0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by Roy PHa-ha-ha!__________________________________________________________Roy P
quote:Originally posted by Roy P'Relativity Hypnotists', 'Zombies', 'Criminal cults'. Are they appropriate definitions of your peers, PV? Why are you so confrontational?__________________________________________________________Roy P
quote:Originally posted by Pentcho Valevquote:Originally posted by Roy PHa-ha-ha!__________________________________________________________Roy PC'=C+V IS EINSTEIN'S DISCOVERYThe formula c'=c+v which is often advanced by anti-relativists is an anathema to Einstein's zombies. It implies that the speed of light depends on v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. However hypnotists in the relativity cult know that Einstein himself has deduced this formula, in accordance with his principle of maximum absurdity: Relativity hypnotists: 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]...... 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 / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." Other relativity hypnotists: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's formula and you obtain c'=c+v. The zombie world should immediately stop worshipping at the portrait of Einstein (who irreversibly destroyed rationality in science) and start worshipping at the portrait of the martyr, Bryan Wallace (who tried to reverse the irreversible): http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Pentcho Valev
quote:Is it possible to convince Mr Valev with rational arguments?I doubt it. After he had himself raised the question of whether he was sound in mind (a question that may have occurred to others who were too delicate to raise it publicly), I tried to summarize the course of a dialogue with Mr Valev, which went like this: Pentcho proposes a paradox that appears to undermine two centuries of thermodynamics. Nothing necessarily wrong with that ó received opinion has been wrong about things for a lot more than two centuries before, and will doubtless be so again. Someone offers some arguments as to why Pentcho is wrong and thermodynamics is OK after all. Pentcho either repeats his original point or raises another quite different one. In neither case does he give any indication that he has tried to understand what is said by anyone else. The respondent tries to explain what was said before. Pentcho either repeats his original point or raises another quite different one. After a few cycles of this it becomes clear that arguing with Pentcho is like arguing with creationists about evolution; itís just a waste of time. If Pentcho wants people to take his arguments seriously he needs to show some good faith by indicating that he is willing to take theirs seriously. He might also make a serious effort to fix his mail program so that it sends his return address properly. Saying he canít do it and leaving it at that is too much like his response to everything else to be very convincing.