|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l.../einstein.html
Dept. Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee: "Einstein's theory predicts that the direction of light propagation should be changed in a gravitational field, contrary to the Newtonian predictions. (...) The General Theory of Relativity predicts that light coming from a strong gravitational field should have its wavelength shifted to larger values (what astronomers call a "red shift"), again contary to Newton's theory." Believers sing as they get educated: http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! He explained the photo-electric effect, And launched quantum physics with his intellect! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel -- He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein -- Egad, could that guy derive! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! Brownian motion, my true devotion, He mastered back in aught-five! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply That planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation And look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. The education continues: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)" http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]." http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html "In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all - even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed of light." http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9 Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html "With the technology then available, measuring the deviation of starlight was very challenging. Newtonian physics predicted a bit of bending too..." The ecstasy reaches its maximum: believers tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
The fundamental purpose of Einsteiniana's zombie education is to
discourage believers from questioning, even thinking of, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - the ultimate source of Einsteiniana's welfare. Various techniques are involved, including hammering the following knowledge into believers' heads: Indelible knowledge in believers' heads: "The speed of light may be constant. The speed of light may be variable. In either case Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity is true": 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Fundamental truths taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:
1. The principle of constancy of the speed of light is true because the speed of light is constant by definition. Moreover, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is both variable and constant: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity." 2. As soon as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the approaching light automatically decreases its wavelength so as to present itself to the observer with a constant speed, in perfect accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate: 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)." 3. The relativity theory cannot be false (more precisely, it is the only possible theory in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world) because "it is impossible to detect a movement at constant speed": http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/~durand/club-math-2011.pdf Stéphane Durand: "Puis nous expliquerons pourquoi la théorie de la relativité ne peut pas être fausse (du moins, dans notre univers). Plus précisément, dans un univers où il est impossible de détecter un mouvement à vitesse constante (comme c'est le cas dans le nôtre), la théorie de la relativité est la seule possible; avec comme cas limite la physique galiléenne." 4. An arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container; the object does not undergo any physical compression: http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets. Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible. 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." 5. An arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container; the object does undergo physical compression: 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." 6. Time is not an illusion: 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." 7. Time is an illusion after all: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...sim/index.html John Norton: "In a relativistic (i.e. Minkowski) spacetime, the relativity of simultaneity tells us that there are many ways to do this; there is no unique, preferred unstacking. In this sense, space and time get fused together and this fusion is the real novelty of the spacetime approach in relativity theory. This novelty is surely what Hermann Minkowski had in mind when he wrote in the introduction to his famous lecture "Space and Time" of 1908: "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Lee Smolin, one of Einsteiniana's highest priests, teaches believers
not to sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" too loudly: 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.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...11/bosmo10.xml "Smolin admits that "we have made no real headway". "We have failed," he says. "It has produced a crisis in physics." (...) EINSTEIN MAY HAVE STARTED THE ROT." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "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." Within two years of publishing it? 1907? What did Einstein realize in 1907? 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." Variable? Shock! Horror! Help! Help! Here comes Stephen Hawking who is the Albert Einstein of our generation and therefore immeasurably cleverer than Lee Smolin and John Norton: http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html Stephen Hawking: "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......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving." http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66 Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)" Recomforted by Stephen Hawking's teaching, believers restart singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" as loudly as they can. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a39812783268d5
Tom Roberts (Einsteiniana's famous educator on sci.physics.relativity): "TRUTH" is available only in mathematics, not in science." The speed of light depends on the speed of the light source. The speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source. One of the statements is an ABSOLUTE truth, the other is false. So "TRUTH" is available in science, Honest Roberts. Not in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world of course. Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
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." John Norton informs Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world that everybody but Divine Albert has been lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment. Professors in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world couldn't care less and continue to teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (zombies invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"). Besides, it was Divine Albert who first taught the blatant lie: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Zombie education reaches its ultimate goal:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...discontin.html "Tennessee university discontinues physics degree program. Tennessee State University in Nashville has started pruning its lowest-producing degree programs - including undergraduate physics, writes Jennifer Brooks for the Tennessean. Because the university has graduated only 23 physics majors over the past decade, the administration decided to wrap the physics program into an umbrella math-and-science hybrid degree within the College of Engineering. "Mathematics and physics majors take 80% of the same courses," said professor Sandra Scheick, head of the current mathematics and physics department. Instead of two or three physics majors and 10 or so math majors, and maybe one astronomy major every other year or so, Scheick said, there will be two dozen mathematical science majors. The Tennessee Higher Education Commission keeps a running tally of the graduates produced by every degree program at every public institution in the state. To avoid being classified as "low producing," several schools have been forced to terminate programs." http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/ "However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as absurd as those of any religious cult." http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Trouble.doc Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either." http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/...lton-Ratcliffe Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta- mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest. It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://blog.reycom.org/archives/109 "La crise des vocations est générale dans toutes les sciences dures. En témoignent les articles récurrents de revues spécialisés telles que Physics World, l'excellent journal de l'Institute of Physics, ou la Recherche qui a longtemps conservé un lien fort avec la recherche publique menée en France. Elles s'en sont émues parce que c'était à leurs lecteurs potentiels que cette crise s'attaquait... Le tableau noir des sciences est peut-être entrain de cesser d'accepter des marques de craie blanche. Il restera simplement noir. Dans ce paysage accablant, les journalistes scientifiques peuvent toujours continuer de ramer comme le faisait la reine Rouge de Lewis Carol, qui courait simplement pour se maintenir sur place... Le courant de la rivière de la course à la rentabilité risque de se transformer en rapide, entrainant tous les coureurs, sans exception, vers le trou noir de l'oubli!" Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Educators in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world often teach variable-
speed-of-light "heresies" that additionally confuse believers' minds and make the true antithesis (the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light) of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of- light postulate invisible: http://edge.org/conversation/loop-qu...ity-lee-smolin Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the former. And this is what seems to be happening! (...) We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2-cRhk76TY&NR=1
David Goodstein: The Michelson-Morley experiment compels us to believe that the speed of light is the same to all observers regardless of their state of motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrbRzxEuHFU Julian Barbour: And if there was no ether, the message seemed clear: the speed of light was constant and not governed by the laws of motion that apply on earth. Pentcho Valev wrote: 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." John Norton informs Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world that everybody but Divine Albert has been lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment. Professors in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world couldn't care less and continue to teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (zombies invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"). Besides, it was Divine Albert who first taught the blatant lie: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ZOMBIE EDUCATION IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Teaching relativity miracles - various approaches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4osiJknSo8M&NR=1 David Goodstein: "If light has some definite speed as observed from a particular frame of reference then there IS such a thing as a state of rest in that frame of reference and the whole argument for the law of inertia collapses. Now I don't know if there are other logically consistent universes but in our universe that problem has been solved by making the speed of light the same to all observers regardless of their state of motion. Knowing that and only that it's possible to deduce that if there are a pair of twins and one of them stays behind on earth and the other one travels at high speed to a distant star, turns around and comes back, the travelling twin, when they get back together, will be younger than the one who stayed behind." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply That planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation And look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search Richard Muller teaches both students and future presidents how to trap long trains inside short tunnels. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GUILTY CONSCIENCE IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | July 16th 11 06:31 AM |
EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 14 | June 8th 11 08:08 AM |
CLAUSIUS ZOMBIE WORLD IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 12th 08 02:51 PM |
Zombie education at MIT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | September 4th 08 05:48 PM |
EARLY EDUCATION IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 25th 07 02:42 PM |