http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL RULES," Michelson said.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... > "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in > the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black > hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light > years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the > telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of > the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time > lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? > That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central > tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all > electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic > speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be > absolutely irrelevant."
What a crock of shit, and from New Scientist!
The space between here and a galaxy 500 million light years away is not a complete vacuum, in fact accumulated over 500 million light years each photon passes a *lot* of matter.
Light does go slower when not going through a vacuum, that's how lenses work. Its called diffraction. And this is frequency dependent, which is why cheap lenses have rainbow effects, this also has been known for centuries. And longer wavelengths are almost always affected more.
I bet even the short wavelengths were beaten to earth by the Neutrino flux, which actually outruns light in even the thinnest vacuums.
I expect the next paragraph of the New Scientist went on to explain this, and you just snipped it.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... > "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in > the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black > hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light > years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the > telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of > the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time > lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? > That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central > tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all > electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic > speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be > absolutely irrelevant."
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html > "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- > Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic > radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, > high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) > After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma > ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- > not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. > "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
> http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 > "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second > burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after > traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just > nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any > approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- > dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- > distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, > these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," > Michelson said."
> In Big Brother's world:
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ > George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two > made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that > they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their > position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the > very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their > philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was > terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, > but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two > and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the > past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist > only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
> Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the > MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two > and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter > Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added > two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL > RULES," Michelson said.
Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the following hypothesis:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b... "If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to tiny fluctuations in space-time."
A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by no means rejected if this particular observation were the only evidence.
There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka, where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the following questions:
The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
(A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
(B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
(C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
(D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field
(E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/ c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by Einstein in 1911
(F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/ c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable couple.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL RULES,"Michelson said.
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or > against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple > reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit > auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental > theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy > photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the > following hypothesis:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b... > "If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly > than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy > photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to > tiny fluctuations in space-time."
> A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel > at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my > view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by > no means rejected if this particular observation were the only > evidence.
> There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka, > where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental > theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity > but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by > new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of > Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the > following questions:
> The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
> (A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
> (B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation > c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the > speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
> (C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis, > the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where > v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
> The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
> (D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a > gravitational field
> (E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/ > c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by > Einstein in 1911
> (F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/ > c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
> Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable > couple.
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In Einsteiniana:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... > "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in > the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black > hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light > years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the > telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of > the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time > lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? > That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central > tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all > electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic > speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be > absolutely irrelevant."
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html > "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- > Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic > radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, > high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) > After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma > ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- > not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. > "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
> http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 > "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second > burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after > traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just > nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any > approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- > dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- > distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, > these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," > Michelson said."
> In Big Brother's world:
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ > George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two > made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that > they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their > position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the > very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their > philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was > terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, > but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two > and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the > past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist > only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
> Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the > MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two > and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter > Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added > two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL > RULES,"Michelson said.
THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and maxwell. Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper. Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge.
Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
Three possible statements about LIGHT:
(A) (Einstein should not rule): "If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That means that, in analogy with the water wave case, moving observer finds both the frequency and the speed of light to have increased (while the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)."
(B) (Einstein still rules but things get dangerous since an analogy frequently used in textbooks - between water waves and light waves - is explicitly rejected): "If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of light to have increased (but, in contrast with the water wave case, he would find the speed of light to have remained constant and the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind... (C) (Einstein is to rule forever; the analogy between water waves and light waves is only implicitly rejected): John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
On Nov 9, 4:10 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference?
--------------------------- THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and maxwell. Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper. Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge.
> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? ======================================== Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
> news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? > ======================================== > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone > else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ! Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the light!
> news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace > experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? > ======================================== > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone > else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ! Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the light! =============================================== Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit! Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn some physics!
> >news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace > > experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> > When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? > > ======================================== > > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone > > else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
> Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ! > Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the > light! > =============================================== > Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit! > Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn > some physics!
========= THE CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT WAS FIRSTLY GIVEN BY michelson and maxwell. Einstein simply stole it and published in June 1905 paper. Is it clear ot pick up some books for knowledge.
> >news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace > > experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> > When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? > > ======================================== > > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone > > else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
> Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ! > Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the > light! > =============================================== >Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit! >Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn >some physics!
How original!
Learning anything would be way beyond the slime mold that masqeurades as a brain in your echoing skull. It slinks, so maybe it is, but all its slinking and 'shit' will not make a brain of it!
> >news:d749d663-47d5-46b2-aa13-46155387e375@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Commonplace > > experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > > > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > > > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > > > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > > > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> > When you surf a wave, are you in motion from your frame of reference? > > ======================================== > > Is your IQ in your frame of reference higher than it is in anyone > > else's frame of reference, fuckwit?
> Aha! I see that you now recognize that frames of reference may differ! > Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even see the > light! > =============================================== >Aha! I see that you now recognize that you are a fuckwit! >Keep it up, you are making progress. One day you may even learn >some physics!
How original!
=============== Thank you. Now fuck off, troll. *plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
One of the crucial episodes in Einsteiniana's history which, if honestly analysed, will leave no doubt as to why Einstein still rules:
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the “Einstein shift” in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams’ 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington’s estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury’s anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington’s estimate and Adams’ measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington."
See also:
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fau... RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des... "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... > "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in > the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black > hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light > years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the > telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of > the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time > lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? > That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central > tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all > electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic > speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be > absolutely irrelevant."
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html > "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- > Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic > radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, > high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) > After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma > ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- > not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. > "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
> http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 > "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second > burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after > traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just > nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any > approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- > dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- > distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, > these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," > Michelson said."
> In Big Brother's world:
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ > George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two > made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that > they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their > position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the > very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their > philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was > terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, > but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two > and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the > past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist > only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
> Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the > MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two > and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter > Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added > two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL > RULES," Michelson said.
Karl Popper: "From a logical point of view, the testing of a theory depends upon basic statements whose acceptance or rejection, in its turn, depends upon our decisions. Thus it is decisions which settle the fate of theories. To this extent my answer to the question, 'how do we select a theory?' resembles that given by the conventionalist..."
W.H. Newton-Smith: "For the Popperians are fond of accusing Kuhn of reducing the acceptance of scientific theories to a 'matter of mob psychology'. But it is exceedingly hard to see how Popper can resist this description on his own account of what is involved in theory choice. Acceptance or rejection of theories for Popper rests on the ungrounded and ungroundable conventional decisions of the scientific community. That is exactly to make it a matter of mob psychology."
In 1919 the mob took a momentous decision: Einstein will be our ruler because he bends light better than Newton:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/17/spaceexploration.comment "And on 6 November, 1919, at a Royal Society meeting, the astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington revealed that observations, taken during a solar eclipse, showed that starlight was being deflected by the sun's gravitational field in a way that fitted Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. 'Revolution in science. New theory of the Universe. Newtonian ideas overthrown,' the Times announced the next day on its front page. Einstein became a global superstar - thanks to the Royal Society."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-... "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."
Today's mob is even more resolute: Einstein will rule forever because he can bend light while Newton cannot:
One of the crucial episodes in Einsteiniana's history which, if honestly analysed, will leave no doubt as to why Einstein still rules:
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington."
See also:
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fau... RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des... "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
Einstein will rule longer than Big Brother because, in contrast with Big Brother's world where two and two make five but 2+2=4 is forbidden (that is, some consistency is sought), in Einstein's world both 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 are taught:
Teaching in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Florida:
Teaching in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Sometimes 2+2=3 is taught as well:
2+2=3: The speed of light does not vary with the gravitational potential.
2+2=4: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light.
2+2=5: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2).
References:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational redshift."
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
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."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462291a.html NATURE: "Burst of support for relativity. Light from a distant gamma- ray burst backs up a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity — that photon speed is the same regardless of energy."
1. Observations suggest that high-energy photons travel through space slower than low-energy photons.
2. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers in this case) advance theories predicting that that high-energy photons travel slower than low-energy photons. Career, money etc.
3. A single observation suggests that high-energy photons travel through space slower than low-energy photons but the difference in speed is small.
4. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) discover "a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity — that photon speed is the same regardless of energy".
5. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) make a second discovery: the single observation confirms the "key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity" and therefore there is "burst of support for relativity" in the world.
6. The journal Nature immediately publishes Lee Smolin and brothers' discoveries. Career, money etc. for Nature editors, Lee Smolin, brothers and sycophants.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag... "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space? That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves, high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...) After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 -- not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects. "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610 "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy- dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long- distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES," Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL RULES," Michelson said.
> Commonplace experience: If the observer were to hurry towards the > source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds > both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while > the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
> Three possible statements about LIGHT:
> (A) (Einstein should not rule): "If the observer were to hurry towards > the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > frequently than the resting observer. That means that, in analogy with > the water wave case, moving observer finds both the frequency and the > speed of light to have increased (while the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE > BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)."
> (B) (Einstein still rules but things get dangerous since an analogy > frequently used in textbooks - between water waves and light waves - > is explicitly rejected): "If the observer were to hurry towards the > source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more > frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving > observer would find the frequency of light to have increased (but, in > contrast with the water wave case, he would find the speed of light to > have remained constant and the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN > CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind... > (C) (Einstein is to rule forever; the analogy between water waves and > light waves is only implicitly rejected): John Norton: "Here's a light > wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source > of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently > than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would > find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY > FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE > DECREASED)."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b... "Einstein's theory of special relativity says that all electromagnetic radiation travels through a vacuum at the speed of light. This speed is predicted to be constant, regardless of the energy of the radiation. Yet in 2005, the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands suggested the speed of light might not be constant after all. The telescope, which measured the light released by a galaxy around 500 million light years away, found that higher energy photons arrived four minutes behind their lower energy counterparts. (...) Now new observations suggest quantum gravity cannot be responsible for the time delay observed by MAGIC. The light from a powerful, 7-billion year old gamma-ray burst detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope shows no evidence of a lag between photons of a range of energies. "We have fewer stomach aches now," says Amelino-Camelia. "The Fermi data has pushed the limit where it's now proven the MAGIC data cannot be interpreted in that way."
The MAGIC data cannot be interpreted in that way? That is, "quantum gravity cannot be responsible for the time delay observed by MAGIC"? Then what is the only reasonable conclusion? Three possible versions:
BURST OF SUPPORT FOR RELATIVITY
EINSTEIN STILL RULES
EINSTEINIANA IS AN ETERNAL MONEY-SPINNER
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462291a.html NATURE: "Burst of support for relativity. Light from a distant gamma- ray burst backs up a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity - that photon speed is the same regardless of energy."
1. Observations suggest that high-energy photons travel through space slower than low-energy photons.
2. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers in this case) advance theories predicting that that high-energy photons travel slower than low-energy photons. Career, money etc.
3. A single observation suggests that high-energy photons travel through space slower than low-energy photons but the difference in speed is small.
4. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) discover "a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity - that photon speed is the same regardless of energy".
5. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) make a second discovery: the single observation confirms the "key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity" and therefore there is "burst of support for relativity" in the world.
6. The journal Nature immediately publishes Lee Smolin and brothers' discoveries. Career, money etc. for Nature editors, Lee Smolin, brothers and sycophants.
|
