🚀 go-pugleaf

-------- ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... ----
>
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:ai9ls41u2scejmgogjdi39c0c0rr0iuqf7@4ax.com...
> Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote: in
>>> hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>>  "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>> > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote:
>>> > >> I don't believe any of the experiments claiming
>>> > >> measurement the bending of light by the sun has
>>> > >> been at all accurate. The reason I say this is
>>> > >> Gravitational bending of light and lensing are
>>> > >> a naturalconsequence of Newtonian theory.
>>> > >> Light is accelerated by gravity just like anything else.
>>>
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>> > >Most of it is the Coriolis effect.
>>> > >It take 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth.
>>> > > In that time Earth travels 8 * 360/(1year * 365 days
>>> > >* 24 hours * 60 minutes) = 0.0055 degrees or 0.33 arc
>>> > > minutes or 20 arc seconds from a straight line
>>> > >connecting the Earth, Sun and a distant star. Eddington
>>> > >was a dork.
>>> > > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>>>
hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> > Yes, the whole past procedure appears to be flawed.
>>> >  But Eddington and Einstein knew there were thousands
>>> > of little eric geeses around who would lap up anything that
>>> > resembled science fiction.
>>>
Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Then look at the more recent observations. You do know
>>> there have been recent observations...right?
>>
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Earlier observations were fraud but recent are not....right?
>>That is, it was fraud that converted Albert the Plagiarist into
>> Divine Albert whereas recent observations just confirmed
>> the Divinity....right?
>>http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
>>RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
>>http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
>>
hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> > Nothing wrong with gravitational lensing though.
>>> > It is plainly Newtonian.
>>>
Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Except it is wrong by a factor of two.
>>
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Which equation is consistent with the gravitational redshift
>> factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:
>> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
>> emission theory of light, or
>> Einstein's 1915 "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2)?
>
hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> Good one Pencho.....when he fudged his equation to match
> the sun's supposed bending he stuffed it up for the
> Pound Rebka result.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... and the story would get even better if Androcles
would have elaborated more on his take. Androcles often quotes
from Einstein's 1905 paper and says:
>
::AE:: "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ zum
::AE:: Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen
::AE:: mit der Geschwindigkeit V - v, so da� gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."
and then Andro or someone clarifies this by posting that ~~
==  "during the days of Einstein's original 1905 papers
==  "V" was commonly used to denote "c", the speed of light.
>
Now, if that is so then (1+V/c^2) or  (1+2V/c^2) can be written
as (1+1/c) or  (1+2/c) ... & we have an entirely new ball game...
which is why Relativity is so relative.... It's got somerthing
for everybody... because it came out of the mindset of a tribe
that could walk on water, make wine from water and satisfy
7000 ancestors of Einstein's Dingleberries with 1 single fish...
>
Fishy, fishy!.. But "Trust Me"... "Go Figure!... ahahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, guys!....ahahahaha... ahahahanson