🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:daf17514-1b2e-40f3-a53d-4de97cc45a32@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 14:00, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in 
>> messagenews:f01d260a-49b7-43a0-b1ad-85d5b1b590f7@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807
>> > Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without special relativity
>> > by Eric Baird (Author)
>> > "Relativity theory has become one of the icons of Twentieth Century
>> > science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>> > series of increasingly difficult mathematics and increasingly abstract
>> > concepts. We're told that relativity theory is supposed to be this
>> > complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>> > complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>> > paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Einstein's special theory and jump
>> > directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>> > if curvature is a fundamental part of physics, and a final theory of
>> > relativity shouldn't reduce to Einstein's "flat" 1905 theory //on
>> > principle//? "Relativity..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>> > Twentieth Century physics - from black holes, quantum mechanics,
>> > wormholes and the Big Bang to the workings of the human mind, and
>> > asks: what would physics look like without special relativity?"
>>
>> Evolution in Selecting Nature: Life without Evolution
>> by Beric Aird (Author)
>> "Evolution theory has become one of the icons of Nineteenth Century
>> science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>> series of increasingly difficult common sense and increasingly abstract
>> concepts. We're told that Evolution theory is supposed to be this
>> complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>> complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>> paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Darwin's evolution theory and jump
>> directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>> if selection is a fundamental part of biology, and a final theory of
>> Evolution shouldn't reduce to Darwin's "flat" 1859 theory //on
>> principle//? "Evolution..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>> Nineteenth Century biology - from black birds, quacking geese,
>> hole worms and the Big Elephant to the workings of the human mind, and
>> asks: what would biology look like without Evolution?"
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Bravo Moortel! A witty zombie! However your work is not finished.
> There is another text that should be dealt with by bellicose zombies:
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
> 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

c = 1.

Also....

c = infinity.

(non-local of course.....universal constant.)

------------------------

  "The third biological lesson of history is that life must breed. Nature 
has no use for organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce 
abundantly. She has a passion for quantity as prerequisite to the selection 
of quality; she likes large litters, and relishes the struggle that picks 
the surviving few....... She is more interested in the species than in the 
individual, and makes little difference between civilization and barbarism. 
She does not care that a high birth rate has usually accompanied a 
culturally low civilization, and a low birth rate a civilization culturally 
high; and she (here meaning Nature as the process of birth, variation, 
competition, selection, and survival) sees to it that a nation with a low 
birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile 
group. Gaul survived against the Germans through the help of Roman legions 
in Ceasar's days, adn through the help of British and American legions in 
our time. When Rome fell the Franks rushed in from Germany and made Gaul 
France; if England and America should fall, France, whose population 
remained almost stationary through the nineteenth century, might again be 
overrun." -- Will Durant, Lessons Of History, 1968. (Was stationary. Now 
extinction level. Populations in a closed world -- no space frontier; no 
space age; no exodus -- do not remain stationary.)

  Natural selection, the one in a thousand, the one in a million, the one in 
a billion, the one in a trillion and so on. The prerequisite for the one is 
the thousand, the million, the billion, the trillion and so on: the 
expansion, the growth, the youth, the nova, the [infinite] potential! The 
prerequisite to holding on to any principal is to gain interest on it. 
Civilization here on [totalitarian concentration camp Earth Utopia] is 
living, or rather dieing, on its imploding population numbers alone (become 
increasingly physically infertile mental pigmies ("Nature has no use for 
organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly....").

  The evolutionary default is 'niche' (cul-de-sac, corner, trap).

  Ultimately there are only two ages of Life, including Man: Space Age and 
Dark Age. The default is Dark Age. The [local] default is Dark Age, that is. 
The [non-local] default is.....

--------------------------

GLB