🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 16, 3:22 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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&siz...
>
> 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.

No I cannot accept your argument and any other argument unrelated to
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and its true alternative
given by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c+v. In a world where
2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5, arguments that ignore this
replacement make no sense. First basic truth should be restored:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com