A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

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

WHAT SHOULD CHANGE IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 8th 08, 09:51 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,942
Default WHAT SHOULD CHANGE IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3608
Edward Witten (defined in Einsteiniana as the greatest living
theoretical physicist): "But one key facet of our understanding of
physics has not changed much in almost a hundred years ... this is our
conception of spacetime, where we still use the ideas introduced by
Einstein ... he introduced us to a strange new world in which moving
bodies shrink, moving clocks slow down..."

This "strange world" in which the bug is both alive and dead should be
simply abandoned:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Also, Einsteinians should stop teaching future presidents how to trap
a long train inside a short tunnel:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=nNgzqpKZwhE&feature=iv
Professor Richard A. Muller, University of California Berkeley
Physics for Future Presidents

Needless to say, Einsteinians should admit that they simply CANNOT
trap a 80m long train inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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."

And of course Einsteinians should admit that the so-called "twin
paradox" is just an idiocy that nobody, not even Divine Albert, can
explain in physical terms:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

All these miracles-idiocies are deduced from Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate, so obviously Einsteinians should abandon that
postulate first. Unfortunately this will create a theoretical black
hole that will then eat up the Earth:

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: "What Einstein realized was that if c did not change,
then something else had to give. That something was the idea of
universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly
counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time are perceived
as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-
space-time-as a thing that could flex and change, expanding and
shrinking according to the relative motions of the observer and the
thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was
the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of
light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way
physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays,
to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply
not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have
verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become
central to our understanding of how the universe works."

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

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

Ads
  #2  
Old September 8th 08, 03:58 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default WHAT SHOULD CHANGE IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS

On Sep 8, 1:51*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi....
Edward Witten (defined in Einsteiniana as the greatest living
theoretical physicist): "But one key facet of our understanding of
physics has not changed much in almost a hundred years ... this is our
conception of spacetime, where we still use the ideas introduced by
Einstein ... he introduced us to a strange new world in which moving
bodies shrink, moving clocks slow down..."

This "strange world" in which the bug is both alive and dead should be
simply abandoned:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Also, Einsteinians should stop teaching future presidents how to trap
a long train inside a short tunnel:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=nNgzqpKZwhE&feature=iv
Professor Richard A. Muller, University of California Berkeley
Physics for Future Presidents

Needless to say, Einsteinians should admit that they simply CANNOT
trap a 80m long train inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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."

And of course Einsteinians should admit that the so-called "twin
paradox" is just an idiocy that nobody, not even Divine Albert, can
explain in physical terms:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

All these miracles-idiocies are deduced from Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate, so obviously Einsteinians should abandon that
postulate first. Unfortunately this will create a theoretical black
hole that will then eat up the Earth:

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...42003619,00.ht...
Joao Magueijo: "What Einstein realized was that if c did not change,
then something else had to give. That something was the idea of
universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly
counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time are perceived
as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-
space-time-as a thing that could flex and change, expanding and
shrinking according to the relative motions of the observer and the
thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was
the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of
light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way
physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays,
to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply
not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have
verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become
central to our understanding of how the universe works."

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi....
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

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


Constructing any theory of physics, as Einstein did with SR, on a
mathematical ratio IOW velocity rather than on the natural foundations
of physics such as mass and spatial & temporal separations, is
inevitably going to generate weirdness. But then, mathematicians,
since DesCartes, have never found a problem with the reality of 'real'
numbers.
 




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
HOW THEORETICAL SCIENCE DIED Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 May 20th 08 09:58 AM
Evaluating 100 years old theories in theoretical physics. [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 October 17th 07 06:59 AM
New Web Site Dealing with Theoretical Physics(now is under construction) kiarash niknejad Astronomy Misc 0 November 18th 04 01:07 PM
Highest theoretical magnification? Highland Misc 8 August 13th 04 06:56 PM
Scientific Group Dealing with Theoretical Physics kianoosh Astronomy Misc 0 May 11th 04 10:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.