🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 6, 2:16 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> Master say zombie discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not.

I said no such thing. I said it would be best to look at them in the
proper *context* where they are used. Just as it's best to look at the
*context* of the formulas in the example I gave, lest there be a Valev
paroxysm in the offing.

> Zombie
> discuss c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2) not. Master say zombie
> introduce silly red herring yes. Zombie introduce silly red herring
> yes. Master say bravo zombie yes. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes.
> Master repeat bravo zombie yes. Zombie go into convulsions yes.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com