Re: gamma rays from AGN flares.. energy dependent travel times?


"xxein" <xxein@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c93c6dbc-8b6d-4e1a-ac85-bea7fe1f3e72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 13, 8:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xxein" <xx...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8952ca72-3ec2-4193-a8cb-dcef6c91249c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 13, 9:31 am, funkenstein <luke.s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just looking for comments on this result:

Probing quantum gravity using photons from a flare of the active
galactic nucleus Markarian 501 observed by the MAGIC telescope
Authors: J. Albert et al. (for the MAGIC Collaboration), John Ellis,
N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos, A.S. Sakharov, E.K.G. Sarkisyan

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2889

It seems to me that without a reasonably validated model of the flare
itself it is difficult to get too much propagation physics out of the
arrival times.. but the idea is compelling none the less..

cheers

xxein: Sometimes theories go wild and lead you down a wrong path.
Backing up to a known perspective is often good for a comparison. But
the validity of the backup can remain in question too.

Everything relates in the physic. For instance: A BH. What is the
relative velocity of light going outward at R = 2M? 0, right? What
is the escape velocity at R = 2M. c, right? What is a relativity
velocity compared to an absolute velocity in a gravity? Or a flat
space for that matter.

Spectrum analysis provides for a shift. This represent frequencies we
measure. We know the spectrum for a lot of stuff (elements) and can
trace the shift of spectrum. We know that light produced by the Sun
is red-shifted due to the gravity of it's source. About 2.06E-03
percent to account for the frequency. Where does the frequency get
changed? Not in transit. It's the ability to xmit light frequency
inside of a gravity --- it's time dilation.
=============================================
Sometimes theories go wild and lead you down a wrong path.
Sometimes crackpots pull bull*** out of their own arse.
Sometimes those cranks even call it an artefactual/superficially imposed
yin-yang of sorts.

xxein: I'll tie my hands and feet to give you the chance to say
something you can prove on a physically logical basis.
=========================================
Ok.


Go ahead and explain your version of relativity.
==========================================
If yin moves toward yang then yang moves toward yin.
If yin moves away from yang then yang moves away from yin.
These two experiments are 100% equivalent:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/1stPostulate.gif

If you want an equation then in the frame of yin the velocity of
yang is distance/duration (v = dx/dt) and the velocity of yin is zero, yin
cannot move relatively to yin.
in the frame of yang the velocity of yin is distance/duration (v = dx/dt)
and the velocity of yang is zero, yang cannot move relatively to yang.

When yin meets yang, yang meets yin simultaneously (proof by observation).
===============================================

Pick SR or GR and
let me know which so that I can prove you wrong efficiently. I don't
think you can make it through SR.
=================================================
SR and GR? They are total nonsense, written by a charlatan. So is your
idiotic artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts "time dilation"
nonsense. Why would I pick those?

No way! I choose this, Simplicio:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/galileo/dialogue.html
and I choose this, Simplicio:
http://gravitee.tripod.com/


================================================
I'll give you a head start. It an artefactual/superficially imposed
yin-yang of sorts.

Now reply with why your version simply has to be physically true and
all others are false. When you get done, be prepared to be made
foolish.
=================================================
Go ahead, make me and Galileo and Newton and Doppler foolish.
You can have the head start if you have a head.
Let's see if you have a head or are too foolish to answer correctly,
Mr. Yin yang of sorts:

Match the caption to the gif:

A) http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B) http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C) http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D) http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound



.

Quantcast