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

Where are the Einsteinians after all?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 16, 10:54 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Where are the Einsteinians after all?

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Where are the Einsteinians? Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

In 1907 Einstein realized that special relativity was wrong? What happened? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

Does "variable in the presence of a gravitational field" entail "variable in gravitation-free space as well"? Nowadays the brainwashed scientific community is unable to answer this question but in 1907 Einstein knew that the answer was "yes".

Brainwashing is never absolute. Although still unable to pronounce the most tragic phrase "speed of light is variable", scientists almost universally declare that "spacetime does not exist", a statement which is equivalent to "speed of light is variable" (spacetime is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

I have the impression that high-ranking journals and authors have become silent about Einstein's relativity for the last month or so. This may be just wishful thinking but if my impression is correct, the question in the title has the following answer: No more Einsteinians - the speed of light is variable!

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old July 9th 16, 06:48 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Where are the Einsteinians after all?

Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. 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. [....] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i...2108_dBrrH.png

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 12th 16, 09:24 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Where are the Einsteinians after all?

Except for Einsteiniana's zombies, Einsteinians are all disguised Newtonians. The boldest among them openly confess that:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116
FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo. At 53:29 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"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://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Einsteinians are disguised Newtonians but this does not mean that they do not accept Einstein's idiotic relative time. Actually they are practitioners of doublethink and oscillate between the truth (Newton's absolute time) and the lie (Einstein's relative time). Here is Lee Smolin worshiping Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and all its consequences, including Einstein's relative time:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested.. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

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
Where Are the Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 25th 16 09:53 AM
GROUNDBREAKING EINSTEINIANS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 December 11th 13 01:11 AM
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 June 19th 10 06:46 AM
HOW BLATANTLY EINSTEINIANS CAN LIE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 March 16th 10 03:49 PM
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 28 November 16th 08 03:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 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.