http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American Mathematical Society
Einstein Public Lecture in Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry,
and a New Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 8:00
p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers University. The lecture is
aimed at members of the general public, and is the third in a series
named in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

Pentcho Valev

On 1 Oct, 16:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American Mathematical Society
Einstein Public Lecture in Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry,
and a New Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 8:00
p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers University. The lecture is
aimed at members of the general public, and is the third in a series
named in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

Roger Penrose and other Dons in Einstein criminal cult would not admit
explicitly that they are going to reintroduce discontinuum and that
this will put an end to Einstein's idiocies. However one can see
recent ideas of hangers-on - they are quite suggestive:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...98de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold" that is at
most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is, I strongly
suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure of the
world is not continuous."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev se fendait de cette prose :

On 1 Oct, 16:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American Mathematical Society
Einstein Public Lecture in Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry,
and a New Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 8:00
p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers University. The lecture is
aimed at members of the general public, and is the third in a series
named in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...-433a-b7e3-4a0
9145525ca.pdf 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."

Roger Penrose and other Dons in Einstein criminal cult would not admit
explicitly that they are going to reintroduce discontinuum and that
this will put an end to Einstein's idiocies. However one can see
recent ideas of hangers-on - they are quite suggestive:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...ad/40698de7cd7
bdfb0? Tom Roberts: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold" that
is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is, I
strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure of
the world is not continuous."

Pentcho Valev


Ca arrive souvent ici ????

--
LeLapin
______________
http://trinhxuanthuan.com

Subject: ROGER PENROSE,
SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM,
ALBERT EINSTEIN


Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American
Mathematical Society Einstein Public Lecture in
Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry, and a
New
Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at
8:00 p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers
University. The lecture is aimed at members of the
general public, and is the third in a series named
in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus
mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years
earlier, been of the opinion that the SPACE-TIME
CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove inadequate
on some small scale."

O'Barr comments:
And what a stupid set of words! This math concept
of there being a spacetime continuum is only a math
concept, and it will never prove to be adequate for
any actual reality, on any level!

Reality is reality, and it stands separate from
the math. If at any time science shows that this
math concept of a spacetime continuum does not work
on some small scale, then it absolutely is not a
valid physical concept on any larger scale. The math
might continue to work, just as the math works now,
but reality is reality, and if reality itself is not
4-D on our deepest level, and/or if it is not
continuous, then it certainly is not 4-D on our
everyday level, and/or not continuous.
And we cannot allow such stupid thinking as this
to continue. We do not have a 4-D spacetime reality.
We have no data (absolutely zero data) that shows
that we have anything except the simplest of 3-D.
And anyone who tries to say that we have 4-D just
because we can force the math to work is silly and do
not deserve to be called scientific.
What about PV = nRT? This science says that
although we can use this equation, where the pressure
is continuous, we actually know that the pressure is
never continuous. Again, the actual reality is that
pressure is never continuous. But we can still use
the math equation under certain conditions. Just
because we can use an equation where the math is a
continuum, this success cannot be used to say that
reality is a continuum. Surely we can start to get
some of these things more correct.


Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-
2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."


O'Barr comments:
And anyone with a brain knows that Einstein is
correct on this point. Reality itself might include
short elements of things that might be considered to
be continuous over their own dimensions, but since
reality is made up of more than one thing, no part of
reality can be continuously continuous. Yes, we
often find ***continuous math concepts*** work very
well. But math is only math, math is not reality.
Just because math is so adjustable that it can be
made to mimic reality, even when the math is itself
of a continuous form, is great. But we must never
confuse the two of them.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roger Penrose and other Dons in Einstein criminal
cult would not admit explicitly that they are going
to reintroduce discontinuum and that this will put
an end to Einstein's idiocies. However one can see
recent ideas of hangers-on - they are quite
suggestive:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/
browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts: "IMHO it is the whole concept of
"manifold" that is at most risk of becoming
obsolete in future theories. That is, I strongly
suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."

O'Barr comments:
Yes, Roberts is fairly good to say most of these
things correctly. He does not hold me in very high
esteem, but even if he is not perfect, he is one of
the better people on this net.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr


P.S. The at theory is not a continuum theory, and it
will correct SR and GR. This is not correcting their
math, but corrects our concepts of the physics that
explains the math.
The at theory is the kinetic theory of gas theory,
except it uses the second solution set found in the
collision equation. (The collision equation is a
quadratic, and thus it has two sets of solutions.
The kinetic theory of gases only uses one of the math
solutions.) To get to the second set of solutions,
one has to use spalls. But by the use of spalls, we
instantly gain all of QA things, such as uncertainty
in mass. And with this uncertainty, we also gain an
uncertainty in energy, momentum, position, velocity,
etc.
And we also gain the appearance of forces. Now
in PV = nRT, we have forces, we have pressure forces,
which is a repulsive force. We have no attractive
forces in PV = nRT. But in the at theory, with the
second set of solutions, using spalls, we gain
attractive forces along with these repulsive forces.
And automatically, these attractive and repulsive
forces end up being naturally equal and opposite
forces.
So the at theory gives us everything anyone would
want in a theory, to include the full QA effects, and
symmetry in our forces, not to say attractive forces
(like gravity), which have never before been able to
be explained by using simple Newtonian physics.
And for those who really have insight, we also
gain, with the at theory, the power to understand the
ether, how it can be there, with all the mass and
energy that you would want, and yet other objects can
go through it as if it were not there!
And who will listen to O'Barr? No one. Why is
that? I do not make anything up! In my life time, I
have had the opportunity of using a lot of different
computers, different main frames (GD's back in the
60's and 70's), the Olivety, several types of Apple
computers, many MS based computers, and they all show
that my at theory works, and works fine. But will
anyone check my work? One person once checked the
math. That is all I have ever gotten from anyone.
What a shame.
Most people refuse to even read what I have
written because I always explain to them that this
approach requires an absolute reference frame. And
thus, no one, with any modern day education, can
stand to even waste time on it. Modern day education
is the most stupid education that anyone can receive.
It makes everyone dumb. But this day is going to
end. It has to end. It is just a question of time.

On Oct 1, 9:26 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 1 Oct, 16:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:



http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American Mathematical Society
Einstein Public Lecture in Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry,
and a New Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 8:00
p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers University. The lecture is
aimed at members of the general public, and is the third in a series
named in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-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."

Roger Penrose and other Dons in Einstein criminal cult would not admit
explicitly that they are going to reintroduce discontinuum and that
this will put an end to Einstein's idiocies.

Neither "end" nor "idiocies" of course. This "end" will be exactly the
same as the end of Newtonian/Lagrangian/Hamiltionian (continuum-based)
mechanics.

What's the big deal? You post those things as if they were some sort
of secret revelation or something.

--
Jan Bielawski

--
Jan Bielawski

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:34:10 -0700, "Gerald L. O'Barr"
wrote:

Subject: ROGER PENROSE,
SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM,
ALBERT EINSTEIN


Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American
Mathematical Society Einstein Public Lecture in
Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry, and a
New
Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at
8:00 p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers
University. The lecture is aimed at members of the
general public, and is the third in a series named
in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus
mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years
earlier, been of the opinion that the SPACE-TIME
CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove inadequate
on some small scale."

O'Barr comments:
And what a stupid set of words!

[snip an even stupider and larger set of words]

And who will listen to O'Barr? No one.

Yet you continue to post.

[snip remaining]

On Oct 1, 12:34 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
Subject: ROGER PENROSE,
SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM,
ALBERT EINSTEIN



Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American
Mathematical Society Einstein Public Lecture in
Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry, and a
New
Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at
8:00 p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers
University. The lecture is aimed at members of the
general public, and is the third in a series named
in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus
mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years
earlier, been of the opinion that the SPACE-TIME
CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove inadequate
on some small scale."

O'Barr comments:
And what a stupid set of words! This math concept
of there being a spacetime continuum is only a math
concept, and it will never prove to be adequate for
any actual reality, on any level!

It's just a model which is what physics deals with. Look at Lagrangian
or Hamiltonian or quantum mechanics - they all use specific
multidimensional spaces as models. Spacetime is just another instance
of this old (1700s) general approach.

Reality is reality, and it stands separate from
the math. If at any time science shows that this
math concept of a spacetime continuum does not work
on some small scale, then it absolutely is not a
valid physical concept on any larger scale.

Well, sure. So what? Is any engineer going to abandon Newtonian
mechanics when designing an airplane even if he knows full well that
Newtonian mechanics is not really correct?

The math
might continue to work, just as the math works now,
but reality is reality, and if reality itself is not
4-D on our deepest level, and/or if it is not
continuous, then it certainly is not 4-D on our
everyday level, and/or not continuous.

Nobody says that "reality" is this or that. Physics deals with
mathematical _models_ which are obviously understood to be a different
thing than reality. They are intellectual constructs with one useful
property: their contemplation by means of a certain tool called
"mathematics" yields results consonant with events found in reality.
Physics is a study of abstract models. Direct experience of reality is
something very different and it doesn't employ any thinking - it's
what mystics talk about.

And we cannot allow such stupid thinking as this
to continue.

What do you mean by "stupid"? This is just childish arrogance. A model
is not reality. It was never intended to be.

We do not have a 4-D spacetime reality.

Oh brother. We have a model - a 4D Riemannian manifold. It works as
far as it was designed to work. Sheesh.

We have no data (absolutely zero data) that shows
that we have anything except the simplest of 3-D.

Nobody says otherwise. You are fighting windmills.

And anyone who tries to say that we have 4-D just
because we can force the math to work is silly and do
not deserve to be called scientific.

You are again stating the beyond-the-obvious.

[snip]

--
Jan Bielawski

On 2 Oct, 06:03, JanPB wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:26 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 1 Oct, 16:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ams.org/ams/press/einstein-2007.html
"Sir Roger Penrose will give the 2007 American Mathematical Society
Einstein Public Lecture in Mathematics, Spacetime Conformal Geometry,
and a New Extended Cosmology, on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 8:00
p.m. in Scott Hall (Room 123) at Rutgers University. The lecture is
aimed at members of the general public, and is the third in a series
named in honor of the centennial of Einstein's annus mirabilis."

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

Roger Penrose and other Dons in Einstein criminal cult would not admit
explicitly that they are going to reintroduce discontinuum and that
this will put an end to Einstein's idiocies.

Neither "end" nor "idiocies" of course. This "end" will be exactly the
same as the end of Newtonian/Lagrangian/Hamiltionian (continuum-based)
mechanics.

What's the big deal? You post those things as if they were some sort
of secret revelation or something.

By definition, there is always "some sort of secret revelation or
something" in Einstein criminal cult. For instance, you and other
zombies still do not realize that the continuum-discontinuum debate
among your masters reflects their concern about an extremely dangerous
implication of Newton's corpuscular theory of light. Then some silly
master drops a brick and then his words are indeed "some sort of
secret revelation or something" for you:

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."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 1, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 2 Oct, 06:03, JanPB wrote:

[...]

What's the big deal? You post those things as if they were some sort
of secret revelation or something.

By definition, there is always "some sort of secret revelation or
something" in Einstein criminal cult.

First of all, any normal human being knows that there is no such thing
as "Einstein criminal cult". Any adult uttering this phrase is either
joking or an idiot. It's that simple.

For instance, you and other
zombies

Oh stop it. Dumb beyond description.

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Oct 1, 10:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On 2 Oct, 06:03, JanPB wrote:
:
: [...]
:
: What's the big deal? You post those things as if they were some sort
: of secret revelation or something.
:
: By definition, there is always "some sort of secret revelation or
: something" in Einstein criminal cult.
:
: First of all, any normal human being knows that there is no such thing
: as "Einstein criminal cult". Any adult uttering this phrase is either
: joking or an idiot. It's that simple.

You are not a normal human being and you are an idiot.
What's second of all?


: For instance, you and other
: zombies
:
: Oh stop it. Dumb beyond description.

Yes, you are. Assistant light-bulb changer is pretty close.

--


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein



http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif


"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to
claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel
times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are
moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img21.gif


"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com