EINSTEINIANA ON THE CUSP OF A REVOLUTION AGAIN

don't confuze the odometer with the moment-being. anyway,
quaternions are the best odometer for 4D phase-space;
did Hamilton use the term, phase-space,
in regard to Hamiltonians?... I clipped what I meant to save,
but it's still "blather!"

of time, nor the lack of freedom which we observe in our control over
time. Relativity theory imposes a lightcone interpretation on top of
its tensor. We are not free to translate(move) in time as we are in
space. Thus the zero dimensional one-signed number is a clean match to
observations of time.

thus:
well, fisrt of all, if you are still referring
to "E=cmc," it is just the short version, and
it may not be in the best form, but it is *still*,
essentially, Leibniz's *vis viva*, which corrected
someone's "linear" formula (I think, Poor Galileo's).

It is more than a wrong formula, derived from a bungle. It is much more
disastrous. It is a wrong ideology, that appearance is actually reality,
that the Earth is standing still... it is the height of anti-science.

thus:
holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although
the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough.

Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought
to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was
at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according
to I. 4 Gott).

and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results
"proving relativity & so on."

You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller,
and countless others looked for and did not find?

--Seargent "give war a chance" Pepper & Trickier Dick Cheeny want
you:
SudanCrusade!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/O...Diophantus.pdf
1. Yes, this is his statement of what has come

Some Einsteinians know nothing about Master of the universe Stephen
Hawking's discovery - that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell -
and publish awful things (should be kicked out of Einsteiniana
immediately):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3q22q7284331087/
Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does Michell-
Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer?
Giovanni Preti
Abstract A famous Newtonian argument by Michell and Laplace,
regarding the existence of “dark bodies” and dating back to the end of
the 18th century, is able to provide an exact general-relativistic
result, namely the exact formula for the Schwarzschild radius. Since
general relativity was formulated more than a century after this
argument had been issued, it looks quite surprising that such a
correct prediction could have been possible. Far from being merely a
fortuitous coincidence (as one might justifiably be induced to think),
this fact can find a reasonable explanation once the question is
approached the other way round, i.e. from the general-relativistic
point of view. By reexamining Laplace’s proof from this point of view,
we discuss here the reasons why Michell-Laplace argument can be so
“unexpectedly" correct in its general-relativistic prediction.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

It seems Einsteiniana's revolution involves abandoning Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and establishing a new, truly eternal this time, money-
spinner:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...sian-professor
Michael Green: Master of the universe. Michael Green is the new
Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge following in the footsteps
of Newton and Hawking. (...) Furthermore, string theory, Green
contends, "isn't simply something that will, once tested, be either
verified or disproved. It's become much more than that".

By the way, why does any Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge
become "Master of the universe"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tephen.hawking
Master of his universe. When Rachel Cooke was granted an interview
with Stephen Hawking, she was told that he only had time to answer six
questions. So what would you ask the scientist with one of the most
acute brains of his generation? (...) The Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, where
Hawking is the Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by
Isaac Newton... The two-part series Stephen Hawking: Master of the
Universe starts on Channel 4 on Monday 3 March

I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Yet I have no idea why Michael Green is Master of the universe -
perhaps the enormous power automatically goes to any Lucasian
professor of mathematics at Cambridge, even if he had not discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell.

Pentcho Valev

but, I agree, the lightcone is a useless obscurity,
owing peculiarly to treating "time like space" in a graph e.g.

thus:
analog is still very big in electronics. according
to the guy from the statistics area, addressing the math club
at a local university, all of the chairs in the Math Dept.
go to Statistics, and he advized "no doctorates in math,
unless it's statistics."

personally, I say that *mathematica* is four subjects, and
to avoid any one of them is a serious conceptual trilemma.

thus:
what is supposed to be "implimented?"
get rid of No Child Left Behind, Come the Rapture;
there is no such Constitutional thing, as "the separation
of church & state!"
get rid of the Three Rs babysitting mode d'education,
and impliment the quadrivium (mathematica -- scarey; eh ?-)
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsn...0/backpage.cfm

--Seargent "give war a chance" Pepper & Trickier Dick Cheeny want you,
in Sudancrusade; enlist at www.harrypotterPSes.gb.edu!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

Now that Einsteinians are sure that the speed of light is not
constant, a revolution establishing various types of camouflage and
red herrings is a must in Einsteiniana:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/brea...9s-relativity/
"Gamma-ray burst restricts ways to beat Einstein’s relativity....it
might be possible to develop tighter constraints or even measurements
of how much light speed changes with energy if the speed of light does
indeed depend on energy."

Pentcho Valev

Revolutions in Einsteiniana involve two campaigns (often occurring
simultaneously):

Campaign 1: An extremely heretical claim, usually challenging
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, is advanced and even
experimentally confirmed. Selected "mavericks" in Einsteiniana extract
maximum career and money from it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit – the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should
be absolutely irrelevant."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Campaign 2: The extremely heretical claim is useless and even harmful
(in terms of career and money) for other Einsteinians so it is slowly
but surely undermined, with "Einstein is still right" as the final
conclusion. The selected "mavericks" gradually abandon their heresy
but career and money gained in the process remain:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...instein-right/
"New results are in from the Fermi Space Telescope, which settled into
orbit in the summer of 2008, and the findings seem to prove Albert
Einstein right once again. Man, that guy was good. (...) But the study
of the Fermi Telescope’s results, published in Nature, declares that
since all the gamma rays arrived within nine-tenths of a second apart,
they must have all traveled at almost exactly the same speed. (...)
Physicists working with the Fermi Telescope will keep looking for new
evidence. But for now, says study coauthor Peter F. Michelson, "I take
it as a confirmation that Einstein is still right" [The New York
Times]."

Pentcho Valev

The silliest argument advanced by Einsteiniana in support of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: The speed of light varies but
the effect is so small that in practice "Einstein still rules":

http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "Einstein still rules,"
Michelson said."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Revolutions in Einsteiniana involve two campaigns (often occurring
simultaneously):

Campaign 1: An extremely heretical claim, usually challenging
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, is advanced and even
experimentally confirmed. Selected "mavericks" in Einsteiniana extract
maximum career and money from it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Campaign 2: The extremely heretical claim is useless and even harmful
(in terms of career and money) for other Einsteinians so it is slowly
but surely undermined, with "Einstein is still right" as the final
conclusion. The selected "mavericks" gradually abandon their heresy
but career and money gained in the process remain:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...instein-right/
"New results are in from the Fermi Space Telescope, which settled into
orbit in the summer of 2008, and the findings seem to prove Albert
Einstein right once again. Man, that guy was good. (...) But the study
of the Fermi Telescopes results, published in Nature, declares that
since all the gamma rays arrived within nine-tenths of a second apart,
they must have all traveled at almost exactly the same speed. (...)
Physicists working with the Fermi Telescope will keep looking for new
evidence. But for now, says study coauthor Peter F. Michelson, "I take
it as a confirmation that Einstein is still right" [The New York
Times]."

Pentcho Valev

well, that was a _Peter_ Michelson. He and
Smolin are some kind of freaked, that they'd worry
about the idea of the index of refraction, varying
for different kinds of Newtonian "photons;" but,
how can a zero-mass point-particle have a frequency, or
a wavelength?

--McSudan Crusades for carbon credits!?!
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf

that is to say,
"chromatic abberation" -- so, There!

thus:
I am lying about numbertheory, and
the number, 1.0000...;
who gives a floating fart?

thus:
original sources (and "sourcebooks") are really good,
such as the below-linked Ouvre de Fermat for number-
theory, and Bernoulli/L'Hopital's calculus textbook.
(Euclid, not so much, as an encyclopedia, although
he did supply new stuff, they say -- and
Langlands says that Book 7 needs a lot of work; I do have
a nice latter-day textbook on synthetic trigon geometry, but
it's in French, so it's hard work.)

thus:
of course, and the electrons can't go faster
than light *even if*
they might already be orbitting the nucleus
at such a velocity.

thus:
I could see that he got rid of the gamma function, but
it'll be a while before that is clear to me; so,
I asked about a problem he wrote about, before.

m'brain:
L'Ouv http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

--HW's Cap'n Trade & Warren "choo-choo" Buffet, together again?...
Dubya wouldn't sign the radical free-trade Kyoto Protocol?...
Rep. Waxman's God-am bill, doesn't institute a tarrif, instead!?!

There will be a new breathtaking revolution in Einsteinana on 17
décembre 2009:

https://listes.services.cnrs.fr/wws/.../msg00033.html
Projet "Fondements de la physique en région parisienne"
Semaine de philosophie de la physique, 14-18 décembre 2009
17 décembre 2009, 17h, ENS, salle des Actes
Harvey Brown (Oxford University) "Why do rods contract in motion?"
"Einstein's special theory of relativity predicts, correctly, that
rigid bodies contract when in motion, (though Einstein was not the
first to predict it). But what is the explanation of this phenomenon?
Einstein increasingly disliked his original explanation, based on the
relativity principle and the light postulate. What should take its
place?"

So how will Harvey Brown explain the miraculous length contraction
without deducing it from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate? I am
so curious! Will the new length contraction be reciprocal again or
will Brown return to FitzGerald and Poincaré's concept according to
which it is not reciprocal:

Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativité, histoire d'une grande idée", Pour la
Science, 1999, p. 129: "FitzGerald and Poincaré pensaient que le
phénomène de contraction des longueurs résultait du mouvement des
objets à travers l'éther. Bien qu'ils ne l'aient jamais dit
ouvertement, ils supposaient certainement qu'un observateur immobile
dans l'éther observerait une contraction des longueurs d'un objet en
mouvement, tandis qu'un observateur en mouvement observerait au
contraire une dilatation des longueurs des objets au repos dans
l'éther."

Note that if the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the
light source, that is, if Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true,
then a long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, a 80m long
pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead
and alive. Harvey Brown will have to tell the world if all those
idiocies remain consistent with the new length contraction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev