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

THE BRIEFEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 8th 13, 09:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE BRIEFEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY

http://www.newstoday.com.bd/index.ph...ate=2013-04-09
A brief history of relativity by Stephen Hawking: "You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving. The Irish physicist George FitzGerald and the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz were the first to suggest that bodies moving through the ether would contract and that clocks would slow. This shrinking and slowing would be such that everyone would measure the same speed for light no matter how they were moving with respect to the ether, which FitzGerald and Lorentz regarded as a real substance. But it was a young clerk named Albert Einstein..."

Hawking is lying of course. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (that is, the speed of light varies with both the speed of the emitter and the speed of the observer). FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized space and time so that the central tenet of the ether theory - the independence of the speed of light with respect to the speed of the emitter - could be saved:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 9th 13, 09:00 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE BRIEFEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY

The end of the history of relativity: DISGUSTING DOUBLETHINK:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep...ns-lonely-path
Lee Smolin: "Quantum mechanics was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must always be the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. 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."

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://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

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://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Cr.../dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/time-reborn
71:04 : QUESTION: What you did not talk about was time dilation, the myth of time dilation, I think that needs to be blown as well. What do you think of that? LEE SMOLIN: I disagree. This is an important point. Special relativity may be superseded but it is holding up enormously well under experiment. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia is here... and he and various friends of ours have been trying to transcend special relativity for years and we are keeping knocked back by experiment... and the experiments have shown that special relativity is true to tremendous precision... Do you agree Giovanni? Yea!

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 9th 13, 01:24 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE BRIEFEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY

Disgusting doublethink in French:

http://www.franceinter.fr/player/reecouter?pause=442163
"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..."
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein."
"C'est pas la vôtre?"
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

http://philodutemps.free.fr/?tag=presentisme
"Etienne Klein exprime sa sympathie pour une solution intermédiaire entre le présentisme et la théorie de l'univers-bloc... (...) Etienne Klein: "Mais ces deux interprétations, univers-bloc et présentisme, sont loin d'avoir clos le débat. Dans le premier cas, l'existence même du cours du temps est relativisée, ou bien, selon une manoeuvre idéaliste assez classique, transformée sans que l'on nous précise comment en un produit de notre conscience : ce serait seulement par et pour une conscience que se succéderaient les instants du monde. De surcroît, l'interprétation de l'univers-bloc ne semble pas aisément compatible avec l'indéterminisme de la physique quantique qui, d'une certaine façon, laisse l'avenir ouvert à plusieurs possibilités. Quand au présentisme, il s'accorde mal avec la théorie de la relativité restreinte..."

http://www.franceculture.fr/player/r...r?play=4512239
Etienne Klein: "D'où ma proposition, sans attendre que les physiciens accordent leurs violons, ne faudrait-il pas bricoler d'urgence une habile synthèse entre le présentisme et l'univers bloc, les mélanger astucieusement pour donner corps à l'idée que le futur existe déjà, que c'est une authentique réalité, mais que cette réalité n'est pas complètement configurée, pas intégralement définie, qu'il y a encore place pour du jeu, des espaces pour la volonté, le désir, l'invention."

http://www.librairal.org/wiki/George..._-_Chapitre_IX
"La doublepensée est le pouvoir de garder à l'esprit simultanément deux croyances contradictoires, et de les accepter toutes deux. Un intellectuel du Parti sait dans quel sens ses souvenirs doivent être modifiés. Il sait, par conséquent, qu'il joue avec la réalité, mais, par l'exercice de la doublepensée, il se persuade que la réalité nest pas violée. Le processus doit être conscient, autrement il ne pourrait être réalisé avec une précision suffisante, mais il doit aussi être inconscient. Sinon, il apporterait avec lui une impression de falsification et, partant, de culpabilité. La doublepensée se place au coeur même de l'Angsoc, puisque l'acte essentiel du Parti est d'employer la duperie consciente, tout en retenant la fermeté d'intention qui va de pair avec l'honnêteté véritable. Dire des mensonges délibérés tout en y croyant sincèrement, oublier tous les faits devenus gênants puis, lorsque c'est nécessaire, les tirer de l'oubli pour seulement le laps de temps utile, nier l'existence dune réalité objective alors qu'on tient compte de la réalité qu'on nie, tout cela est d'une indispensable nécessité."

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
THE SHORTEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 August 14th 09 08:28 AM
The briefest explanation of dark matter [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 October 30th 08 06:57 PM
EVOLUTION -- GREATEST CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY --Why, It's Even Worse Than 911 Tappit Hen Astronomy Misc 1 March 1st 08 02:25 PM
EVOLUTION -- GREATEST CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY -- Why, It's Even Worse Than 911 Doug Weller Astronomy Misc 0 March 1st 08 02:23 PM
BRAINWASHED EVOLUTIoNIST SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT AS FACT THE GREATESTDISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY Nobel Foundation Astronomy Misc 1 February 6th 08 03:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM.


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.