🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Jul, 23:27, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 5:30 am, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > FromOsherDoctorow
>
> > Roswell was a "UFO farce", all right.  I think, though, that what
> > bothers Ian Parker is really that Pentcho Valev and I, independently
> > and with no connection, keep surviving on sci.physics as
> > Nonconformists, even though trolls and graffiti artists keep attacking
> > my posts, while mostly mainstream physicists dislike Pentcho's
> > disagreement with Einstein.
>
> > As for Roswell, not only was it a UFO farce, perpetrated arguably by
> > Con Artists wanting to sell books and souvenirs and photographs, but
> > at some point the "USSR Evil Empire is Dead" obsessors made use of the
> > story to propagandize that Aliens had given the USA stealth and
> > similar information which enabled destroying the USSR and China and
> > their allies.  Well, now we know that the USSR basically downsized to
> > Russia, which has exactly the same policies as the USSR except that
> > it's smarter in de-emphasizing hard propaganda and in using the Free
> > market to destroy the West, while China never was in trouble from
> > stealth or any other Western technology.  In fact, Russia now has more
> > allies than before if we count Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Outer
> > Mongolia, Belarus, as well as nations that it keeps under Military and
> > Economic threat like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan,
> > Kazakhstan, and partially Ukraine.   The USSR's downsizing also
> > succeeded in winning allies and friends for it in Africa, Latin
> > America, India, Islamist nations, etc., without having to supply so
> > much money to them since they were now supposedly "too small" (not so
> > much in area but population).
>
> > I disagree with Pencho about Einstein's "deliberate" frauds or
> > criminality or intentionally deceiving anybody, and I think that parts
> > of GR and SR (Special Relativity) are good local approximations in our
> > part of the Universe, though not likely in very strong gravitational
> > conditions, the early Universe (quantum-related, etc.), the
> > microscopic level, or other Universes in the Multiverse, and also I'm
> > interested in Superluminal motion which I think is a different phase
> > rather than an impossibility, which (Superluminal motion) Joao
> > Magueijo and many others are interested in.
>
> > OsherDoctorow
>
> "Deliberate frauds", "criminality" etc. belong to style and are
> therefore inessential. In my view, the only essential thing in
> Einstein's relativity is Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> If the light postulate is true, then miraculous effects (time
> dilation, length contraction etc.) do exist and Einstein is at least
> one of the discoverers of the fantastic world we live in. However if
> the light postulate is false, that is, if the speed of light obeys
> Newton's model presenting light as discontinuous bullet-like particles
> and disobeys Maxwell's model presenting light as discontinuous field,
> then Einstein's 1954 confession resolves all remaining problems:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
>
But Physics is advancing on the basis of Relativity. To repeat - all
scientific theories must be tested. Field theories have never
depateted from invariance under the Lorentz transformation. You know
this I know this.

I have been looking through the thread once more ref. stars on the
Moon. Now if you are in a well lit room at night (on Earth) you cannot
see stars even if the window is taken out  ans you look directly into
the night sky. It is said, correctly, that as the Moon has no air the
sky is black and stars can be seen. However there are problems with
dynamic range. The astronauts (and their cameras) could not see stars
any more than I can see stars from a lit room. It is a question of
dynamic range. You cannot see stars at 25 fps either on Earth at night
or on the Moon. Point a normal video at the night sky and you just get
a blank, as indeed they got a blank on the Moon.

These are facts which you could say - I know, they know. The
relativistic paradoxes all have whiskers on them. You are perfectly at
liberty to construct a non relativistic field theory. You have though
to put it relative to something (Aldebaron?) though. If the theory
does not have Lorenz invariance it must be tied to something or other.

These are points of the "I know, you know" variety.

Je remarque que vous avez ajouté "sci.fr.physique". Je souviens que
vous avez fait une critique de la 2ime loi de thermodymamique en
francais. Peut etre je faux dire que j'ai un interet fort en
intelligence artificielle. Je crois que compression est la seul mesure
d'intelligence. C'est a dire Entropie maximale.

fleurs - printemps, source, ressorte  -  quel mot?

Tout mots sont "spring" en anglais. Donc un epeuve d'intelligence est
un mesure de compression! Je sais beaucoup sur le 2ieme loi!


  - Ian Parker