MONEY DISTRIBUTION IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT

On Jul 29, 5:00*pm, moky wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/
Roger Penrose: "I had, for a good many years earlier, been of the
opinion that the SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM picture of reality would prove
inadequate on some small scale."

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."

Just in order to answer in a scientific way :
Look at the page 574 he http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/book94bigpdf.pdf

That describes a model in which the space is not continuous, and which
embed, however, the Einstein's gravitation.

More generally, look at page 196 he http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/bookwebfinal.pdf

Of course, non commutative gegometry is only one way out of 10.000 to
extend general relativity using non-continuous spaces. An other is
quantum loop gravity : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9905087v1

What you point out is only the fact that Einstein has not the
mathematical tools to express his theory in a non-continuous space-
time. Now we have.

Does it answer you concern ?

The dilemma "continuous field - discontinuous particles" is PHYSICAL,
not mathematical:

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/memb...tein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
"théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
électromagnétique."

In 1905 Einstein in fact killed contemporary physics (see the
quotation above) by basing his light postulate on "continuous field",
not on "discontinuous particles":

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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

The dilemma "continuous field - discontinuous particles" is PHYSICAL,
not mathematical:


You did not even read what I send.
Solutions to physical problems often come from new mathematical
structures : description of the planet orbits by Newton's gravitation
is due to differential calculus, Maxwell's electrodynamics is due to
vector calculus and Stockes's theorem, and so on.

Now, there exists mathematical frameworks in which one can write
physical theories that embed general relativity in a non-continuous
space-time.

The physical question is : are these theories good or not ? So far, we
do not have any answer to that question.
Here, Alain Connes and Ali Chamseddine make a prediction for the
Higgs' mass.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/hep-th/9606001
Wait and see ...


By the way : string theory (the XXI century physics), as far as I
know, takes place in continuous space-time ... but some noncommutative
structures do appear.

Do not forget to say if Lorentz is correct in the flat case
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&

Good afternoon
Laurent

On Jul 29, 6:20*pm, moky wrote:
The dilemma "continuous field - discontinuous particles" is PHYSICAL,
not mathematical:

You did not even read what I send.
Solutions to physical problems often come from new mathematical
structures : description of the planet orbits by Newton's gravitation
is due to differential calculus, Maxwell's electrodynamics is due to
vector calculus and Stockes's theorem, and so on.

I am afraid you are too confused and if your position in your
university is not stable you should stop exposing your "thoughts".
Just learn by rote Divine Albert's thoughts:

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."

Pentcho Valev

I am afraid you are too confused and if your position in your
university is not stable you should stop exposing your "thoughts".

Do not worry for me.
I repeat myself :
You did not even read what I send.
So, what are you discussing about ?

1. String theory is mainly conformal. The only fact you try to use it
in order to say that Gallilée is good shows that you have no idea of
the "21 century" physics, and in particular, no idea of what string
theory is made of.

2. Quantum loo gravity and noncommutative geometry are two theories
that are able to deal with discountinuous spaces in the same time as
agreeing with general relativity. First, read something about, and
then, discuss.

So, you should stay at a correct level. In the non-gravitational case,
is Lorentz correct ?
(if you want to answer "no", you have to say that you was wrong in
posting your string theorist link)

Have a good night
Laurent

Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
could imagine.

On Jul 29, 9:17*pm, moky wrote:
Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
could imagine.

But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
light postulate is false:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...9e5d9fabf69d18
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
Laurent Claessens: "Eh bien, Einstein s'est trompé. C'est pour ça que
je dis qu'il ne faut pas lire les textes originaux."

Would you mind if from now on you are referred to as "Laurent
Claessens, humble follower of the Great Relativists Tom Roberts, Jean-
Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu who gloriously proved that Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if
"light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond "De la relativite à la chronogeometrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D’autre part,
nous savons aujourd’hui que l’invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere
est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de
futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumiere alors n’irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais
variable, ne s’identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "...an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-
standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity
theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and
retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This
question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of
special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz,
Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 28, 10:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Money in Einstein criminal cult goes mainly to Sir Martin and Sir
Roger but from time to time small sums are given to extremely active
zombies such as Zombie Kaku:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/wht/20..._kaku_and.html
"Dr. Michio Kaku, Henry Semat Professor at the City College of New
York, is the 2008 recipient of the Klopsteg Memorial Award from the
American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)."

Zombie Kaku teaches Einstein zombie world that teleportation, time
travel, invisibility etc are possible and even carried out by experts
in Einsteiniana:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=69716
"Teleportation, Time Travel, Invisibility etc May be Possible. Kaku
says that teleportation has already been carried out..."

Zombie Kaku is incomparable:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2y...eature=related

More money should be given to Zombie Kaku.

Pentcho Valev

Sir Martin thinks that Zombie Everitt has gone too far. Sir Martin
knows that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is an inconsistency and
therefore can predict anything. How can one test a theory that
predicts anything? Sir Martin suggests that Gravity Probe B should not
waste money anymore. Zombie Everitt will never again sing "Divine
Einstein":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...ecfgravb28.xml
"Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe
began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90
years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was
blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on
a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year.
The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University,
conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created
inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions
in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer
Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the
persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its
gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have
been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from
Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student –
and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for
Einstein's theory was meagre – just two tests, with 10 per cent
precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with
precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to
have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in
Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected
result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected
result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very
challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein:
There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high
burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival
theory. "So the most exciting – if un-alluring – outcome of Gravity
Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum
of money to repeat it."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
On Jul 29, 9:17�pm, moky wrote:
Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
could imagine.

But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
light postulate is false:

Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space.
But, of course, QED would have to be modified (because in QED, the
photon is the U(1) gauge boson, which is massless), or, more
precisely, its domain of validity should be restricted.

But, since you do not know one single word about QED (you do not even
know what is a U(1) gauge boson and have no idea of why it is
massless[1]), what do you expect to prove by discussing the
corrections that would be done in order to give a mass to the photon ?


That small parenthesis being closed, you can answer the questions :
* In the non-gravitational case, is Lorentz correct ?
* How do you do to, in the same time, claim that Gallilée is correct
and that string theory is the 21 century physics ?

The first question can be answered by "yes" or "no". I do not
understand why you are delaying your answer by changing the subject
everyday ...

Have a good night.
Laurent


[1] I know that you do not know because anybody who knows what a
gauge boson is knows what the spin representations of SL(2,C) are ...
or at least the ones of Lorentz.

On Jul 30, 2:56*am, moky wrote:
Pentcho Valev a écrit :

On Jul 29, 9:17 pm, moky wrote:
Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
could imagine.

But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
light postulate is false:

Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space.

You don't need to say anything else. Your place in the pantheon is
guaranteed. Is Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond the founder of your incredible
school of thought?

Pentcho Valev

You don't need to say anything else. Your place in the pantheon is
guaranteed. Is Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond the founder of your incredible
school of thought?

No. I never heard about him. I just say what is taught at university.
Inveriance under the Lorentz group is an hypothesis which independent
of the light phenomenology. Only people like you ignore it, because
you refuse to read what people explain you on the forum from years.
Anyway, it does not answer the questions :

* Is Lorentz correct at least in the non-gravitation case ? (Yes/no)
* Do you think that string theory works in the gallilean framework ?
(yes/no)


Have a good night
Laurent