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

EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 21st 11, 06:54 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

1. Einsteinians (John Norton, Tom Roberts) admit that both the
Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments confirm Newton's
emission theory of light, a theory postulating that the speed of light
varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v. This equation contradicts
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

2. Einsteinians (John Norton, Craig Callender, Lee Smolin, Etienne
Klein) reject the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher
based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in
physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The
trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with
relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose
geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/151
"The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion." It was none other than Einstein who uttered
these words. He was speaking about how our perception of time differs
from the fundamental nature of time in physics. Take our perceptions
first: We have a clear sense of the present moment, what came before,
and what might come after. Unfortunately, physics treats time rather
differently. Einstein's theory of special relativity presents us with
a four-dimensional spacetime, in which the past, present and future
are already mapped out. There is no special "now," just as there's no
special "here." And just like spacetime does not have a fundamental
direction - forcing us to move inexorably from east to west, say -
time does not flow. "You have this big gap between the time of
fundamental science and the time we experience," says Craig Callender,
a philosopher at the University of California, San Diego. It's this
gap that he has set out to narrow, using ideas from physics,
evolutionary theory and cognitive science."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to
differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to
do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity
seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics
operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But
Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special
relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless
they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is
relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a
proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is
literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of
his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has
become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes
that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real
as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The
notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for
Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate
students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

http://hps.master.univ-paris7.fr/cours_du_temps.doc
Etienne Klein: "Aujourd'hui, L'astrophysicien Thibault Damour
développe à sa manière des idées qui vont dans le même sens. Selon
lui, le temps qui passe (qu'il sagisse d'un fait ou de notre
sentiment) est le produit de notre seule subjectivité, un effet que
nous devrions au caractère irréversible de notre mise en mémoire, de
sorte que la question du cours du temps relèverait non pas de la
physique, mais des sciences cognitives. Il écrit : « De même que la
notion de température n'a aucun sens si l'on considère un système
constitué d'un petit nombre de particules, de même il est probable que
la notion d'écoulement du temps n'a de sens que pour certains systèmes
complexes, qui évoluent hors de l'équilibre thermodynamique, et qui
gèrent d'une certaine façon les informations accumulées dans leur
mémoire. » Le temps ne serait donc qu'une apparence d'ordre
psychologique : « Dans le domaine d'espace-temps que nous observons,
poursuit-il, nous avons l'impression qu'il s'écoule "du bas vers le
haut" de l'espace-temps, alors qu'en réalité ce dernier constitue un
bloc rigide qui n'est nullement orienté a priori : il ne le devient
que pour nous [35]. » L'existence même d'un « cours du temps », ou
d'un « passage du temps », n'est ainsi que simple apparence pour de
nombreux physiciens contemporains. Certains vont même jusqu'à
considérer le passage du temps comme une pure illusion, comme un
produit culturel abusivement dérivé de la métaphore du fleuve. C'est
en effet la conception dite de l'« univers-bloc » qui semble avoir les
faveurs d'une majorité de physiciens. Dans le droit fil de la théorie
de la relativité, celle-ci consiste à invoquer un univers constitué
dun continuum d'espace-temps à quatre dimensions, privé de tout flux
temporel : tous les événements, qu'ils soient passés, présents et
futurs, ont exactement la même réalité, de la même façon que
différents lieux coexistent, en même temps et avec le même poids
ontologique, dans l'espace. En d'autres termes, les notions de passé
ou de futur ne sont que des notions relatives, comme celles d'Est et
d'Ouest. En un sens, tout ce qui va exister existe déjà et tout ce qui
a existé existe encore. L'espace-temps contient l'ensemble de
l'histoire de la réalité comme la partition contient l'uvre musicale :
la partition existe sous une forme statique, mais ce qu'elle contient,
l'esprit humain l'appréhende généralement sous la forme d'un flux
temporel."

3. Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate should be
questioned. Even if this postulate were false, Divine Albert's Divine
Theory would be unaffected:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie 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 lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? 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 économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona..._44_271_76.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 relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "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://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to 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."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old May 21st 11, 07:42 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Valev again contradicted by experience

Le 21/05/11 07:54, Pentcho Valev a écrit :
[snip]

NASA confirmed Einstein again Valev. What do you have to say to this
new measurement?

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

  #3  
Old May 21st 11, 12:19 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

The only permitted development in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
(Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate should remain
intact):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5339/
Lorentzian theories vs. Einsteinian special relativity - a logico-
empiricist reconstruction
Laszlo E. Szabo
"It is widely believed that the principal difference between
Einstein's special relativity and its contemporary rival Lorentz-type
theories was that while the Lorentz-type theories were also capable of
"explaining away" the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment
and other experimental findings by means of the distortions of moving
measuring-rods and moving clocks, special relativity revealed more
fundamental new facts about the geometry of space-time behind these
phenomena. I shall argue that special relativity tells us nothing new
about the geometry of space-time, in comparison with the pre-
relativistic Galileo-invariant conceptions; it simply calls something
else "space-time", and this something else has different properties.
All statements of special relativity about those features of reality
that correspond to the original meaning of the terms "space" and
"time" are identical with the corresponding traditional pre-
relativistic statements. It will be also argued that special
relativity and Lorentz theory are completely identical in both senses,
as theories about space-time and as theories about the behavior of
moving physical objects."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"It is remarkable that the Special Theory has thus far managed to
survive largely unscathed the collapse of its essential
epistemological underpinnings. One wonders how this can be so.
Undoubtedly a major part of the answer is the understandable one that
physicists are not epistemologists; physicists typically know no more
about epistemology, the philosophy of language (e.g. problems with the
verificationist criterion of semantic meaning), and ontology than
philosophers typically know about physics. The precise philosophical
arguments for the illogicality, falsity, or unjustifiably of the
epistemological, semantic, and ontological presuppositions of the
Special Theory remain, with a few exceptions, unknown among
physicists. The price paid for the growth of knowledge is increased
specialization, which, paradoxically, also prevents or reverses the
growth of knowledge, since specialists in one field often base their
work on premises that (unbeknownst to them) have been refuted or
disconfirmed in another field. The only solution we can see for this
problem is that the training or schooling of physicists ought to
include schooling in philosophy (and, as we shall see, the converse
should hold for philosophers). Perhaps this is most practicable in the
form of there being thinkers who take as their specialization the
intersection of physics and philosophy and the works of these
thinkers, at least in "introductory formats", being a part of the
education of both physicists and philosophers. If this proves
unfeasible and the situation remains as it presently stands, the
unpalatable situation may result that neither physicists nor
philosophers are in a position to have adequately justified beliefs
about space and time but only philosophers of physics (or the few
thinkers who are both philosophers and physicists, such as David
Albert and Bas Van Fraassen, and, from the side of physics, Niels Bohr
and David Bohm, who developed philosophical theories in addition to
physically interpreted equations). Apart from leaving unaddressed the
epistemological and semantic presuppositions of STR, there is an even
stronger factor behind physicists' unwillingness to abandon the
Special Theory. The Special Theory is a part of orthodox quantum field
theory (QFT) (quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics),
which aims to unify the Special Theory with quantum mechanics.
Physicists would be at a loss as to how to proceed if they rejected
the Special Theory as unjustified, since they (for the most part)
believe that this would require them to reject QFT. In the light of
this dependence on Special Relativity, physicists are not likely to
abandon it unless it is observationally disconfirmed and there is an
observationally adequate theory available to replace it. In fact,
there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the
Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely
Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory. Lorentz's theory is regarded by
many physicists who have studied Lorentzian theory, such as J.S. Bell,
to be observationally equivalent to the Special Theory. However a
Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory is, in fact, observationally
superior to the Special Theory (a fact that Bell, surprisingly, did
not point out), since a Lorentzian theory, in contrast to the Special
Theory, is consistent with the relations of absolute, instantaneous
simultaneity..."

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009
"The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical,
physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of
Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and
commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications
of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic
quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of
recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and
conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of
the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in
its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view
determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference
intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as
developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how
history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the
accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical
interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee
encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and
non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently
proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal
structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not
be accepted."

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old May 21st 11, 01:05 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

Le 21/05/11 13:19, Pentcho Valev a écrit :
The only permitted development in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
(Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate should remain
intact):

[snip]

I wrote about the confirmation of Einstein's theory by NASA.
Nowhere in your rambling "answer" you mention that FACT.

Can you answer to my question?

What about the confirmation of Einstein's theories by the Gravity B
probe?

jacob
  #5  
Old May 21st 11, 11:45 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Don Stockbauer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

On May 21, 7:05*am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 21/05/11 13:19, Pentcho Valev a écrit : The only permitted development in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
(Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate should remain
intact):


[snip]

I wrote about the confirmation of Einstein's theory by NASA.
Nowhere in your rambling "answer" you mention that FACT.

Can you answer to my question?

What about the confirmation of Einstein's theories by the Gravity B
probe?

jacob


The game is called "Let's post the same thing to usenet forever."
  #6  
Old May 22nd 11, 06:32 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who have come together to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativity's
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics,
and physics.(...) Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory,
however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen
to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
criticizing a DEDUCTIVE theory in this way without even hinting at the
possible falsehood of its two postulates would be a sign of ignorance
or prejudice. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world intensive
exercises in crimestop have converted the order given by
Einsteiniana's priests:

"Don't even think of the possible falsehood of Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate!"

into an absolute principle.

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

  #7  
Old May 22nd 11, 07:19 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the
question below would be regarded as insane:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-247640.html
As I was reading Fabric of the Cosmos, I got stumped at the relativity
of simultaneity section. This led me to Google for some additional
explanation. I stumbled upon http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...le_paradox.htm
which made me think of this question regarding the pole and barn
paradox. I searched around the forum and I didn't find an answer to my
specific question - here goes: If the person running with the pole
appears to the spectator (at a distance) to be inside the barn
completely with the doors shut, how can the person running with the
pole think that the pole is hanging out of the barn? I understand how
only if the doors are simultaneously shut (according to the spectator)
and immediately opened b/c the person running with the pole would not
agree with the simultaneous shutting and opening. So to the runner,
the first door shuts while the back door is still open allowing the
pole to hang out, and then the front door opens while the front of the
pole moves out of the barn and then back door shuts. But if both doors
are shut, and shut for good, doesn't it come down to whether the pole
is in the barn, or whether the back door came crashing down on the end
of the pole? One of my problems is right he if the doors are closed
forever, is the pole in the barn or not? Shouldn't this be the same
for both observers? The pole would either be crushed by the door or
not."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the above question is perfectly
sane. Einsteiniana's priests give various answers and elaborations:

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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search
Einsteinians trap long trains inside short tunnels

http://master-p6.obspm.fr/relat/anne...atTD1_1011.pdf
Université Pierre et Marie Curie
"La situation est la suivante : un perchiste se saisit d'une perche
mesurant 10 m, puis il s'élance en direction d'une grange mesurant 5 m
de profondeur et percée de deux portes A et B (cf fig. 0.1). On
suppose que le perchiste se déplace à une vitesse constante v telle
que gamma = 2. Le paradoxe est le suivant : le perchiste a une perche
de 10 m et voit une grange de longueur 5/gamma = 2,5 m, donc la perche
ne rentre pas. De son côté, la grange voit une perche de longueur 10/
gamma = 5 m, donc la perche rentre. Finalement, est-ce que la perche
rentre dans la grange ? Que se passe-t-il si on ferme la porte en B?
(...) ...lorsque le bout P atteint la porte fermée en B, l'autre bout
de la barre n'est pas encore au courant et la perche se contracte très
fortement, jusqu'à ce que l'information que B est fermée se propage,
via des ondes acoustiques, le long de la barre jusqu'en P."

http://inac.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...343/t343_1.pdf
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji: "Chez Poincaré, la contraction des longueurs
et la dilatation des durées sont réelles.....Chez Einstein, la
contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées ne sont pas
réelles: elles sont le résultat d'un effet de perspective."

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/acti...ein_Damour.pdf
Thibault Damour: "La "contraction des longueurs" avait, avant
Einstein, été considérée par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik Lorentz.
Cependant, ils la considéraient comme un effet "réel" de contraction
dans l' "espace absolu", alors que pour Einstein il s'agit d'un effet
de perspective spatio-temporelle. Einstein fut le premier à penser et
prédire (dès juin 1905) que l'autre effet notable de perspective
spatio-temporelle, usuellement appelé « dilatation du temps »,
impliquait une conséquence observable nouvelle : si deux horloges de
même fabrication se trouvent initialement (t = 0) au même point A d'un
référentiel d'inertie, et que l'on déplace l'une d'entre elles, à
vitesse finie v (constante en module), le long d'une courbe fermée
jusqu'à ce qu'elle revienne au point A, l'horloge « voyageuse »
marquera un temps plus court (...) que le temps marqué par l'horloge «
sédentaire »."

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "We should keep in mind, as an analogy, that the
"twin paradox" has often been used as a proof of the inconsistency of
the special relativistic time-dilation. We know, however, that it
corresponds to a real effect..."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce
possible?"

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/La_relativite.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un objet de longueur L0 dans son propre
référentiel sera, dans un autre référentiel, repéré différemment et se
verra attribuer une longueur inférieure L. Mais, comme dans le cas
spatial, c'est là un effet de parallaxe : ce n'est que si les axes
spatiotemporels de l'objet coincident avec ceux de la règle utilisée
que l'on peut affirmer mesurer la longueur propre de l'objet. La
dilatation des temps s'explique de façon analogue. Ces effets sont
donc parfaitement "réels" tout en ne concernant que des
"apparences"."

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."

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://www.nature.com/news/2003/0307...s030728-3.html
Philip Ball in the journal NATU "A Brazilian physicist has resolved
a paradox thrown up by Einstein's theory of relativity. According to
the theory, objects travelling at close to the speed of light appear
to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the
viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are
receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead.
Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a
submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to
arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink
as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting
density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see
the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser,
making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity
insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink
or swim? It sinks, says George Matsas of the State University of São
Paulo in Brazil. He has used the theory of general relativity to
include the effect of the different reference frames on the space-
distorting force of gravity. Although the surrounding water does look
denser to submariners, they also experience gravity as being stronger,
creating a net downward force. This explanation is not the first. In
1989 US physicist James Supplee tackled the problem using Einstein's
earlier and simpler theory of special relativity, which explains how
movement at close to light speed can distort space. But special
relativity, unlike general relativity, does not include the space-
bending effects of gravity. Supplee also concluded that the submarine
sinks - but he had to factor gravity into his calculations rather
artificially. He argued that the sub sinks as it accelerates because
relativity distorts the shape of the sea floor, bending it upwards
below the sub."

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old May 23rd 11, 03:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

Destruction of children's rationality in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world:

http://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9o...elativit%C3%A9
"C'est à présent la nuit. Vous êtes toujours dans votre train (le
voyage est vraiment long), mais vous ne dormez pas : vous êtes occupé
à une expérience bien plus passionnante. Par votre fenêtre, vous voyez
l'avant d'un autre train qui avance dans la même direction et à la
même vitesse que vous. Ses phares sont allumés ; nous allons
considérer la lumière de ces phares comme un flot de photons qui se
précipitent à environ 300 000 km/s droit devant. Sachant que les deux
trains (le vôtre et celui d'à côté) se déplacent à 200 km/s (soit 720
000 km/h - ce sont des trains révolutionnaires !), à quelle vitesse
voyez vous avancer le rayon lumineux ? Facile : 300 000 km/s ; puisque
vous avancez à la même vitesse que le train voisin, la vitesse de ce
dernier ne s'ajoute pas à celle du rayon lumineux (c'est comme si les
deux trains étaient immobiles, de votre point de vue). Et maintenant,
à quelle vitesse la vache sur le bord des rails voit-elle avancer le
rayon lumineux ? Cette fois-ci, de son point de vue, le train ET le
rayon sont en mouvement, à une vitesse différente ; donc, selon la loi
d'addition des vitesses, le rayon fonce à... (300 000 + 200) 300 200
km/s ? Pour en être sûrs, faisons un petit saut dans le temps. En
1887, exactement. À cette époque, le monde scientifique était persuadé
que la lumière se déplaçait dans une substance mystérieuse, l'éther
(rien à voir avec celui des médecins et des drogués) ; cet éther
serait un fluide invisible et intouchable qui imprégnerait toute
chose, qui serait même assez fin pour se glisser dans une cloche à
vide (« sinon, comment expliquer que la lumière traverse du vide ? »,
argumentaient les physiciens de l'époque). Pour ces physiciens,
c'était évident : tout comme le son, qui se déplace de molécule en
molécule sous forme d'onde, la lumière DEVAIT avoir un fluide vecteur.
En 1887, donc, deux physiciens américains du nom d'Albert Michelson et
d'Edward Morley firent une expérience qui devait prouver l'existence
de l'éther ; ironie du sort, ce fut l'expérience qui prouva
l'inexistence de cet éther ! L'expérience était simple : puisque TOUT
baigne dans l'éther, alors les planètes aussi. Mais leur déplacement
autour du Soleil devrait engendrer un « vent d'éther », semblable au «
vent de la vitesse » que ressent un motard : en clair, un courant
d'éther qui irait dans le sens contraire de la marche de la Terre, et
qui à la fois ralentirait la lumière qui irait contre lui et
accélérerait (du point de vue de la planète) celle qui irait dans le
même sens que lui. Le résultat de l'expérience fut pour eux
incompréhensible : quelle que soit la direction de la lumière (contre
et avec le vent d'éther), celle-ci conservait toujours la même
vitesse : 299 792 km/s. Ce résultat, au passage, propulsait les
équations de l'électromagnétisme de Maxwell au faîte de la gloire,
puisqu'elles prédisaient qu'un rayon lumineux va toujours à 300 000 km/
s ; mais surtout, il invalidait les lois d'addition des vitesses de
Galilée. C'est pourquoi, pour revenir à notre train, la vache ne voit
pas passer le rayon émis par les phares à 300 200 km/s. Il passe, et
ce pour la vache, le conducteur du train ou n'importe qui d'autre, à
300 000 km/s, un point c'est tout."

http://querleu.centerblog.net/16-fai...eleves-de-4eme
"Faire comprendre la Relativité à des élèves de 4ème. Notion préalable
concernant la vitesse c de la lumière. Tout d'abord, il convient de
leur apprendre que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est constante
(299792 km/s) et qu'elle est indépendante de la vitesse de la source
émettrice, ce qui contredit le principe d'addition ou soustraction
arithmétique des vitesses de la mécanique classique. (...) En écrivant
cela, il se rend compte alors qu'il a écrit ( c+V ) : vitesse de
rencontre en mécanique classique, ce qui est inconcevable ! Par
ailleurs, s'il fait c+V = c dans sa relation, il est obligé d'écrire
que t' = t, ce qui est manifestement faux ! Nous sommes placés devant
une énigme ! (...)
Conclusions de l'élève de 4ième.
L'unité de temps n'est pas absolue comme en mécanique newtonienne,
mais bien relative au référentiel en mouvement (on vieillit moins vite
dans le train !)
La longueur, c'est à dire la métrique, n'est pas absoluedans un
référentiel en mouvement (le train est plus court en mouvement qu'à
l'arrêt ! ).
Il doit exister dans un Univers organisé comme le nôtre (avec une
expansion de type sphérique autour du point singulier du Big-bang) un
référentiel dont la vitesse est nulle et pour lequel les unités de
temps et de longueur sont maximales, celles-ci étant d'autant plus
contractées dans un référentiel en translation uniforme que la
vitesse de ce référentiel est importante.
Un élève de 4ème imaginatif et pas nécessairement matheu peut même en
déduire que lorsque V tend vers c, temps et longueur tendent vers
zéro.
Il en déduira que ces phénomènes ne peuvent pas être réciproques. Ils
le sont cependant dans l'esprit de gens qui ignorent encore le sens
profond de la "Relativité Restreinte du temps, de l'espace et de la
matière", et le limitent à la notion puérile de "relativité de la
vitesse", alors qu'au contraire, et c'est bien là le paradoxe, il est
nécessaire de se référer à la vitesse absolue pour se conformer à la
Théorie d'Einstein."

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/
"During the morning, children spent time with their parents.
Afternoon brought a special production of Einstein! Einstein! followed
by tours of RHIC, ITD, the fire house, Science Museum, and tree
planting. (...) Professor Chanteuse led the audience in singing
"Divine Einstein" while the scientists changed into their real
costumes. (...) Einstein explains that imagination is more important
than knowledge. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! led by volunteers
from the audience. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't
solve it, no one can!"

The destruction of children's rationality noticed by Harry Kroto:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old May 25th 11, 09:01 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

Absolute idiocy in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: As soon as the
observer starts moving towards the light source, the approaching light
automatically decreases its wavelength so as to hit the observer with
an invariable speed, an invariability Divine Albert found it
profitable to postulate in 1905:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

How can John Norton, one of the cleverest Einsteinians, teach such an
idiocy? George Orwell explains the paradox:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

  #10  
Old May 28th 11, 02:48 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

Art in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/son...neEinstein.htm
Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.0016v2.pdf
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z7Gt...eature=related
"The Relativity Song"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
"Prof Brian Cox explores Time in super slow motion"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
"Prof Brian Cox explores Einstein's understanding of time"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
"Large Hadron Rap"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LintCKKbDxk
"Prof Brian Greene sings string theory"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppE5sR36kBg
"The Edwin Hubble-Red-Shift-Big-Bang-in-English-Accent Rap"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVsQ2...eature=related
"Einstein's Own Words - Original music by Alex Hirsch"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMw2f5YJk0
"Brian Cox explains the Block Universe"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pLCOizNSLI
"Max Tegmark and Prof Brian Cox on the minus sign"

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
EINSTEINIANA'S LUNACY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 March 13th 11 10:07 AM
EINSTEINIANA'S ACHILLES' HEEL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 September 13th 10 01:49 PM
HOW EINSTEINIANS CAN LEAVE THEIR SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 22nd 09 09:56 AM
EINSTEINIANA'S LOGIC Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 June 22nd 09 01:13 PM
EINSTEINIANA'S NEW DEFINITION OF MASS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 2nd 09 07:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.