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

FQXi AGAINST EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 10th 11, 01:47 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FQXi AGAINST EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY

While John Norton, Craig Callender and Lee Smolin extract career and
money from attacking Einstein's concept of time (without attacking
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate of course),
their brothers Einsteinians extract career and money from developing
Einstein's concept of time into even more idiotic concepts:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "General Relativity opened the door to an even deeper
upheaval of the common concept of time. However, most popular
treatments of science have a tendency, when speaking of General
Relativity (GR), and especially when describing relativistic
cosmological models (Inflation, Big Bang,...), to use a language which
suggests that GR reintroduces the notion of temporal flow, which
Special Relativity had abolished. Far from it. The spacetime of GR is
just a "timeless" as the special relativistic one. The Big Bang should
not be referred to as the "birth" of the universe, or its "creation"
ex nihilo, but as one of the possible "boundaries" of a strongly
deformed (timeless) spacetime block. Far from reintroducing the notion
of temporal flow, the infinite variety of possible Einsteinian
cosmological models furnish some striking examples of conceivable
"worlds" where the unreality of this flow becomes palpable. For
example, one can imagine a spacetime containing both big bangs (i.e.
"lower" boundaries) and big crunches ("upper" boundaries), and such
that the privileged "arrow of time" defined by the gradient of entropy
in the vicinity of these various spacetime boundaries is, for each
boundary, directed towards the interior of the spacetime (as it is for
the boundary of our spacetime that is conventionally called "the Big
Bang")."

Believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity" while the few rational people that
are still left in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world are inclined to
sing "Where once was light now darkness falls":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYfoeBOhTU
Where once was light
Now darkness falls
Where once was love
Love is no more
..................................
These tears you cry
Have come too late
Take back the lies
The hurt, the blame
And you will weep
When you face the end alone
You are lost
You can never go home
You are lost
You can never go home.

Pentcho Valev

  #12  
Old June 11th 11, 08:10 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FQXi AGAINST EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY

John Norton is much cleverer than Brian Greene so he is not going to
mutilate his mind any longer:

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "I was, I confess, a happy believer that passage is an
illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of
just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to
consciousness in such rigid doses. Perhaps, I wondered, could we turn
that problem over to the neuroscientists? Then there was the odd
implausibility of the whole idea that became harder to suppress."

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."

Yet another question continues to torture John Norton's mind: That the
passage of time is an illusion is a consequence of Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate so should we now, filled with
horror, go back to Newton's emission theory of light?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "In Maxwell's theory, a light wave in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c, with respect to the ether. So
measuring the speed of a light beam gives observers an easy way to
determine their motion in the ether. If they find the light to move at
c, the observers are at rest in the ether. If they find the light
frozen, they are moving at c in the ether. Since observers can
determine their absolute motion, the theory violates the principle of
relativity. The alternative theory that Einstein began to pursue was
an "emission theory." In such a theory, the speed of light in vacuo is
still c. But it is not c with respect to the ether; it is c with
respect to the source that emits the light. In such a theory,
observing the speed of a light beam tells observers nothing about
their absolute motion. It only reveals their motion with respect to
the source that emitted the light. If they find the beam to propagate
at c, the observers are at rest with respect to the emitter. If they
find the beam to be frozen, they are fleeing from the source at c. In
general, observers can only ascertain their relative velocity with
respect to the source. A distinctive property of this emission theory
is that there is no single velocity of light; the velocity will vary
according to the velocity of the emitter. (...) That fact, presumably
encouraged Einstein to persist in his efforts to find a serviceable
emission theory. Einstein persisted for years, as he recalled in a
1920 recollection (Einstein, 1920):
Einstein: "The difficulty to be overcome lay in the constancy of the
velocity of light in a vacuum, which I first believed had to be given
up. Only after years of [jahrelang] groping did I notice that the
difficulty lay in the arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts."
Eventually Einstein did give up on an emission theory. There is an
indication that the struggle with the emission theory was long and
arduous."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Self-mutilation of Einsteiniana's minds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

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
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 February 12th 11 04:55 PM
Heuristics in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 8th 10 09:29 AM
THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 18 September 7th 10 06:08 AM
Is Einstein's Relativity Inexact? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 8th 09 12:24 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 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.