🚀 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."

   Well, it's already been determined that that's complete nonsense.
also.
   Since Einstein, so famous for a entire history of quotes from the
   Philosophy weirdos, also said:

   "As simple as possible, but no simpler".
   "Time and space are modes of thought".
   "The degree to which math is exact, it's not Physics.
    The degree to which math is Physics, it's not exact".





> 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