A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Einsteinians: Professors of Showbiz and Science Fiction



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 23rd 17, 03:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einsteinians: Professors of Showbiz and Science Fiction

An amazingly correct analysis by a layman:

Letters to the Editor: Black holes and showbiz have one connection. I see Brian Cox, professor of showbiz and science fiction is soon to present in Canberra on the cosmos with its "dark energy and black holes," etc.

Meanwhile real scientists are searching for a paradigm shift away from "mathemagics", which routinely employs the concept of infinity to "prove" anything you like.

A black hole, for instance, has finite mass concentrated at its "singularity". The singularity has zero volume and infinite density.

The black hole has no gravitational force, only space-time curvature. There is infinite curvature at the singularity, which means infinite gravity.

Think about that. A finite mass is located in zero volume, it has infinite density and it has infinite gravity.

Do you think any such thing exists?

A black hole has never been observed. If a theorist is unable to discover real objects, which cause the observed effects, it is unscientific – indeed, it is fraudulent – to invent unreal objects and present them as a "factual" discovery of the cause of those effects.

More than a billion dollars has been spent on gravitational wave detectors so far but it is reported that the European Space Agency is planning a multibillion-dollar probe to be launched in about 17 years that would look for gravitational waves from space.

Clearly we don't understand gravity yet.

How about some real investigative reporting in physics instead of showbiz?

There's a great deal of public money to be saved, not least on Cox's show.

Wal Thornhill, Chapman
[END OF QUOTATION] http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comm...17-gz2u2q.html

Soon all professors of showbiz and science fiction will have to answer the "embarrassing question":

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 23rd 17, 10:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einsteinians: Professors of Showbiz and Science Fiction

Brian Cox wouldn't be millionaire if he was unable to lie as blatantly as this:

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-.../dp/0306818760

These are the two fundamental lies on which the teaching of Einstein's relativity is based:

1. Maxwell's 19th century theory showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

Ninety-nine percent of the Einsteinians teach those lies. Yet the truth does show up sometimes, even though this remains unnoticed in the post-truth world:

"That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

"To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1228..._Discover..pdf

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev
 




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
Educational value in science fiction Pat Flannery Policy 3 March 14th 09 01:25 PM
Educational value in science fiction [email protected] History 1 March 14th 09 01:25 PM
SPEAKING OF SCIENCE FICTION TomThumb Misc 3 January 25th 08 02:32 AM
Science fiction writers on Science Channel tonight Rtavi Misc 3 August 7th 06 01:42 PM
Science Fiction LAH Amateur Astronomy 1 August 7th 05 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.