🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 6, 12:43 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 12:27 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 6:56 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There is never "too far". Nature is what it is, as shown in
> > > > experiment. If nature is very, very strange, then that's what it is.
>
> > > You are Absolutely Correct again, Clever Draper. For instance nature
> > > says, through the Pound-Rebka experiment, that the gravitational
> > > frequency shift is:
>
> > > f' = f(1 + V/c^2)
>
> > > and that's what it is isn't it Clever Draper. On the other hand Divine
> > > Albert gives two equations for the variation of the speed of light in
> > > a gravitational field:
>
> > > (A) c' = c(1 + V/c^2)
>
> > > (B) c' = c(1 + 2V/c^2)
>
> > > Which equation Clever Draper - (A) or (B) - is consistent with the
> > > gravitational frequency shift equation? Is the inconsistent one wrong?
> > > Einstein zombie world is constantly singing "Divine Einstein" and does
> > > not give a shit about both (A) and (B)  but I have the impression that
> > > you are not a typical zombie and CAN answer the questions. So?
>
> > So, what's the deal, Pentcho? Are you asking me to try and teach you
> > so that it DOES make sense to you? Are you asking me to help you
> > reconcile your common sense to what nature really does? Are you trying
> > to get a free education on the internet?
>
> Typical zombie. But don't worry - even your masters are not allowed to
> comment on this. This is the Achilles’s heel of Divine Albert's Divine
> Theory.

I don't think so. You have a habit of taking formulas out of context
and comparing them, Pentcho, as though all formulas need to have
universal applicability.

To give you a more basic example, so you can see the issue, elementary
physics have both of these forces for the force of gravity acting on
an object.

F_g = mg.
F_g = GMm/r^2.

Now, the bonehead would look at these and say, This is the Achilles's
heel of Divine Newton's Divine Theory, because they both can't be
right. After all, g is a constant and the second equation varies with
r. And so which of these is right? If Newtonian mechanics lists both,
doesn't this mean that Newtonian mechanics is dead in the water?

Of course not. Only a bonehead would say that.

Are you having difficulties with context, Pentcho?

PD