🚀 go-pugleaf

Honest Roberts how could you place so many idiocies in such a short
text:

On Jul 17, 4:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> no Planck constant).
>
>         This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
>         a quantum equation.
>
> BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
> relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either:
>
>      A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP)
> or
>      B) self inconsistent

Incredible. Honest Roberts if you cannot explain why the greenness of
the crocodile exceeds its length, does it mean you are self
inconsistent?

> This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus
> gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at
> rest and located adjacent to its path [#].

Whoever told you that, Honest Roberts? Divine Albert in chapter 23 in
his "Relativity"?

> Analyzed in the inertial
> frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that
> speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian
> mechanics is inconsistent with that.

How could it be consistent with such an idiocy Honest Roberts?

>
>         The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important
>         step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the
>         time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift.

Honest Roberts what are you talking about? Do you have a toothache?

>
>         [#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario.

Twin scenario with or without accleration, Honest Roberts?

>
> > Can it be
> > falsified by empirical data?
>
> Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the
> equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation".

And the only self-consistent model is....let me guess....yes, Divine
Albert's Divine Theory! Einstein zombie world sings and goes into
convulsions on hearing this:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com