🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 26, 7:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
> contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
> of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
> must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
> reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
> that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
> would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
> be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
> hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
> the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
> retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
> tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
> fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
> again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
> to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
> account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
> necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
> exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
> tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
> knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
> of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
> practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
> know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
> those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
> who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
> greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
> intelligent, the less sane."
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/18/this-is-getting-boring-genera...
> "In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the
> Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its
> publication, GR has passed test after test after test..."
>
> The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency F varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation:
>
> F'=F(1+V/c^2)
>
> This means that, in accordance with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> either the speed of light c varies:
>
> c'=c(1+V/c^2) (Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's emission
> theory of light)
>
> or the wavelength L varies:
>
> L'=L/(1+V/c^2) (an equation which on close inspection can only be
> characterized as idiotic)
>
> Since theoretical physics is dead, Einsteinians can safely say "The
> wavelength varies because Divine Albert said so" although Einstein has
> claimed all along that it is the speed of light that varies:
>
> The truth: Einstein has always regarded the speed of light in a
> gravitational field as VARIABLE and this is :
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "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. 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. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. 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."
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, 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://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/191...
> ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
> about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
> the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
> 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
> shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
>
> The lie (always one leap ahead of the truth): The speed of light in a
> gravitational field is CONSTANT, the wavelength is variable, and
> THAT'S IT:

--------------------
a master idiot parrot!!
the   bigest mistake Einstein did
is
considering the photon mass as zero !!!
and from that mistaken junction
all the rest mistakes start !!!
soace has no curvature and no shmervature   it has nothing but hosting
mass

NO MASS- NO  REAL PHYSICS   !!
soall that 'prvethat light curves next to the sun
'because of 'curvature of space'
was a stupidity based on another stupidity !!
ligth curves next to the sun
because it has    mass
and any    mass moving next to the sun will curve   its path
if you fuckn calculations show a mistake of 200 percent it is because
you are
a   200 %  fucekn physicists
and go adjust your calculations
as all crooks did for Schwartz shield
calculations

Y.Porat
------------------------------