🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Aug, 07:37, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:57:04 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >Louis Savain aka "Traveler" <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in
> >messagenews:i2hjc3hpo294h9b5f37nhugdkgg9e0ln3c@4ax.com...
> >> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>OK but in the end we shall have to return to the most important WORD
> >>>in contemporary physics:
> >>>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."
>
> >>>INDEPENDENT or DEPENDENT? That is the question.
>
> >[Louis]
> >> Pentcho, forget it. Soon, Einstein will be a mere footnote in science
> >> history. It is obvious to all but the most inveterate and passionate
> >> ass kissers that, while the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is
> >> constant, the relative speed of light cannot be so, regardless of
> >> whether one is refering to the speed relative to the source or to some
> >> observer. If the speed of light is measured to be constant relative to
> >> all observers, it follows that there is something in our measuring
> >> tools that is causing this aberration. The fact is that the relative
> >> speed of light is an inherent part of all measuring tools. It's like
> >> using a ruler to measure itself: you always get the same answer
> >> regardless of the actual length. Same with measuring light speed.
>
> >> Anybody who disagrees with the above is an ass kisser in my book.
> >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> >[hanson]
> >ahahaha... "Anybody who disagrees with the above is an ass kisser".
> >ahahahaha... Excellent! That tactic or strategy, as it were, is knows as
> >**Savain's Preventative Doctrine** which was copied by the Bush
> >admin to prevent wars with fanatics who disagree with him... ahaha...
>
> I should have patented the technique. In general, it's very effective
> against ass kissers. ahahaha...
>
> >BTW, Did  you know, Louis, that you may have laid or you are laying
> >the ground work, the fundamentals, the basis to unite the many pieces
> >and bits which are classified under the term "Emergent complexity".
>
> >As I see it, certain adjustments of/in your basics will logically lead, on
> >a first principle doctrine, to all kinds of "Emergent complexities" like
> >Newtonian physics and SR/GR theories, them emerging as quaint
> >"specialty branches" of the them underlaying basis... which Einstein
> >was dreaming about when he confessed, close to the end of his life,
> >in 1954, as he said to Besso:
> >::: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> >::: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> >::: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> >::: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
> Yeah, deep down, the man knew he was a shit eater, just like everyone
> else. Only his worshippers keep on kissing his dead bony ass.
> ahahaha...
>
> >You have a gargantuan task ahead. Good luck and carry one with
> >your SP-Doctrine... ahahahaha....
>
> Well, my beef with physicists is that they have all but abandoned
> foundational issues. Einstein, for example, postulated that nothing
> can move faster than c. Problem is, it's just a fucking guess. He
> never did have a clue as to why. The Einstein dingleberries don't know
> either. They just love the shit smell. But it did not start with
> Einstein. Newton was a chief coward in that respect, what with his
> "hypotheses non fingo" crap. To his credit, Newton had the courage to
> admit that he had no clue as to why things fall. Privately, he
> postulated that massive bodies emitted some sort of "flux" in all
> directions but that's as far as he went.

This en-gros approach is extremely useful for Einstein criminal cult.
You are free to call Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" crap - it depends
on the context and your personal preferences - but Newton's particle
model of light implies that (in the absence of a gravitational field)
the speed of light does depend on the state of motion of the emitting
body and more precisely obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the
speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. If this is true, then,
according to a confession of Einstein's, "nothing remains of my entire
castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics." I think this is important and deserves a lot of
attention. Then you will be free to call crap all the rest of Newton's
science, to continue to advertize your book etc.

Pentcho Valev