On Jan 24, 2:34 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:34 wrote:

Pentcho Valev,

Fascinating quotes.

Let me fill you in on a secret.

Leibniz.

Leibniz had the answers we seek.

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Therefore in both worlds any theorizing can only be harmful (serve as
camouflage) if two and two continue to make five and if the speed of
photons continues to be independent of the speed of the light source.


Leibniz argued that space and time were relative while Newton was
still alive.

It's well known he anticipated relativity, but he didn't require a
constant speed of light.

On Jan 23, 9:02*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. *On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track --
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Baez Baez here is just one of the sources of the schizophreny:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...298fb8f5aa557?
John Baez: "Two constants appear throughout general relativity: the
speed of light c and Newton's gravitational constant G. This should
be no surprise, since Einstein created general relativity to reconcile
the success of Newton's theory of gravity, based on instantaneous
action at a distance, with his new theory of special relativity, in
which no influence travels faster than light."

Whoever told you that Baez Baez? Criminal brothers much cleverer than
you could teach you so efficiently but you never learn Baez Baez:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 22, 5:35*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. *I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. *After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. *But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. *But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. *And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 6, 12:11 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Chris Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Chris Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Chris Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 8, 11:11*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:11 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. *I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. *After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. *But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. *But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. *And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Chris Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Chris Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Chris Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?
John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 10, 9:41 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:11 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



On Feb 6, 12:11 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Chris Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is:http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Chris Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Chris Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...
John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev


thanks, so thay know very well that tha photons
have mass as property, and keep that info away
from public

i always knew that a cubic meter of intense light
weight more than a cubic meter of low intensity
light

On Feb 10, 4:35*pm, spoonbender wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:41 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:11 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Feb 6, 12:11 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. *I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. *After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. *But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. *But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. *And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Chris Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Chris Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Chris Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e668a90057feb?
John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev


thanks, so thay know very well that tha photons
have mass as property, and keep that info away
from public

The variability of the speed of light is what criminal Einsteinians
are really trying to camouflage or play down:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e63d076be118d?

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 24, 6:47*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 24, 6:39*pm, JanPB wrote:

On Jan 24, 12:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Other signals carefully sent by fat rats:

And this means what exactly?

This means that your criminal masters can no longer sell their dead
science in this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

In fact, your criminal masters started leaving the sinking ship a few
months ago when John Stachel sent the following signal:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

Even the silliest Einsteinians know that Newton's emission theory of
light is the main enemy of Divine Albert's relativity so when John
Stachel says they are compatible this could only mean: "Brothers! We
are on the wrong ship! Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false!"

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 10, 9:35*am, spoonbender wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:41 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On Feb 8, 11:11 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Feb 6, 12:11 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. *I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. *After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. *But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. *But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. *And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Chris Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is:http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Chris Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Chris Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...
John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev


thanks, so thay know very well that tha photons
have mass as property, and keep that info away
from public

i always knew that a cubic meter of intense light
weight more than a cubic meter of low intensity
light- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spoon Does that mean that long waves weigh less,than short? Bert

Hebie-Herbie G=EMC^2 wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 9:35 am, spoonbender wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:41 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev quoted
Baez in http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that
there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually
tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers
cooperate
more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum
gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. After you've convinced
yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working
on,
it's hard to change your mind. But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit
working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real
progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
zombies have no Masters now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0

http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relat...world-wide-web
Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
and general relativity (by Christina Hillman and John Baez) The link
address is:http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
"RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Christina Hillman, June 2007

Why did fat rats John Baez and Christina Hillman delete the site? The
answer:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
-- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.

Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/d28e668a...
John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."
Pentcho Valev

thanks, so thay know very well that tha photons have mass
as property, and keep that info away from public
i always knew that a cubic meter of intense light
weight more than a cubic meter of low intensity
light- Hide quoted text -

Hebie-Herbie wrote:
Spoon: Does that mean that long waves weigh less,than short?

hanson wrote:
Of course, Hebie-Herbie, right, if you define "weight" more or
less appropriately, and like bent (concave or convex) spoon said:
it's hidden in the quoted text... Thanks for the laughs guys... ahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahahanson