THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008

I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
Compare the following two quotations:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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."

Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
Norton surely knows this.

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008

I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
Compare the following two quotations:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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."

Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
Norton surely knows this.

Pentcho Valev

Whatever you say is simplistic. You are but one neuron within a 6
billion neuron mind.

On Nov 20, 3:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008

I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
Compare the following two quotations:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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."

Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
Norton surely knows this.

Pentcho Valev

So is the end official end of your pathetic postings, too?

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008
[snip crap]

ONTOLOGY! Ooooooh! Do we get ontogeny and philogeny too? How 'bout
epistemology and heuristic reflexology?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.htm

Empirical observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot. HEY STOOOPID -
LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR SHIFT KEY FOR POST TITLES. If empirical
observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot, then Pentcho Valev is an
empirical idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
PSR J0737-3039A/B deeply relativistic neutron star binary

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

And a little more relativistic GPS good to sub-parts-per-billion
accuracy by simple observation,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
: Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
: June 13-15, 2008
: [snip crap]
:
: ONTOLOGY! Ooooooh! Do we get ontogeny and philogeny too? How 'bout
: epistemology and heuristic reflexology?
:
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.htm
:
: Empirical observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot. HEY STOOOPID -
: LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR SHIFT KEY FOR POST TITLES. If empirical
: observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot, then Pentcho Valev is an
: empirical idiot.
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
: http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
: http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
: Hafele-Keating Experiment
:
: http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
: Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
: Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
: falling light
:
: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
: Nature 425 374 (2003)
: http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
: http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
: Relativity in the GPS system
:
: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html
: Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
:
: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
: http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
: PSR J0737-3039A/B deeply relativistic neutron star binary
:
: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
: http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
: Experimental constraints on General Relativity
:
: http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
: http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
: No aether
:
: http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
: No Lorentz violation
:
: And a little more relativistic GPS good to sub-parts-per-billion
: accuracy by simple observation,
:
: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
: http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
: http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
: http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
: http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
: http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
:
:
: --
: Uncle Al
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
: (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
No brain

On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
: On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: 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."
:
: I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement.
:
: Shubee
: http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

I agree that nothing remains of his whole castle in the air, too -- or
yours.

On Nov 20, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008

I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
Compare the following two quotations:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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."

Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
Norton surely knows this.

Sillier hypnotists have already announced, unconsciously, the end of
Einstein's relativity by resurrecting Newton's emission theory of
light:

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/ed...ooklet_web.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from
Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and
relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John
Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation
on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the
same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to
gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light
could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put
forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect.
Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler-
Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of
the source and the observer."

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 Nov 20, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008

I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
Compare the following two quotations:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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."

Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
Norton surely knows this.

Sillier hypnotists have already announced, unconsciously, the end of
Einstein's relativity by resurrecting Newton's emission theory of
light:

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/ed...ooklet_web.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from
Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and
relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John
Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation
on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the
same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to
gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light
could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put
forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect.
Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler-
Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of
the source and the observer."

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 Nov 20, 7:18 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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."

I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm


It's good to hear that you agree with Einstein. Perhaps you even
understand what he meant by that. Considering that most of physics,
even in his own day, was based on the field concept, it's never been
very clear to a lot of people exactly what he was trying to say.