🚀 go-pugleaf

On 13 Oct, 02:05, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> >    And as I showed in the "Debunking Nimitz" thread with Tom Roberts,
> > geometric GR offers no cause to initiate motion, and no source for the
> > new 3-space momentum received by target bodies.
>
> This is true, as your naive "cause" and "source" are not part of ANY
> fundamental theory of modern physics, including GR.
>
>         Your naive "causality" is INCOMPATIBLE with any theory of
>         physics expressed as differential equations. Such equations,
>         of course, express 100% correlations, but correlation is
>         not causation. Indeed, I have no idea how your "causality"
>         could be expressed mathematically....
>
>         The difficulties of your notion of "causality" have been
>         known for many decades, from the point of both science and
>         philosophy. It is utterly hopeless to attempt to claim it
>         is the basis of physics.
>
> Note, please, that the causality inherent in GR is well known: no event
> can influence any event outside its future lightcone, and no event is
> influenced by any event outside its past lightcone. This is most
> definitely NOT the "causality" you espouse, but the same word is used.
>
> > It is therefore
> > falsified
>
> NO! This is NOT what "falsification" means in SCIENCE.
>
> In SCIENCE, falsification of a theory means that one or more experiments
> have yielded results that are incompatible with the predictions of the
> theory.

Provided you know where the predictions come from Roberts Roberts. For
instance, initially, Albert the Juggler (or Albert the Plagiarist) may
deduce a few miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) from
the false light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

The miracles will convert Albert the Juggler into Divine Albert and
this will allow the latter to return, without fuss, to the true
antithesis of the light postulate - the variable speed of light
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and obeying the
equations c'=c+v (in the absence of a gravitational field) and
c'=c(1+V/c^2) (in the presence of a gravitational field). Finally, the
gravitational redshift factor (1+V/c^2) will be confirmed
experimentally and in Einstein zombie world this will turn out to be a
glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's theory.

Only a few hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult know that it is
Newton's emission theory that gives the correct results. They are even
trying to officially integrate the emission theory into Divine
Albert's concoction but do this for some more money, not because they
care about science:

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."

Pentcho Valev