If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfgTQkH2L38
Brian Greene Feb 26, 2014: "As a physicist to me he [Einstein] is the greatest most insightful intellect that our species has ever produced." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqoSLWLFjiU Nov 20, 2014: "Who do you consider the greatest of all physicists? When people think physics, they often think of Einstein, but Brian Greene has a different person in mind for the greatest of all physicists." There is a difference between Feb 26, 2014 and Nov 20, 2014 isn't it? No sane person can read the following text (written by perhaps the cleverest ever Einsteinian) and remain a true believer in the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constantspeedoflight postulate: 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 MichelsonMorley 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 
Ads 
#2




EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP
Leaving the sinking ship with a shrug:
https://4gravitons.wordpress.com/aut...dagradstudent/ "Nima ArkaniHamed is famous for believing that spacetime is doomed, that as physicists we will have to abandon the concepts of space and time if we want to find the ultimate theory of the universe. He's joked that this is what motivates him to get up in the morning. He tends to bring it up often in talks, both for physicists and for the general public. The latter especially tend to be baffled by this idea. I've heard a lot of questions like "if spacetime is doomed, what could replace it?" In the past, Nima and I both tended to answer this question with a shrug. (Though a more elaborate shrug in his case.)" Other Einsteinians leaving the sinking ship with a shrug: http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSp.../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 welldefined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." http://edge.org/responses/whatscien...forretirement 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.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...realityreview "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." http://www.amazon.com/TimeRebornCr.../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..." Sometimes Einsteinians return to the sinking ship with a shrug: http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/timereborn/ 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 welltested. 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 
#3




EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIJoyh5PY4Q
Neil deGrasse Tyson has realized that Einstein's spacetime (allowing Einsteinians to claim that travel to the future is possible) is wrong, and is desperately hinting in that direction (2:22): "I have no access to the past, I have no access to the future." Here is what Einsteinians usually teach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljQI7gGIot4 Brian Greene: Is Time Travel Possible? Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
HOW EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  August 17th 14 07:05 PM 
EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  4  March 31st 14 06:46 PM 
FAT RATS HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE SINKING SHIP  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  June 19th 08 11:49 AM 