|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: "VERY SILLY....A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!....Specifically, I began to speculate about the possibility that light traveled faster in the early universe than it does now. To my surprise, I found that this hypothesis appeared to solve at least some of the cosmological problems without inflation. In fact, their solution appeared inevitable in the varying speed of light theory. It was as if the riddles of the Big Bang universe were trying to tell us precisely that light was much faster in the early universe, and that at some very fundamental level physics had to be based on a structure richer than the theory of relativity." Very silly Joao Magueijo should have taken more notice of what very clever John Norton says: 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 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." If very silly Joao Magueijo had taken more notice of what very clever John Norton says, his "varying speed of light theory" would have coincided with Newton's emission theory of light and "the riddles of the Big Bang universe" would have found a much better solution. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were)
very silly Joao Magueijo's followers: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists." The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372828/posts
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. (...) Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology." Obviously very silly cosmologists and their LHC sycophants do not care about "investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang" but then they should immediately stop celebrating and wasting so much money: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-...sts-2008-10-03 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "The LHC isn't running, but scientists are throwing a party anyway....After a much-ballyhooed first proton beam run on September 11, the LHC won’t actually be operational until next year, thanks to a few early mishaps. Not exactly the results LHC operators were hoping for – but why let a little thing like failure get in the way of celebrating?..... Good to know there will be a return on the $8 billion the world has splurged on the LHC." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
On Oct 3, 4:53 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were) very silly Joao Magueijo's followers: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists." The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." Pentcho Valev Photons represent mass, though perhaps only as a zero mass dump truck at rest. ~ BG |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
Nobody takes very silly cosmologists's idiocies seriously anymore and
the next Newton (not next Einstein) is expected to come: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=859062 "The big bounce vs. the big bang....."The universe seems to go through cycles of some kind ... Our universe is what I call an aeon in an endless sequence of aeons," Prof. Penrose said in an address enlivened by his breezy Oxbridge banter (10 to the power of 64 years is, for example, "a jolly long time"), and illustrated by overhead transparencies so artful in their multi-coloured, hand-drawn penmanship that they would not have been out of place alongside a baking-soda volcano at a grade school science fair. But this was top level, cutting-edge physics, hosted by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. He described data he received just this week that appears to show traces of the previous aeon in the microwave background radiation that fills the universe and is regarded as the lingering "flash" of the Big Bang. If it actually does, a lot of science will have to be reconsidered. But no one gasped in awe. There were no hoots of surprise, no muttering about this seeming heresy, this contradiction of everything the general public thinks they know about the creation of the universe.....Of course, this is all just theory. Dapper and decorated as Sir Roger may be, physics still awaits the breakthrough of the next Newton...." I think clever cosmologists should first reconsider very carefully the breakthrough of the original Newton: 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. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
Very silly cosmologists find anything quite exciting: If e.g.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that is, if there is no dark energy, then that is quite exciting, and if the dark energy is fiercely pushing the galaxies then that is again quite exciting: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...145245137.html "Was Einstein wrong?.....Scientists believe that dark energy is exerting a force of negative pressure, leading to an acceleration of the expansion of the universe as time goes on, rather than slowing down as time passes. "We've got a material (dark energy) that we really don't know about and is hard to explain in the first place or Einstein's theories of General Relativity are wrong and we need to invent some new physics to take care of this acceleration," UQ School of Physics Lecturer Dr Kevin Pimbblet said. "Whatever explanation is the right one it is really quite exciting." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
Very silly cosmologists from Oxford reject the Copernican Principle:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1443 Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land Oxford Astrophysics, Physics, DWB, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 131302 "An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e. if we were to live in a void [5, 6, 7]. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
On Oct 3, 2:53 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were) very silly Joao Magueijo's followers: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists." The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." Now very silly Stephen Hawking does not give a **** about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - no Nobel prize in that direction because Einstein zombie world finds the topic too dull. So very silly Stephen Hawking is forced to devise exceptional idiocies - idiocies that could still stir Einstein zombie world - in order to get the Nobel prize in the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WTDnvYqpA Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS
Very silly cosmologist Sir Roger Penrose explains time dilation to
Einstein zombie world very clearly: http://grokscience.wordpress.com/tra...roger-penrose/ Roger Penrose: "Einstein introduced special relativity and there is a thing called the clock paradox or the twin paradox. It's not really a paradox but if you have these two people, one who stays still on the Earth and one goes in a rocket ship to a distant star and comes back again. You find that the one who's gone off and comes back has experienced less time back than the one back on Earth. But what you don't find is that their clocks run at a different rate. You see, the one who has gone off and come back again, he brings his clock and it looks slow. Time has not moved as much, but it still ticks at the same rate as your clock does. But in Wiles' theory, which he introduced as a generalization of Einstein's theory, the idea was that you could incorporate electromagnetism as well as gravity. And Wiles' idea was to say why don't we generalize general relativity so instead of having clocks, which with the paradox could be slow but is not running slow, let's suppose it might run slow. In fact, if you go though different routes in space to come back to the same point, you compare clocks and you find that one of them is actually running at a different rate from the other one. And if you introduce that idea, you get a formalism that incorporates equations just like Maxwell's equations." Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Astronomers and Cosmologists Marginalized, Again | Tim Killian | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | October 8th 05 04:32 PM |
Hello Something silly | Chris | SETI | 7 | July 2nd 05 08:04 PM |
Italian, US cosmologists present alternate explanation for acceleratingexpansion of the universe (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 24th 05 03:31 PM |
Cosmologists and Astrophysicists Contemplate the Super-Electron | Mad Scientist | Misc | 0 | September 1st 04 10:13 AM |
I'm probably being silly but.... | Dave | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 20th 03 02:18 AM |