🚀 go-pugleaf

The people in the mid 19th century had a dilemma created by Newton,you
and your colleagues have a severe disability .The novelist you require
is not Orwell but rather  H.G. Wells -

"Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. " 1898

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

Why would a group of people in the early 20th century formalise a
science fiction narrative that could be found on any bookshelf in the
late 19th century is perhaps for future generations to judge,even if I
understand the complex reasons why Newton still ultimately runs the
show,the early 20th century views are extremely unhealthy and they are
still as visible as ever.

The rapid disappearance of relativistic concepts from the tv screens
has not really be replaced by a balanced view,one that actually
promotes the obstacles Isaac created in geometric/astronomical terms
and goodness knows they are fascinating under genuine scrutiny and
without bluff.

Humanity can quickly forgive great errors such as the mass ideology
which partially created World war II but the empirical ideology is
much more difficult to tackle by virtue that it hijacks the machinary
of the education system and will always generate clones to keep its
precepts up and running.It is a great injustice that forces it
adherents into indoctrination and everyone else into bewilderment and
so it continues day after day without any sign of abating,the problem
being that most people are unaware that errors exist and mistake
unlimited hypothesising as vibrant and brilliant discussion.

I have no complaints about people here,they choose to remain stuck in
somebody else's imagination and no matter how horrified I may be at
such a condition,it is their choice,the problem is that they try to
extend the nightmare to a bewildered human race.Read Well's 'Time
Machine',put it down as good fiction and leave it at that.











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 -