EINSTEINIANA: THE MEANING OF SILENCE

For more than a year almost all relatively clever hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult have been silent about the problems of
theoretical physics and busy leaving sinking ships. John Baez is the
only one who confessed in public:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yet it seems hypnotists break the silence at their meetings and from
time to time information about the magnitude of the crisis gets
available:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114140
"Most remarkable about the talk is that it is a stinging critizism of
contemporary theoretical physics without actually ever mentioning it.
Rovelli called Baez on that asking wether what he had just presented
didn't imply that the theoretical physics of the last 25 years was
"junk". To which John baez replied after some hesitation "You said
it"."

Pentcho Valev

On 4 Aug, 11:32, Pentcho Valev wrote:
For more than a year almost all relatively clever hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult have been silent about the problems of
theoretical physics and busy leaving sinking ships. John Baez is the
only one who confessed in public:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yet it seems hypnotists break the silence at their meetings and from
time to time information about the magnitude of the crisis gets
available:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114140
"Most remarkable about the talk is that it is a stinging critizism of
contemporary theoretical physics without actually ever mentioning it.
Rovelli called Baez on that asking wether what he had just presented
didn't imply that the theoretical physics of the last 25 years was
"junk". To which John baez replied after some hesitation "You said
it"."

Pentcho Valev


And what does H.D.Retic say about all this? The theories of La Reta
work even less well.


- Ian Parker

Note on genders - I don't know whether H.D.Retic is a man or a woman.
La Reta is the Italian for the net. It is a colloquial extression for
the Mafia. The gender is related to the word

viz Das Madchen

Dear Ian Parker:

On Aug 4, 4:27*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...
And what does H.D.Retic say about all this?
The theories of La Reta work even less well.

I don't know about H.D. Retic, but...
H.E.Retic (heretic) - EinsteinHoax - Ernest Wittke
... says whetever he can about the Jew-boy.

David A. Smith

On Aug 4, 5:20*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Ian Parker:

On Aug 4, 4:27*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...

And what does H.D.Retic say about all this?
The theories of La Reta work even less well.

I don't know about H.D. Retic, but...
H.E.Retic (heretic) - EinsteinHoax - Ernest Wittke
... says whetever he can about the Jew-boy.

David A. Smith

Which is more important: that John Baez, Einsteiniana's Great
Educator, abandoned quantum gravity because he thinks that theoretical
physics is "schizophrenic" and "junk", or that part of the information
comes from a possibly anti-semitic source? Similarly, Einsteiniana's
literature tells you almost nothing about the way Einstein dealt with
the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field -
perhaps the most dangerous episode in Einsteiniana's history. So when
a Muslim website is the only place where you can find the details, it
is worth seeing:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm

Pentcho Valev

On 4 Aug, 17:52, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 4, 5:20*pm, dlzc wrote:

Dear Ian Parker:

On Aug 4, 4:27*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...

And what does H.D.Retic say about all this?
The theories of La Reta work even less well.

I don't know about H.D. Retic, but...
H.E.Retic (heretic) - EinsteinHoax - Ernest Wittke
... says whetever he can about the Jew-boy.

David A. Smith

Which is more important: that John Baez, Einsteiniana's Great
Educator, abandoned quantum gravity because he thinks that theoretical
physics is "schizophrenic" and "junk", or that part of the information
comes from a possibly anti-semitic source? Similarly, Einsteiniana's
literature tells you almost nothing about the way Einstein dealt with
the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field -
perhaps the most dangerous episode in Einsteiniana's history. So when
a Muslim website is the only place where you can find the details, it
is worth seeing:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm

Loop quantum theory which is what John Baez is investigating is
incredible difficult. I don't know why you lot respond with whoops of
joy. The fact of the matter is that the theories of La Reta do not
achieve anything.

I think it is important fore readers to know the anatomy of La Reta,
the Vrill aircraft that never were. How we have been strung along for
over 60 years on antigravity. How Area 51 and Roswell perpetrated a
colosal fraud.

John has never

1) Claimed aircraft of stupendous performance existed that did not.
2) Used little green men and alien abduction as a cover story.
3) Persistently tried to disinform all of us.

I have always said that anti Relativity was the tip of an iceberg. The
readership should realize this.

John, as I uderstand is attempting to derive a Theory of Everything
from Lie Algebra. He is presenting the Lorenz Group as local
incariance.

If he now says he was wrong and can't do it I admire him for his
honesty. This is considerably more than we have ever got out of
Roswell.


- Ian Parker

On Aug 4, 12:32 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
For more than a year almost all relatively clever hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult have been silent about the problems of
theoretical physics and busy leaving sinking ships. John Baez is the
only one who confessed in public:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yet it seems hypnotists break the silence at their meetings and from
time to time information about the magnitude of the crisis gets
available:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114140
"Most remarkable about the talk is that it is a stinging critizism of
contemporary theoretical physics without actually ever mentioning it.
Rovelli called Baez on that asking wether what he had just presented
didn't imply that the theoretical physics of the last 25 years was
"junk". To which John baez replied after some hesitation "You said
it"."

Of course John Baez the Educator would not have called Einsteiniana's
science "schizophrenic" and "junk" if money coming from NASA and
possibly other sources had not disappeared so unexpectedly:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
"In March 2008 at NASA's invitation, we submitted a proposal to the
Science Mission Directorate, Astrophysics Division Senior Review of
Operating Missions (Sr. Review), requesting a final 18-month (October
2008 through March 2010), $3.8M extension of GP-B to complete the data
analysis and publish the results. In April, as part of the Sr. Review
process, GP-B Principal Investigator, Francis Everitt, and Program
Manager, William Bencze, made a presentation to the Sr. Review
Committee at NASA Headquarters, where it appeared to have been
favorably received. Thus, we were greatly surprised last week to
discover that the Sr. Review had recommended that NASA not grant our
final funding extension, particularly since another NASA committee—the
GP-B Science Advisory Committee (SAC), chaired by relativistic
physicist Clifford Will—stated in its report following the November
2007 meeting: “The SAC was impressed with the truly extraordinary
progress that has been made in data analysis since SAC-16 [Mar 2007] …
and we now agree that GP-B is on an accelerating path toward reaching
good science results."

Einsteiniana plus no money. Oxymoron. The travelling twin returns
younger, the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside the 40m long barn,
the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive, and yet
nobody is paying for that. Tragedy.

Pentcho Valev

Perhaps the silence will be broken by the end of September when
Einsteiniana's bosses will have to decide how to fill the empty space
beyond Einstein:

http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/

Some of the bosses are considering very carefully Einstein's 1909 idea
that Newton's emission theory of light should be resurrected:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

If the other bosses don't mind, John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt will
resurrect Newton's emission theory of light immediately - they believe
it is compatible with Einstein's idiocies and is even "infinitely more
interesting - and more usefull pedagogically" than them:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende 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 lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les
résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au
plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en
mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante -
et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé
l'éther."

Pentcho Valev

On 16 Aug, 09:23, Pentcho Valev wrote:

snip - endless variations on the same old material!


If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+
postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day -
might be enough!


Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would
seem to prove this!


Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

On Aug 4, 1:32 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
For more than a year almost all relatively clever hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult have been silent about the problems of
theoretical physics and busy leaving sinking ships. John Baez is the
only one who confessed in public:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yet it seems hypnotists break the silence at their meetings and from
time to time information about the magnitude of the crisis gets
available:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114140
"Most remarkable about the talk is that it is a stinging critizism of
contemporary theoretical physics without actually ever mentioning it.
Rovelli called Baez on that asking wether what he had just presented
didn't imply that the theoretical physics of the last 25 years was
"junk". To which John baez replied after some hesitation "You said
it"."

The silence in Einstein criminal cult is complete and irreversible
now, nobody would be punished for questioning Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate, so I think physicists could safely start analysing
the numerous hints their Masters have found it suitable to make:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that
is, Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for
the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev