🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 5, 11:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 10:00 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/02/28/brian-greene-time-oped-time...
> > > Brian Greene: "By 1915, with his "General Theory of Relativity,"
> > > Einstein took these realizations one step further, concluding that
> > > something similar happens in a gravitational field. He figured out
> > > that the stronger the gravity you experience, the slower time elapses.
> > > After synchronizing our watches, were I to stay in the lobby of the
> > > Empire State Building while you went sightseeing on the observation
> > > deck, I would experience stronger gravity (being closer to Earth) and
> > > according to Einstein, when we rejoin, my watch would be behind yours.
> > > The effect would be incredibly small, since the difference in gravity
> > > you and I would experience is trifling."
>
> > > Silly Brian does not even understand that the idiocy called
> > > "gravitational time dilation", as defined by his cleverer brothers,
> > > depends on the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL difference between "you and
> > > me", not on "the difference in gravity you and I would experience".
>
> > Silly Brian is even clearer here:
>
> >http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05EED81E3EF932A35752...
> > Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
> > Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
> > passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
> > that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
> > another, or EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, tick off time
> > at different rates."
>
> Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner here:
>
> http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_num...
> Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can
> influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the
> universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that
> nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?"
> Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would
> say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from
> place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's
> enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a
> cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but
> as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums
> surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled."
>
> Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce
> anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.

Since it is possible to show what Newton thought of a medium or aether
in 1704 or about 15 years after the Principia,it becomes impossible to
justify relativity as the revoltion it was made ot to be,specifically
Albert's attachment of Newton's absolute space to aether -

"In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''"

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

While Newton did adhere to an aether in 1670,by the time the Principia
came around he had no se for it (whether for right or wrong) and was
pretty explicit about it in 1704,using words like "utterly rejected" -

 "I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies."
Principia 1687


"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704


All this handwringing about Albert being right or not depends on the
validity of the basic reasoning for the emergence of the concept in
1905,the so-called overturning of Newton's idea of absolute/relative
space,time and motion.As long as the  absolute space/aether fiction is
maintained it appears that the relativity concept is setting its own
terms, however ,remove the fiction  and it is Newton still setting the
terms therefore it becomes an exercise in protecting Newton's
conceptions whether people care to recognise it or not.


Judging from the responses and reactions,it appears that most are
content to remain with the fiction of aether/absolute space ,a few
have tried to sever the ties between Newton and relativity but that
oes not work and a few have abandoned the whole setup.The last
reaction is the most unproductive,while Newton did create a terrible
situation by making a mess of known methods and insights of
timekeeping and structural astronomy,the fact is that when the various
threads are untangled,there are enormous productive avenues for
dynamicists to pursue using all the availible resourses of 21st
century technology.