🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 7, 7:37 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 4:30 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 7, 11:11 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >   d7d94a19-8f62-4bbb-b58c-4b2ac89d3...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > > On Aug 7, 2:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Aug 6, 5:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> Clever Draper you have never been so confused (or dishonest). The
> > > > >>> proper context of Einstein's both equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and
> > > > >>> c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is the Pound-Rebka experiment, and this was clearly
> > > > >>> stated (see above).
>
> > > > >> Citations, please. Were both in the Pound-Rebka paper?
>
> > > > No citations.
> > > > Honestly, what did you expect?
>
> > > > Dirk Vdm
>
> > > But I have already drawn the conclusion, Clever Moortel. Let me
> > > repeat: Einstein's equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+2V/c^2)
>
> > Einstein's equations from WHERE? What is the context of those
> > equations?
>
> Zombie knows no limits. Up until recently, Clever Draper, I was
> accused, by your brothers zombies, of being OBSESSED with Einstein's
> 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) since I had referred to it countless times
> indeed. Some time ago I discussed and gave references to the other
> equation, c'=c(1+2V/c^2), as well:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...

These still don't point to original sources, though one of them points
to a lesson on www.mathpages.com, and you STILL haven't explicated the
*context* of those derivations, nor noticed that neither one of them
has any bearing on Pound-Rebka.

You will notice, however, that the discussion in the twice-removed
reference on www.mathpages.com DOES discuss the DIFFERENCE in the
contexts of those two equations, and does so quite explicitly. You
seem to have missed that completely.

As I told you before, Pentcho, if you just blindly put side by side
two formulas like
F_g = mg
F_g = GMm/r^2
you would be inclined to say that these two formulas are in conflict,
when they are in fact not at all in conflict. It is only by virtue of
superficial examination that they appear so, and if you take a minute
to understand the *context* of those two equations you see that they
are not in conflict at all. If you do the same exercise with the two
equations you cite, you will find there is nothing inconsistent.

>
> And now you zombie Draper want to convince the public that you see
> Einstein's equations for the first time. Bravo zombie Draper! The
> public is convinced!

I don't need to convince the public. I don't need to convince you. All
I'm doing is pointing out where your likely source of confusion is. If
you don't want to entertain the notion that you are confused about
something, that's completely up to you. However, your being confused,
or your willingness to admit confusion, has nothing to do with the
self-consistency of relativity. Do not suffer the theism that "If It
Is Right, Then It Should Be Immediately Obvious."