🚀 go-pugleaf

The people in the mid 19th century had a dilemma created by Newton,you
and your colleagues have an illness.



On 16 Mar, 14:21, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -