers! It's 3PM… somewhere.
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"
Dono.
2013-10-23 16:56:58 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:28:21 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
>
>
> [trim]
>
>
>
> > > > He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
>
> >
>
> > > Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?
>
> >
>
> > > Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor?
>
> >
>
> > Why "take down"? Especially when you are an idiot like Pentcho. Or like you.
>
>
>
> This "take down" euphemism is yours Dono in this thread. Why ask of it? Got ADD?
>

No, autistic imbecile, you used the term "take down", I simply cited you, cretinoid.
Mahipal Virdy
2013-10-23 17:19:14 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:56:58 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:28:21 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> > [trim]
>
> > > > > He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
>
> > > > Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?
>
> > > > Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor?
>
> > > Why "take down"? Especially when you are an idiot like Pentcho. Or like you.
>
> > This "take down" euphemism is yours Dono in this thread. Why ask of it? Got ADD?
>
> No, autistic imbecile, you used the term "take down", I simply cited you, cretinoid.

THose little ">" marks indicate quotes, you Dono are quoted above. Get reading comprehension certificate from your middle of the run school for special students.

Your Tourette Syndrome medication dosage is obviously way too low. What exactly is the great difference between your "taking down" and me writing "take down" in its place? Take your time and do ask for assistance from your special relatives.

-- Mahipal "The pit bull dog at the entrance gates… barks and Barks and BARKS"
Dono.
2013-10-23 17:34:38 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:19:14 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:56:58 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:28:21 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:53:13 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > [trim]
>
> >
>
> > > > > > He is real. The thing is that he'll die pissing himself, chocked in his own vomit , failed in "taking down" the greatest physicist of all times, his much hated Einstein.
>
> >
>
> > > > > Wasn't that supposed to be "greatest physicist of all times and all around good guy"?
>
> >
>
> > > > > Who else is one supposed to target to "take down" in any endeavor?
>
> >
>
> > > > Why "take down"? Especially when you are an idiot like Pentcho. Or like you.
>
> >
>
> > > This "take down" euphemism is yours Dono in this thread. Why ask of it? Got ADD?
>
> >
>
> > No, autistic imbecile, you used the term "take down", I simply cited you, cretinoid.
>
>
>
> THose little ">" marks indicate quotes, you Dono are quoted above. Get reading comprehension certificate from your middle of the run school for special students.
>
>
>
> Your Tourette Syndrome medication dosage is obviously way too low. What exactly is the great difference between your "taking down" and me writing "take down" in its place? Take your time and do ask for assistance from your special relatives.
>
>
>
> -- Mahipal "The pit bull dog at the entrance gates… barks and Barks and BARKS"

Fuck off, wacko.
JanPB
2013-10-23 18:19:17 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> Pentcho quotes from many many other articles. You, Jan Dono, two have done nothing but been rude and insulting on a personal level. No better than the non interactive Tom Roberts. Your ilk owns the Physics, Math, Philosophy, and the Universe? Got legal title?

You must be new around here.

--
Jan
Dono.
2013-10-23 18:24:31 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:19:17 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Pentcho quotes from many many other articles. You, Jan Dono, two have done nothing but been rude and insulting on a personal level. No better than the non interactive Tom Roberts. Your ilk owns the Physics, Math, Philosophy, and the Universe? Got legal title?
>
>
>
> You must be new around here.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jan

No, he's not, he's just another relativity denier, he's been around for quite awhile.
Lord Androcles
2013-10-24 02:31:55 UTC
"JanPB" wrote in message

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> Pentcho quotes from many many other articles. You, Jan Dono, two have done
> nothing but been rude and insulting on a personal level. No better than
> the non interactive Tom Roberts. Your ilk owns the Physics, Math,
> Philosophy, and the Universe? Got legal title?

You must be new around here.

--
Jan
==============================================================
Virdy isn't new, he's often rude and insulting on a personal level and he's
no better than the non interactive Tom Roberts who can't discuss mathematics
either. He has nothing to contribute unless you count his adoration of
tennis players.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Mahipal Virdy
2013-10-23 19:00:22 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:33:05 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "JanPB" wrote in message
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:49:13 AM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > Pentcho quotes from many many other articles. You, Jan Dono, two have done
> > nothing but been rude and insulting on a personal level. No better than
> > the non interactive Tom Roberts. Your ilk owns the Physics, Math,
> > Philosophy, and the Universe? Got legal title?
>
> You must be new around here.
> --
> Jan

Not that new. I used to surf here back in the 1990s. Recently, I see and read, only part way, cross posted threads on sci physics ng. So I decided to surf here and catch the remainder of the discussions. In less than half a day, I've been called a "use another relativity denier" already. Do I know how to make friends, a first impression, or what?!

Btw, Dono, find any writings from my history that demonstrates I am one of those relativity deniers. Search and search and SEARCH until …youKnow… find. Yawn.

> ====================================================
>
> Virdy isn't new, he's often rude and insulting on a personal level and he's
> no better than the non interactive Tom Roberts who can't discuss mathematics
> either. He has nothing to contribute unless you count his adoration of
> tennis players.
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

He he… nothing to contribute me… Lord John. No I, as you Androcles well know, am not rude and insulting on a personal level, though I do defend myself and often others. If anything, I am too interactive and way too math bent. Also, in your summary of my character, do remember to use the phrase "Rock Scientist, Mahipal" in your future. Tia.

-- Mahipal "With friends like you, who needs friends."
Dono know much biology
Dono know much about a science book
Dono know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be" -- SAM COOKE'd the Science Books.
JanPB
2013-10-23 22:41:14 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:00:22 PM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > "JanPB" wrote in message

> Not that new. I used to surf here back in the 1990s. Recently, I see and read, only part way, cross posted threads on sci physics ng. So I decided to surf here and catch the remainder of the discussions. In less than half a day, I've been called a "use another relativity denier" already. Do I know how to make friends, a first impression, or what?!

Ah, so you may remember how this NG was born? Basically, whenever someone posted a special-relativity-related question on sci.physics, there would follow a loooong thread of inane responses. This got so tiresome and useless that after umpteenth iteration of "Yet Another Twin Paradox Contradiction" it was decided to create a new group called "sci.physics.relativity" in order to divert the kook traffic. The idea worked well in practice.

--
Jan
>
>
>
> Btw, Dono, find any writings from my history that demonstrates I am one of those relativity deniers. Search and search and SEARCH until …youKnow… find. Yawn.
>
>
>
> > ====================================================
>
> >
>
> > Virdy isn't new, he's often rude and insulting on a personal level and he's
>
> > no better than the non interactive Tom Roberts who can't discuss mathematics
>
> > either. He has nothing to contribute unless you count his adoration of
>
> > tennis players.
>
> >
>
> > -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
>
>
> He he… nothing to contribute me… Lord John. No I, as you Androcles well know, am not rude and insulting on a personal level, though I do defend myself and often others. If anything, I am too interactive and way too math bent. Also, in your summary of my character, do remember to use the phrase "Rock Scientist, Mahipal" in your future. Tia.
>
>
>
> -- Mahipal "With friends like you, who needs friends."
>
> "Dono know much about history
>
> Dono know much biology
>
> Dono know much about a science book
>
> Dono know much about the French I took
>
>
>
> But I do know that I love you
>
> And I know that if you love me, too
>
> What a wonderful world this would be" -- SAM COOKE'd the Science Books.
Lord Androcles
2013-10-24 12:18:55 UTC
"JanPB" wrote in message

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:00:22 PM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > "JanPB" wrote in message

> Not that new. I used to surf here back in the 1990s. Recently, I see and
> read, only part way, cross posted threads on sci physics ng. So I decided
> to surf here and catch the remainder of the discussions. In less than half
> a day, I've been called a "use another relativity denier" already. Do I
> know how to make friends, a first impression, or what?!

Ah, so you may remember how this NG was born? Basically, whenever someone
posted a special-relativity-related question on sci.physics, there would
follow a loooong thread of inane responses. This got so tiresome and useless
it was decided to create a new group called "sci.physics.relativity" in
order to divert the kook traffic. The idea worked well in practice.

--
Jan
>
>
>
> Btw, Dono, find any writings from my history that demonstrates I am one of
> those relativity deniers. Search and search and SEARCH until …youKnow…
> find. Yawn.
>
>
>
> > ====================================================
>
> >
>
> > Virdy isn't new, he's often rude and insulting on a personal level and
> > he's
>
> > no better than the non interactive Tom Roberts who can't discuss
> > mathematics
>
> > either. He has nothing to contribute unless you count his adoration of
>
> > tennis players.
>
> >
>
> > -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
>
>
> He he… nothing to contribute me… Lord John. No I, as you Androcles well
> know, am not rude and insulting on a personal level, though I do defend
> myself and often others. If anything, I am too interactive and way too
> math bent. Also, in your summary of my character, do remember to use the
> phrase "Rock Scientist, Mahipal" in your future. Tia.
>
>
>
> -- Mahipal "With friends like you, who needs friends."
>
Virdy the math bending relativity acceptor with nothing to contribute.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway "With idiots like Dono, who needs
Virdy?"
Mahipal Virdy
2013-10-25 14:26:20 UTC
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:22:03 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "JanPB" wrote in message
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:00:22 PM UTC-7, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
>
> > > "JanPB" wrote in message
>
> > Not that new. I used to surf here back in the 1990s. Recently, I see and
> > read, only part way, cross posted threads on sci physics ng. So I decided
> > to surf here and catch the remainder of the discussions. In less than half
> > a day, I've been called a "use another relativity denier" already. Do I
> > know how to make friends, a first impression, or what?!

In above, "use" should've been "just" but the autocorrect might've interfered.

> Ah, so you may remember how this NG was born? Basically, whenever someone
> posted a special-relativity-related question on sci.physics, there would
> follow a loooong thread of inane responses. This got so tiresome and useless
> it was decided to create a new group called "sci.physics.relativity" in
> order to divert the kook traffic. The idea worked well in practice.

Usenet discussions were, overall, better back then. People took there time to respond with detailed posts. After 9/11/2001, my interactions waned for like a decade. These days, the shorter the tweet length limited post, the faster the real timed response, seems to be everybody's MO.

Looks like s.p.r should be further split into s.p.r.deniers and s.p.r.acceptors.

> --
> Jan
>
> > Btw, Dono, find any writings from my history that demonstrates I am one of
> > those relativity deniers. Search and search and SEARCH until …youKnow…
> > find. Yawn.
>
> > > ==============================================
>
> > > Virdy isn't new, he's often rude and insulting on a personal level and
> > > he's
> > > no better than the non interactive Tom Roberts who can't discuss
> > > mathematics
> > > either. He has nothing to contribute unless you count his adoration of
> > > tennis players.
>
> > > -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
> > He he… nothing to contribute me… Lord John. No I, as you Androcles well
> > know, am not rude and insulting on a personal level, though I do defend
> > myself and often others. If anything, I am too interactive and way too
> > math bent. Also, in your summary of my character, do remember to use the
> > phrase "Rock Scientist, Mahipal" in your future. Tia.
> > -- Mahipal "With friends like you, who needs friends."
>
> Virdy the math bending relativity acceptor with nothing to contribute.

Btw, John, find any writings from my history that demonstrates I am one of those relativity acceptors. Search and search and SEARCH until …youKnow… find. Yawn.

If I merely read, or if I merely attend a seminar and just listen, I have contributed.

You may believe and portray I contribute nothing, you may believe and accept only your content is worthy of limelight, on and On and ON… I happen to know I asked very relevant questions that irked the likes of …youKnow… in this thread alone. Surprise nobody noticed my paragraph that ended with a request for legal title ownership.

> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway "With idiots like Dono, who needs
> Virdy?"

O Lord you are welcome to idiots like Dono. Don't let my hanging around the Usenet Bar poison your pleasure.

-- Mahipal "It's my Universe and mine alone; Only I'll tell (y)ou how it works!"
shuba
2013-09-28 05:27:08 UTC
JanPB wrote:

> Another bunch of entirely useless posts. Maybe "Pentcho" is
> several people or a computer program? If he is real, I truly pity
> him. What a waste of life, can you imagine?

It's not just usenet postings, either. Valev droppings are found
throughout the internet. He is certainly an enigma, who started
railing against thermodynamics before switching his primary
obsessions to relativity. He seems to be posting most or all of the
same stuff here to a message board for the crank paper repository
"General Science Journal". An anonymous poster recently penned a
lovely little poetic verse there in French, summing him up.

---------
Personellement, je trouve PENTCHO VALEV vraiment très stupide
September 19 2013 at 7:22 AM Anonymous

A le lire, on dirait qu'il le fait exprès.
Il ne comprend rien, ne résout rien, n'explique rien.
Mais il a un don!!!
Il trouve la possibilité de faire des erreurs de logique
là où personne ne pourrait -même pour le jeu- en imaginer.
Une sorte de créatif malgré lui!
L'incarnation de la stupidité.
La stupidité développée en une fort d'art abstrait.

Or, as google translate puts it:

Personally, I find it really stupid Pentcho valev
September 19, 2013 at 7:22 AM Anonymous

To read it, it looks like it on purpose.
He understands nothing, solves nothing, explains nothing.
There is the possibility of errors in logic where nobody
could even imagine the game.
A kind of creative in spite of himself!
The epitome of stupidity.
Stupidity developed a very abstract art.
---------

---Tim Shuba---
Justin Woodruff
2013-09-28 15:42:29 UTC
shuba wrote:

> Personally, I find it really stupid Pentcho valev September 19, 2013
> at 7:22 AM Anonymous
>
> To read it, it looks like it on purpose.
> He understands nothing, solves nothing, explains nothing.
> But he has a gift!
> There is the possibility of errors in logic where nobody could even
> imagine the game.
> A kind of creative in spite of himself!
> The epitome of stupidity.
> Stupidity developed a very abstract art.

That frenchman is really stupid. What he says makes no any sense :)
Don Stockbauer
2013-09-30 02:45:02 UTC
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:42:29 AM UTC-5, Justin Woodruff wrote:
> shuba wrote:
>
>
>
> > Personally, I find it really stupid Pentcho valev September 19, 2013
>
> > at 7:22 AM Anonymous
>
> >
>
> > To read it, it looks like it on purpose.
>
> > He understands nothing, solves nothing, explains nothing.
>
> > But he has a gift!
>
> > There is the possibility of errors in logic where nobody could even
>
> > imagine the game.
>
> > A kind of creative in spite of himself!
>
> > The epitome of stupidity.
>
> > Stupidity developed a very abstract art.
>
>
>
> That frenchman is really stupid. What he says makes no any sense :)

Hey, Penchant:

frequency , wavelength varies according to the light source's relative velocity with the observer.

the speed of light doesn't.
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-12 15:13:25 UTC
Einsteinians lying blatantly: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

In fact, Einstein desperately adjusted his theory several times until eventually it "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. Things are even more serious - in 1907 Einstein sets himself the goal "to use his new theory of gravity, WHATEVER IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory":

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-14 04:45:06 UTC
If calculations based on Newton's gravitational law give an apparently wrong prediction, as is in the perihelion of Mercury case, then either:

(A) the law is wrong and should be fixed

or:

(B) some mass is either unaccounted for or assumed to be in the wrong place

No third alternative exists except in Divine Albert's world where the problem is "solved" by changing and fudging equations:

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard"

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/04/23/einstein-besso-duo-pour-un-eureka_1341703_3244.html
Stéphane Foucart, "Einstein-Besso, duo pour un eurêka !"

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/index.html
"L'erreur d'Einstein (la deuxième)"

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud suggests that, in the perihelion of Mercury case, the apparent deviation from the Newtonian prediction is due to the non-spherical sun:

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
"En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un "aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant le bel accord de la théorie."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-22 21:01:30 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics. (...) De Sitter's argument was criticized because of possible extinction effects. That is, during their flight to Earth, the light rays should have been absorbed and re-emitted by interstellar matter nearly at rest relative to Earth, so that the speed of light should become constant with respect to Earth. However, Kenneth Brecher published the results of a similar double-survey in 1977, and reached a similar conclusion - that any apparent irregularities in double-star orbits were too small to support the emission theory. Contrary to De Sitter, he observed the x-ray spectrum, thereby eliminating possible influences of the extinction effect."

Here is Brecher's paper:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) expects a system with uncertain parameters to produce "peculiar effects". The system does not produce them. Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Needless to say, a refutation of this kind can only be valid in Divine Albert's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the unknown or uncertain parameters of the double star system do not allow critics to show why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

Einsteinians like this way of doing science:

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-23 10:45:43 UTC
Perhaps the most famous experiment unequivocally proving that Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is absolutely wrong, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev
h***@yahoo.com
2013-10-23 14:47:57 UTC
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:45:43 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Perhaps the most famous experiment unequivocally proving that Ritz's
> emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light
> depends on the speed of the emitter) is absolutely wrong,

[yammering deleted]

> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf
>
> Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region,
> Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics
> Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262
>
> High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma
> photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target,

[more yammering deleted]

> Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but
> Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium
> target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into
> two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving
> source - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside
> the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is
> correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by

[and even more yammering deleted]

"To disbelieve is easy; to scoff is simple; to have faith is harder."
--Louis L'Amour

However, it is easy for Unrepentcho to believe in fantasies such as the
busted ballistic theory of light. Perhaps Unrepentcho could explain to
us why gamma rays coming from moving pions doing c should be slowed down
by stationary beryllium atoms. Have the gammas given up their energy by
colliding with the atoms and thus slowed down? If that were so, why did
they still have energy of 6 GeV when they were detected? Surely, by the
ballistic speculation their energy should be decreased by a factor of four
if speed is reduced by a factor of two, n'est-ce pas?

Good grief, Pentcho, make some sense!

Gary
Pentcho Valev
2013-12-06 22:47:26 UTC
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
Daniel Kennefick: "In a 1911 paper, Einstein first predicted that light would fall in a gravitational field, so starlight passing close to the limb of the Sun would be deflected from its path. He calculated that the observed position of a star whose light passed near the Sun would change by 0.87 arcsecond (0.87"). His analysis was based on his understanding of basic features a relativistic theory of gravity must include, in particular the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle demands that all masses must fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. Eddington and Dyson labeled the value Einstein calculated in 1911 as the "Newtonian" value, a label justified by the subsequent discovery that a similar value based only on Newtonian physics had been published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner. In 1916, after he had developed the final version of his theory of general relativity, Einstein realized that there was an additional component to the light-deflection effect caused by the way that the Sun's mass curves spacetime around itself. Thus a straight path, or geodesic, near the Sun is curved, compared with a path through flat space. The extra deflection caused by that curvature is comparable to the deflection due solely to falling, so that the general relativistic prediction calls for twice as great a shift in stellar positions - about 1.75" at the limb of the Sun - as does the Newtonian theory."

In 1919 Eddington fudged the results in favour of Einstein's double deflection but here this will not be the problem. The double deflection implies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling matter:

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."

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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) 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.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/research/bartelmann/Publications/Proceedings/JeruLect.pdf
LECTURES ON GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, RAMESH NARAYAN AND MATTHIAS BARTELMANN, p. 3: " The effect of spacetime curvature on the light paths can then be expressed in terms of an effective index of refraction n, which is given by (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992):
n = 1-(2/c^2)phi = 1+(2/c^2)|phi|
Note that the Newtonian potential is negative if it is defined such that it approaches zero at infinity. As in normal geometrical optics, a refractive index n>1 implies that light travels slower than in free vacuum. Thus, the effective speed of a ray of light in a gravitational field is:
v = c/n ~ c-(2/c)|phi| "

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 phi would be c(1+phi/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+phi. 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+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~rviktor/kosmologija/Relativity_Gravitation_and_Cosmology.pdf
Relativity, Gravitation, and Cosmology, T. Cheng

p.49: This implies that the speed of light as measured by the remote observer is reduced by gravity as

c(r) = (1 + phi(r)/c^2)c (3.39)

Namely, the speed of light will be seen by an observer (with his coordinate clock) to vary from position to position as the gravitational potential varies from position to position.

p.93: Namely, the retardation of a light signal is twice as large as that given in (3.39)

c(r) = (1 + 2phi(r)/c^2)c (6.28)
________________________________________________
[end of quotation]

The Newtonian (or Einstein's 1911) equation describing the variation of the speed of light:

c' = c(1+phi/c^2)

is obviously consistent with the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka:

f' = f(1+phi/c^2)

while Einstein's 1915 double-variation equation:

c' = c(1+2phi/c^2)

is obviously inconsistent with the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka.

Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment was a straightforward refutation of Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-12-16 23:23:52 UTC
The glorious confirmation of the "Einstein shift":

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

"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://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1979/hetherington.pdf
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

That is, the glorious confirmation of the Einstein shift was rather fraudulent for a few decades. Yet in 1959 it became absolutely glorious - no fraud at all:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/putting-relativity-to-the-test.html
"The first test of gravitational redshift occurred in 1925. That year, the astronomer Walter Adams gauged the spectral signature from Sirius B. A white dwarf star, Sirius B is extremely dense and thus has a strong gravitational field. Adams' measurements agreed with predictions made using GR, but because the physics of such bodies was then only poorly understood, scientists couldn't rule out that the redshift stemmed from some other cause. It wasn't until 1959 that the first truly conclusive experiment of redshift occurred right here on Earth. That year, physicists Robert Pound and Glen Rebka conducted a novel experiment inside the 74-foot-tall tower of Harvard's Jefferson Laboratory. (...) The experiment offered one of the first high-precision tests of GR."

Nowadays Einsteinians know and even teach that the "Einstein shift" is in fact a "Newton shift":

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "...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..."

Why do Einsteinians teach that the "Einstein shift" is a "Newton shift"? For fun - that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-12-17 14:43:05 UTC
The Hafele-Keating hoax:

http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli/S/Science1972_%20177_4044_%20166.pdf
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains, J. C. Hafele; Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It might well be that the Earth center rotated around some other center of rotation even faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating, which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally unable to predict the outcome of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.

Pentcho Valev
Odd Bodkin
2013-12-17 14:54:11 UTC
On 12/17/2013 8:43 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the feeling that the Earth center is
> the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.

I wouldn't have concluded that at all, even from the out-of-context
snippet that you quoted.
h***@yahoo.com
2013-12-17 16:15:24 UTC
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:43:05 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial)
> space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of
> the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they
> rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It might well
> be that the Earth center rotated around some other center of rotation even
> faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating,

"It might well be"? IOW, complete fabrication.

> which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally
> unable to predict the outcome of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

The only thing false here is Pentcho's house of cards he constructs out of
irrelevancies.

> Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by
> the feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of
> rotation of the whole Universe. Pentcho Valev

Pinocchio Pentcho's house of cards is built upon sheer ignorance and irrational
thinking. Does Pin. Pentcho see the stars and galaxies whirling madly about
in the night sky? Does he get dizzy from all this frenetic activity? How
long does he think it took to perform the H-K experiment? Eons? Did he
think to calculate how much curvature there was in the earth's orbit during
the experiment? Of course he didn't! Pinocchio Pentcho will rush in to tell
lies at the drop of a Pin. in a gravity well.

Furthermore, his penchant for conspiracy theories is widely known. He
fabricates his house of cards on a foundation of his misunderstanding of basic
science, and constructs it by obstinate disregard of reality. For example,
his bull-headed insistence on lightspeed variance by logical deduction based
on invalid premises (as he did in the case of the H-K experiment) rather
than bowing to the only REAL authority of experience.

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing
it." --Chinese proverb

Gary