WHY MARTIN REES IS THE BOSS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

http://www.firstscience.com/site/art...blackholes.asp
Martin Rees: "This elasticity in the rate of passage of time may seem
counter to our intuition. But such intuition is acquired from our
everyday environment (and perhaps, even more, that of our remote
ancestors), which has offered us no experience of such effects. Few of
us have travelled faster than a millionth of the speed of light (the
speed of a jet airliner); we live on a planet where the pull of
gravity is 1000 billion times weaker than on a neutron star. But time
dilation entails no inconsistency or paradox."

Bravo Rees bravo Martin! The twin paradox should become "the twin
consistency". Yet from time to time (not very often) the selfsame
Martin Rees has doubts and organises a private conference:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts September 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 17, 11:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...postsSeptember 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev


I think we have a more than enough laws for all those
other universes "thought to exist". As soon as we take
care of a few obstinate details in the universe we
occupy, we should have them all with a few left over.

Is someone keeping count?

Sue...

On Mar 17, 11:40*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ostsSeptember9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev


I think we have a more than enough *laws for all those
other universes "thought to exist". *As soon as we take
care of a few obstinate details in the universe we
occupy, we should have them all with a few left over.

Is someone keeping count?

Sue...

xxein: I am. And I see no accounting.

All I see is wishfull thinking and making believe that we understand
bwo a theory here and there.

But these theories are not congruent. Trying to unite them is going
to be a failed effort because we have no 'common' physic among them.

Gravity, foremost, because Q's leave them out and let the macro-
theories ride rough-shod over what gravity might be.

On Mar 18, 7:43*pm, xxein wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:40*am, "Sue..." wrote:





On Mar 17, 11:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...September92001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev


I think we have a more than enough *laws for all those
other universes "thought to exist". *As soon as we take
care of a few obstinate details in the universe we
occupy, we should have them all with a few left over.

Is someone keeping count?

Sue...

xxein: *I am. *And I see no accounting.

All I see is wishfull thinking and making believe that we understand
bwo a theory here and there.

But these theories are not congruent. *Trying to unite them is going
to be a failed effort because we have no 'common' physic among them.

Gravity, foremost, because Q's leave them out and let the macro-
theories ride rough-shod over what gravity might be.


metric-free law statements have validity in macro- and in micro-
domains, because the metric is the one and only reference of what is
physically small or large. Hence a pursuit of metric-free options
opens the doors to topological explorations in macro- and micro-
domains.

contemporary physics has remained largely uninformed about the pre-
metric discoveries of the early Twenties. Hence no clear distinction
emerges between metric-free and metric dependent forms. As a result,
forms in physics are introduced in somewhat ad hoc manner, not taking
advantage of this chosen opportunity to readdress the physical issues
associated with pre-metric physics: e.g., macro- as well as micro-
topological structure invoking the invariants of action h and charge
e. These options have been either ignored or denied for so long,
because a continued use of the traditional dimensional reference
system [l, t, m, q] detracts from a topologically more discerning view
of physical structure.

The idea that physics had its priorities the wrong way around for
three quarter century seems outrageous. Yet if true, it deals a
devastating blow to those nonclassical procedures that were called
upon in the late Twenties and early Thirties. Sooner or later physics
will have to take position with respect to the here cited alternative
to a nonclassical tradition of so many years. This interpretation
alternative is either wrong and of no consequence, or it forces
physics to confront a reality it attempts to ignore by taking liberty
with nonclassical logic. --EJ Post
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pd2/pd2fre41.htm

Sue...

Bonjour,

Quel est ton problème ?
Tu voudrais devenir Boss à la place du Boss ?

Au revoir.
Bernard Lempel
http://lempel.net

"Sue..." a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Mar 18, 7:43 pm, xxein wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:40 am, "Sue..." wrote:

Blablabla....

Sue...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:



Martin Rees:
"This elasticity in the rate of passage of time may seem
counter to our intuition. But such intuition is acquired from our
everyday environment (and perhaps, even more, that of our remote
ancestors), which has offered us no experience of such effects.


[Hammond]
The Baron is an academic horse's ass who doesn't realize
that "God" is history's premeir "Relativity effect" and
has been observed for over 5,000 years. Unfortunately, the
Baron being a typical academic/atheistic fellow traveler is
unqualified to engage in a discussion of the recently
discovered Relativistic proof that:

God = G_uv (curvature of subjective spacetime)

discovered and peer published by the American physicist
George Hammond.

we live on a planet where the pull of
gravity is 1000 billion times weaker than on a neutron star.


[Hammond]
The curvature of "subjective reality" in the average
person easily rivals the curvature of "objective reality"
near a Black Hole. "God", which is visible to the naked eye
and measureable to 3 significant figures experimentally,
represents a time dilation of 20% (commonly) and wch. is a
curvature that wouldn't be observed astronomically less than
R=2.67 M from a Black Hole!
The effective relativitistic "gravitational strength of
God" is millions of times stronger than terrestrial gravity
and easily rivals Black Hole phenomenology!

But time
dilation entails no inconsistency or paradox."

[Hammond]
With all due respect Baron it seems to have produced an
inconsistency of opinion between the Royal Society and the
Vatican.

George Hammond, M.S. Physics
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================