🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 22, 12:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:37 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://home.att.net/~numericana/fame/giants.htm
> > Giants  of  Science: Steven Weinberg, physicist   (1933-)
>
> >http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/01/66393?currentPage...
> > Giant of Science Steven Weinberg: "Worst of all would be to be without
> > Einstein's special theory of relativity; we would have no
> > understanding of elementary particles and the atomic nucleus."
>
> > What would happen if Dwarfs of Science like Jean Eisenstaedt manage to
> > prove that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
> > source? Would then any "understanding of elementary particles and the
> > atomic nucleus" disappear?
>
> >http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> > Dwarf of Science Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison
> > theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la
> > vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ;
> > plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la
> > logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte
> > autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il
> > n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible
> > a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute
> > la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs
> > astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme
> > siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
>
> > Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
> > the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
> > the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
> > there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
> > Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> > concerned, differently from a material particle.
>
>    And it doesn't. What the cranks in Relaviity still can't seem to
>    accept, even after 60 years of developing A.I, computers, lasers,
>    masers  robots, DNA-RNA, nuclear snythesis and Satellites for the
> idiots,
>    is that Einstein  nased his theory of light on Euclid's Theory Of
> Light,
>    not on observations of light,  mattter, history, or logic.


    Or it's even better to call it The Princeton Of Light.
    Since the only thing those wanks have ever
    been known to have to do with science is The U.N. and Nazis.





>
> Neither is there any
>
>
>
> > reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
> > don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
> > what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
> > end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -