How can you have a PHD in physics and be this stupid ?

 Answer to Special Relativity: Since clocks traveling at high speeds run more slowly, do clocks at the equator run more slowly than those near the north pole? Has this been measured? by Mark Eichenlaub

 https://www.quora.com/Special-Relativity-Since-clocks-traveling-at-high-speeds-run-more-slowly-do-clocks-at-the-equator-run-more-slowly-than-those-near-the-north-pole-Has-this-been-measured/answer/Mark-Eichenlaub?ch=15&oid=3438269&share=c36c5f24&srid=Kxsx&target_type=answer

Clocks at sea level run that same speed no matter their latitude, as a simple thought experiment can show.

Imagine Alice is at the north pole and Bob is at the equator. Alice has a laser that shoots light to Bob.

So mister PHD in physics answers the question by a 'simple thought experiment' which involves shooting a laser pointer from the North Pole to the equator. Simple, right ? 

Sure, if we imagine that the earth is FLAT ! Because in the real world if you try to do that with a laser pointer it will not reach the ecuator, but will point straight into the earth. 

So is the earth flat, or how does he point the laser from the North Pole to the Equator ??? Does it make a hole through the earth, or does it bend around the earth or what ?? This thought experiment is just retarded, because it requires to imagine physically imposible things. How can you have a PHD in physics and be this stupid ?? And this guy supposedly coaches students in physics adn problem solving:

'I’m a coach for the US Physics Team, a program to bring creative problem-solving in physics to high school students. Any US high school student is welcome to participate.' 


 


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more