🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 11, 9:59 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 9:08 am,PentchoValev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Royal Society performed the first revolution in 1919 but:
>
> > http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
> > "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> > starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> > Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> > - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> > cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> > nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> > The Royal Society should have considered Einstein's 1911 equation
> > c'=c(1+V/c^2): it is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor
> > 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally and therefore "Newtonian gravity"
> > correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light in a
> > gravitational field. On the other hand, Einstein's "theory" turned out
> > to be an incomparable money-spinner so Einstein's 1911 equation
> > c'=c(1+V/c^2) was swept under the rug.
>
> > Twelve years ago (the Royal Society is still just shocking the public
> > and making money):
>
> > http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html
> > "ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly
> > going where no reputable scientific body has gone before.
> > Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical
> > Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be
> > able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means
> > that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages
> > powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of
> > science fiction writers...Crawford argues that modern physics may
> > allow two possible ways around Einstein's theory....The theories will
> > boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of
> > travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several
> > NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova
> > Scotia."

Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.
La la la la...
Those were the days, oh yes those were the days

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/15/sciastro115.xml
"Pessimism and anger over science funding crisis.....The Royal
Astronomical Society has talked of the "deep pessimism and anger"
caused by funding cuts that it says will jeopardise university
physics."

Oh my friend we're older but no wiser
For in our hearts the dreams are still the same
Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.
La la la la...
Those were the days, oh yes those were the days

> > Six years ago (concern is growing in the Royal Society, a second
> > revolution may be just around the corner):
>
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> > "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> > thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> > relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> > Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomerroyal, say such
> > laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> > also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
> > EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
> > 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so
> > concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a
> > private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading
> > cosmologists."
>
> > Recent hints at a second revolution:
>
> > http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880
> >Royal Society: "Newton beats Einstein in polls of scientists and the
> > public."
>
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/01/26/ecrein26.xml&sSheet=/connected/2005/01/26/ixconnrite.html
> > Martin Rees: "Although there's something rather noble about the way he
> > persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some
> > respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong signal. It unduly exalts
> > "armchair theory", which by itself would achieve little."
>
> > And yet the Royal Society's second revolution remains unfinished. It
> > really is just around the corner: "AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
> > EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
> > 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."
>
> So, effectively, Martin Rees and his Royal Society are the villains
> looked for in the story below:
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Who39s-to-blame-for-government.3690408.jp
> "There is a sense of confusion within the physics community as to how
> far up this crisis goes, which is only just beginning to
> unravel.....This lack of clarity over who is to blame has fed a number
> of conspiracy theories......Professor Richard Kenway, the leader of
> the particle theory group at Edinburgh University, said: "The biggest
> cause of concern is that we don't know who the villain of the piece is
> or if there even is one.....Professor Andy Lawrence, head of Edinburgh
> University's school of physics, says being short of money is nothing
> new: "The past 20 years has seen a gradual squeeze in these areas of
> physics......"The puzzling thing is why there have been these
> catastrophic cuts over such a small period. Departments haven't had a
> chance to respond. "Of course, the loss of our role in international
> projects is a blow, but the really shocking thing is the cut in
> grants. We need people to actually analyse data and write the papers,
> and without these grants how are we going to pay them?" Lawrence adds:
> "The situation seems crazy because it has been shown these subjects
> are the very ones that attract students to physics at a grass-roots
> level. Cuts of 25 to 50 per cent are enough to send any department
> into a downward spiral."
>
> PentchoValev
> pva...@yahoo.com