🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 15, 4:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:23 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their
> > opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations
> > and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way
> > the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an
> > overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than
> > attacking or promoting relativity.
>
> ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein.
> Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its
> implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce
> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a
> gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the
> absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory
> of light, because both equations are TRUE.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

I already told another participant that regardless of your
viewpoint,once you remove the fiction which links Newton's absolute/
relative space definitions to aether,it is Isaac that remains running
the show and relativity, as a solid proposal ,evaporates .You may
frame relativity in repect to later concepts and the cast of
characters surrounding such as  Fitzgerald,Lorentz and whatnot but
effecvtively it involves going along with a fiction which conspires to
squeeze Newton's definitions in their terms.

The guys in the mid 19th century ,due to the working framework Newton
provided,were faced with a dilemma and it has not gone away despite
the capitulation to Newton by the guys in the early part of the last
century -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

The language of the Principia is geometry and I assure you that the
absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion which Newton
took it upon himself to 'define' are enitirely geometric in content
and character and nothing to do with a vague non geometric equational
treatment.In short,your appeal to mathematical notation lacks any
precision whereas Newton's efforts are completely understandable even
as he tries his best to obscure the astronomical/geometric content of
actual astronomers,their methods and insights .In his own way Newton
suceeded but what he did to astronomy was eventually done to him,the
choices he give himself were expanded to unlimited choices by
relativity and so we arrive today at a situation were there are any
amount of hypotheses and no central theme to any of it.

It is not all bad news,there is a huge amount of data built up however
it requires a complete break from this 'scientific method' cult which
originated with Newton and specifically this statement -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion"  Principia

I already know he chose the wrong astronomical framework (Flamsteed)
and intepreted Kepler and Copernicus incorrectly in the matter of
retrogrades in arriving at that working principle above but
Pentcho,nobody seems interested in the astronomical side of the
matter.You seem happy enough to remain in the fiction the 20th century
guys created for themselves and who am I to complain in that case.