A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CATASTROPHE IN PHYSICS... REPENTANCE?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old June 29th 15, 05:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default CATASTROPHE IN PHYSICS... REPENTANCE?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/22/why-converge/
"My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he [Neil Turok] says."

What are the causes of the catastrophe, Neil Turok? One is that physicists lie too much. For instance, Brian Cox flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c and informs the gullible audience that the light hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c. The gullible audience should also believe that this was a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory (in fact, Maxwell's 19th century theory predicted that the light would hit Brian Cox in the face at 1.75c, not c):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
Einstein's Relativity

The same lie taught by other Einsteinians (it often goes hand in hand with the lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

http://houseofanansi.com/products/the-universe-within
The Universe Within, Neil Turok: "In every argument, there are hidden assumptions. The more deeply they are buried, the longer it takes to reveal them. Newton had assumed that time is absolute: all observers could synchronize their clocks and, no matter how they moved around, their clocks would always agree. He had also assumed an absolute notion of space. Different observers might occupy different positions and move at different velocities, but they would always agree on the relative positions of objects and the distances between them. It took Einstein to realize that these two very reasonable assumptions - of absolute time and space - were actually incompatible with Maxwell's theory of light. The only way to ensure that everyone would agree on the speed of light was to have them each experience different versions of space and time."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

http://cfile205.uf.daum.net/attach/1...4EE5A30219CDD4
The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same."

http://deenoverduniya.files.wordpres...repentance.jpg

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CATASTROPHE IN PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 January 5th 10 07:26 AM
EINSTEINIANA: REPENTANCE (TOO LATE?) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 6th 09 08:19 AM
Doubt cast on Venus catastrophe George Amateur Astronomy 3 March 17th 06 10:07 PM
How unlikely is a doomsday catastrophe? Joseph Lazio SETI 8 December 14th 05 11:29 PM
CATASTROPHE Confirms ... MAN AS OLD AS COAL Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 2 July 16th 03 09:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.