🚀 go-pugleaf

"xxein" <xxein1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
news:4fbde41d-fdfe-4e11-b6ac-06a27d2ce48f@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 7:53 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:52 am,xxein<xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2:46 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 5:16 am,xxein<xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 7:32 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirec...
> > > > > Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
> > > > > lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't 
> > > > > see
> > > > > it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
>
> > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > >xxein: What about it? Do you have a question?
>
> > > Journalists believe Newton can also bend light:
>
> > >http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/09/arthur_eddington_was_innoce...
> > > Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did
> > > not predict that light would remain undeflected � Einstein himself
> > > pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation
> > > too."
>
> > > Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists?
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> >xxein: Who cares as long as we eventually get the physic right?
>
> >xxein: Who cares? I hate to say it in this way because I am such a
> > critic of present science theory, but the fact that light bends in
> > gravity is irrefutable. But I have never seen it described correctly.
>
> Einstein described it correctly in 1911 when he deduced the equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V. This equation is incompatible with
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and compatible with (more
> precisely, equivalent to) the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
> emission theory of light.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> > I have done a ton of work on this. No one has even has a clue as to
> > what physically happens to bent light and the reference time
> > associated to it for observational frames.
>
> > It is simple and complete, but nobody seems to catch on. Maybe
> > because I haven't presented it yet?
>
> > I know you read a lot and are not very satisfied with the present
> > physic as we think we know it. Have you ever stepped back far enough
> > to re-analyze it? There is a certain point like somewhere between
> > alchemy and chemistry that can give a good starting point to be able
> > to re-analyze that science. The same with any other or physical
> > knowledge in general. Try it for a few years. If you are any good at
> > logic, you will find that all is rotten (in Denmark).
>
> > It's not that hard to find info enough to make a rational
> > investigation and find the physical logic. I did it before the
> > Internet. That should say something because I am here now and still
> > find no rational argument or theory that can circumvent or alter the
> > behavior of the physic as I saw/see it.
>
> > If you buy the argument that guesses are all we have and that some
> > work better than others, then there is where I am at.
>
> > I will not and cannot lie to you. I can't figure out how to connect
> > the observations of QM to GR. QM shows no recognition of gravity. GR
> > has no interface with QM. We can think on terms of one or the other,
> > each missing components the other.
>
> > I'm not doing a half-bad job of making that connection. I can connect
> > a gravity between them and give reason, but not much else for detail.
> > Not that reason and logic should be sloughed off here, but there is a
> > lot we haven't examined and what we already have examined comes with a
> > preconceived baggage of interpretation. Iow, what the public is
> > presented with is basically the resultant conclusion of the data ---
> > not raw data.
>
> > Perhaps another way of saying all of the above will be more
> > convincing.
>
> > I can use a different notion of the physic and get the same results as
> > GPS. The end result is the same. But I used the objective form of
> > the physic and then translated it into the common subjective form for
> > our observation. A completely different process that can separate the
> > objective physic from the subjective observance of it.
>
> > I shouldn't be able to do this if our present theories were the only
> > answer. This shows that we can math manipulate theories all we want
> > to get the correct subjectively measured result.
>
> > But more importantly, GR was supposed to simplify the matter.
> > Instead, it ended up in a quagmire of math with no clear physic as an
> > answer (except for self-generated math to try to keep up with
> > subjective observation).
>
> > Do you understand?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein:  V or v does not relate to a non-linear gravitational function
as presented by you.  Don't get stupid.  You should know better.
===========================================

Yes, he should learn all about artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yangs
of sorts, right?