http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...29physics.html
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".

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 29, 3:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...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".

Pentcho Valev


Silly Pentcho does not grasp the meaning of Gravitational Gradient,
and how it is employed by real scientists.

1 Point for Greene
0 Points for Pentcho

Harry C.

p.s., Pentcho, if you are a physics student, you would be well advised
to spend more time on studying the subject and less time pontificating
on the Internet.

On Feb 29, 7:40 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:00 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...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".

Pentcho Valev


Silly Pentcho does not grasp the meaning of Gravitational Gradient,

how could he not grasp, he just said it

by asking you just proved that you dont know

why are you asking?

and how it is employed by real scientists.

why dont you just say so

what are real sciencists, as difrent from what?

do you understan what tha woerd science stands for?


1 Point for Greene

yes, he has a big yacht

0 Points for Pentcho

Harry C.

p.s., Pentcho, if you are a physics student, you would be well advised
to spend more time on studying the subject and less time pontificating
on the Internet.

rather you shod spend more time on not being here, shod be good enuff

On Feb 29, 10:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...29physics.html
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 he

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63
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 wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, tick off time
at different rates."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 1, 8:36*am, Pentcho Valev wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Feb 29, 10:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...29physics.html
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 he

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63
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 wris****ches 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 he

http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...hor_number=989
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

On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner he

http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...hor_number=989
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

My last claim is not quite correct perhaps:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "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."

This particular silly walk of Lee Smolin's is undoubtedly sillier than
(at least as silly as) silly Brian's silly walk.

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 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

On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 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


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/i...5 4.336.x.425

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.

On Mar 16, 3:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 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


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/i...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

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 wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:





On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 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


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/i...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
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -