🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193292024.014553.143180@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Oct, 14:03, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Generally, teaching an idiocy or worshipping a plagiarist is not a
> > crime. Simply because the excuses "I sincerely believe this is not an
> > idiocy" and "I sincerely believe he is not a plagiarist" are difficult
> > to disprove. However the plagiarism of Divine Albert and the idiocy of
> > Divine Albert's Divine Theory are so obvious that the general rule
> > does not work in this particular case.

The speed of light is constant in all frames because a clock second use to
define the speed of light has varying duration in different frames.
Physicists invented a new way to measure length.....1 meter = 1/299,792,458
light-second....this new definition for length guarantees that all observers
measures the same speed of light as follows:
light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meter long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

Ken Seto
> >
> > In France a distinguished hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, Jean
> > Eisenstaedt, will be taken to court for calling people who claim
> > Divine Albert was a plagiarist "falsifiers":
> >
> > http://radio-courtoisie.over-blog.com/archive-10-8-2007.html
> > "Le proces en appel de Jules Leveugle contre Jean Eisenstaedt aura
> > lieu mercredi 31 octobre a 13h30 devant la 11e chambre de la cour
> > d'appel de Paris (Palais de Justice, sur l'ile de la Cite)."
> >
> > Some day the same Eisenstaedt will be brought to court for teaching
> > Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy, on the one hand, and, on the other,
> > making even more money by introducing, together with his accomplice
> > John Stachel, Newton's emission theory (knowing the emission theory
> > contradicts Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy):
> >
> > 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/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."
>
> Another example:
>
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? In recent years a few maverick
> scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant
> at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in
> Science is just around the corner? Well, maybe. According to one of
> those scientists, Portuguese-born, London-based Joao Magueijo, cracks
> are appearing in Einstein's theory of relativity - the cornerstone of
> our present understanding of space, time and gravitation."
>
> That was written three years ago. Did Magueijo and his accomplice Paul
> Davies really expect that "the next Great Revolution in Science is
> just around the corner"? If they had really had those expectations,
> then now, three years later, they should take their heads out of the
> sand and say: "Well, we were wrong, in the end we have seen no Great
> Revolution around the corner, sorry, from now on we shall sing "Divine
> Einstein" even more fiercely":
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
> http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
>
> However Magueijo and his accomplice Paul Davies do not wish to take
> their heads out of the sand and this shows that the shock and horror
> declared three years ago had to make their books bestsellers, to bring
> them a lot of money etc. Magueijo and his accomplice Paul Davies
> should be taken to court some day.
>
> Another example:
>
> http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html
> [From "The Sunday Times" (UK) 13th August 1995]
> "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."
>
> The same problem. Shock and horror 12 years ago, Star Trek fantasies
> are nothing compared to what the Royal Society has just discovered in
> a purely scientific manner, two ways arond Einstein's theory.....Now,
> 12 years later, heads in the sand, "Divine Einstein" and very good
> salaries. The Royal Society should also be taken to court some day.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>