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


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Science Conformable to Einstein's Idiocies
Scientific American: "For a crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid. [...] It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional beasts invented to uphold the model... [...] Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything  they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. [...] Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity. [...] The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification. In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...bigproblems/
Einstein's general relativity is nonsense. It predicts that the speed of light falling in gravity idiotically DECREASES: "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) DECREASES as the black hole is approached." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+Ï†/c^2) where Ï† is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speedlight.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Thus, as Ï† becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s601/601.htm The idiotic decrease in the speed of falling light was a fudge factor Einstein introduced to reconcile the miraculous gravitational time dilation he had fabricated in 1911 and the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory. Gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift are only compatible if the speed of light falling in gravity DECREASES (the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, 2g near Earth's surface). Actually the speed of light falling in gravity INCREASES (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2) as predicted by Newton's theory and unequivocally confirmed by the PoundRebkaSnider experiment: "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 217, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests  the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift , you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the manysided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Science Conformable to Einstein's Idiocies
Posttruth science: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p1...ionMercury.htm
Sometimes the truth shows up even in Einstein cult: Countless ad hoc adjustments until "excellent agreement with observation" is reached: Michel Janssen: "But  as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907  one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The EinsteinGrossmann theory  also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper  is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field  or, as we would now say, the inertiogravitational field  should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the socalled metric tensor field.. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertiogravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the EinsteinGrossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the EinsteinGrossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the EinsteinGrossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." http://zope.mpiwgberlin.mpg.de/livi...files/EBms.pdf Special relativity was a deduction from Einstein's nonsensical constantspeedoflight axiom but general relativity was an inductive (empirical) concoction, essentially equivalent to the empirical curve fitting models defined he "The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/docum...ve_Fitting.pdf Pentcho Valev 
#3




Science Conformable to Einstein's Idiocies
Physics died the moment it had to conform to Einstein's idiotic spacetime. Here is the story in brief:
Einstein in conflict with his conscience as he introduces obvious nonsense: John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm Accurate presentation of Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom: Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irlq3TFr8Q Space and time were vandalized accordingly  to fit the nonsensical constancy  and physics died (became insane): "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/20...rsofgravity/ Nowadays Einsteinians gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers: Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg "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. [...] 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html Postsanity science: High priests in Einstein cult repudiate Einstein's spacetime, declare that it doesn't exist, but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's nonsensical constantspeedoflight axiom, and LIGO's ripples in spacetime: Nima ArkaniHamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369 "And by making the clock's tick relative  what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another  Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...realityreview "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/TimeRebornC.../dp/B00AEGQPFE Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/responsedetail/26563 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/responsedetail/25477 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of spacetime. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity  one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...ofspacetime/ "We've known for decades that spacetime is doomed," says ArkaniHamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ureofphysics So spacetime "is not there in the next version of physics" but LIGO's ripples in spacetime are there, like the grin of the Cheshire cat: https://imagesna.sslimagesamazon....1J7PIffiL.jpg Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  April 30th 19 05:26 PM 
When Will Einstein's Idiocies End?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  October 28th 17 05:12 PM 
Einstein's Idiocies in Songs  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  May 9th 17 07:42 PM 
WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  35  October 5th 07 12:00 PM 
EINSTEIN IDIOCIES FOREVER?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  15  July 5th 07 09:38 AM 