EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
On Jun 13, 6:44*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end
of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief
marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also
Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below):
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...iew-roger-penr...
"Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
Mechanics."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683551.ece
"Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR
Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting
Albert Einsteins lifelong search for a theory of everything was
probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of
Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also
expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on
his website,www.hawking.org. uk: "Some people will be very
disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to
that camp, but I have changed my mind. Im now glad that our search for
understanding will never come to an end."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana's marauders in action:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7149095.ece
"SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved
because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees,
president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely
aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure
of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains."
Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists,
especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such
mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations
of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation,
he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is
one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently
delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday
Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists
working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the
forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and
stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and
particles."
Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of
empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may
mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding
universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of
the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty
space":
http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...sts-the-freedo...
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."
Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has
irreversibly killed physics:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
Albert Einstein 1954: "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: "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."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!
(...) The speed of light is c+v."
Pentcho Valev
Awwwww Pancho
|