|
|
On Jul 25, 3:25 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:58 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Mass conspiracies, as the instability and collapse of the USSR in a
> mere few decades proved, are fundamentally impossible. Even in the
> USSR there were many countervailing points of view widely-known and
> widely published.
>
> An Orwellian monolith cannot happen in ANY group beyond a certain
> size. However, it's invocation can, itself, be seen as the shibboleth
> of one with an agenda intent on pursuing such ambition.
>
> Even in North Korea -- the closest real-life analogue to Orwell -- you
> have bridges filled with anti-government graffiti.
>
> In any case, the whole premise is out the window even before it
> starts. There is, in fact, a very large industry IN the peer-reviewed
> literature dedicated to the further development of Galilean relativity
> and Newtonian Physics. It is an absolute necessity for several basic
> reasons: (1) to clarify what actually distinguishes physics based on
> the Poincare' group (aka Relativity), vs. that based on the Galilei
> group (aka Newtonian physics) ... and to clarify what distinctions do
> NOT apply that most people think do; (2) to more precisely define the
> Galilean limit for various modern theories; (3) to complete (and
> correct) what was left undone or done wrong before the advent of
> relativistic physics; (4) to retrofit the newest Physics and related
> Mathematical formalisms (e.g. the curved space-time foundation of
> gravity leading to Newton-Cartan geometry) ... which ties directly to
> (2) and (3).
>
> So, to say that you can't publish in the literature on any of this
> matter is simple BS, because it ALREADY EXISTS in the present-day
> literature. And the last I checked, something already being there
> permanently and decisively proves wrong the theory that it can't be
> there.
>
> So your theory about Newtonian Physics not being publishable is wrong
> before it even gets out of the starting gates. Newtonian Physics IS
> publishable and IS published in peer-reviewed literature. Likewise,
> the conspiracy nut-case nonsense is exposed as nothing more than the
> ramblings of a demagogue-in-waiting, since such ramblings (even in
> Orwell's depiction) are never anything more than the handmaiden of the
> demagogue.
>
> In order to have Orwell, you have to have a complete absence of the
> countervailing points of view. The literature is completely open in
> all regards. It's simply you that are not.
>
> To answer the other person's question: you can't publish in the peer-
> reviewed literature if you're spending all your time posting 600+
> articles a month on the USENET (which only geezers stuck in the old
> Internet world read anymore), It takes time to prepare and write a
> paper, much more than one can have when putting out 20 articles a day,
> spending all day doing it and nothing else (as you can clearly see by
> looking at Pentecho Valev's profile via Google).
>
> One would even ask: why would a person spend so much time
> communicating to a forum that nobody listens to if they weren't
> INTENDING on not being heard, listen to, or taken seriously?!
Of course "Newtonian Physics IS publishable", except for its
implication c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source. Einstein and his apostle Banesh Hoffmann
knew quite well how dangerous this implication was:
Albert Einstein: ""If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." 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."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@xxxxxxxxx
|
|