|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEINIANA'S LUNACY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | March 13th 11 09:07 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 06:33 PM |