🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 5, 4:01 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Open Letter to: Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
>
> Copy to: Professor John Pethica, Physical Secretary and Vice-
> President, Professor Sir Michael Berry, Sir Peter Williams CBE,
> Treasurer and Vice-President, Professor Lorna Casselton, Foreign
> Secretary and Vice-President
>
> Dear Dr. Rees,

xxein:  You didn't send an original copy to me.  I feel hurt.

But really.  What is your point?   You quoted Rees as saying what you
wanted to hear.  You didn't offer any rebuttal or even suggest an
arguement.

You can refute the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Einstein all you want
(and I agree).  But until you have a working solution to try to
replace them, all you are doing is playing with your rubber ducky in
the bathtub.

Almost everyone on these pages think xxein (me) is just another
blowhard.  I was.  I played with the rubber ducky too.  But I had a
curiosity that couldn't be easily quenched.  It took a while to get
myself reacquainted to the more pure logic I had learned from a logic
instructor in '68.  I started seriously on this relativity biz in
'85.  Age of 40.

There were a lot of things that were not logical.  Especially that c
was the same in every moving frame.  Don't pick on my words --- that
WAS the understanding of every Einsteinian relativist.  But how could
that be?  Just through a manipulative math?

Well?  Somehow, I had never heard of Lorentz before (lack of previous
interest - just like with Einstein, I guess).  But through logic, I re-
created the Lorentzian transforms before I knew of his own work.  That
kind of gives you a boost into thinking that you can analyse a physics
or the physic.

Come on curiousity.  Don't stop there.  Something about this state of
taught Einsteinian physics remains illogical.

I had to side with Lorentz.  Everything worked fine until a neglected
gravity popped up.  New ballgame!!!  But how could an elementary logic
be wrong?  Ans:  By being incomplete.

Einstein tried his math solution and was shown to be wrong by
Eddington.  It still remains a math (patched/corrected) instead of a
physic.

My math is nothing to brag about.  It is rather weak.  But, through
logic and a determination born from curiousity (and the few G, M, c, R
relations) a rather robust foundation for understanding the physic is
there for all to peruse.  It shows why Eddington got his results.  All
it takes is a mental shift fom an Oz into a reality.

I've even got a solution to the Pioneer effect/anomaly.  You have to
understand everything about gravity, though.  It's nothing
spectacular, however.  Hell!  We still use simple Newtonian math to be
the main component for space launches and tweak from there.

The Pioneer anomaly is a natural effect.  No sails, batteries, or
internal components can work up to the magnitude (however small) for
this obsevation.  It is beyond the current thinking of physics.  But
it is natural if you have a more correct understanding of gravity.

In this context, Lagrange points are of my particular interest.  I
have neglected to study them enough to satisfy my curiousity.  I'll
get right on it.

Have fun.