🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 29, 1:45 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
>
> http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=685dc5bb...
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
> DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=c+v given by
> Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
> Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
> Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
>
> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
> an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
> light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
> requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
> absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
> radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
> circumstances."
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> 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. 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

xxein:  Another theory will tell you there is no reason to believe
that clicking your ruby-red heels together cannot return you to
Kansas.

Gravity fine, but emission (the aspect that you are referring to) has
proved false.  Just how false is through the use of a logical
conclusion.  It cannot be contained within any theoretical
conclusionary statement.

I can like a lot of what you write but this has no legs.