ROYAL SOCIETY CARES ABOUT DEAD PHYSICS

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so. At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts September 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so. At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...postsSeptember 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy. It is made up of tiny particles we now call photons
and NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES. So this is sort of like saying light is
also made up of light atoms."

If Professor Jim Al-Khalili had consulted Professor Lee Smolin and
Professor John Stachel, Professor Lee Smolin and Professor John
Stachel would have told Professor Jim Al-Khalili to rephrase this
particular greatness of Einstein so that NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES could
disappear forever:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who
from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a foundational
element
in physics..." 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."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so. At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ostsSeptember9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy. It is made up of tiny particles we now call photons
and NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES. So this is sort of like saying light is
also made up of light atoms."

If Professor Jim Al-Khalili had consulted Professor Lee Smolin and
Professor John Stachel, Professor Lee Smolin and Professor John
Stachel would have told Professor Jim Al-Khalili to rephrase this
particular greatness of Einstein so that NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES could
disappear forever:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a foundational
element in physics..." 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."

Perhaps the best description of the relation between Einstein's second
postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

and the dilemma "DISCONTINUOUS partucles - CONTINUOUS waves" is given
by Banesh Hoffmann, one of Einstein's apostles:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so. At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts September92001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy. It is made up of tiny particles we now call photons
and NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES. So this is sort of like saying light is
also made up of light atoms."

If Professor Jim Al-Khalili had consulted Professor Lee Smolin and
Professor John Stachel, Professor Lee Smolin and Professor John
Stachel would have told Professor Jim Al-Khalili to rephrase this
particular greatness of Einstein so that NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES could
disappear forever:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a foundational
element in physics..." 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."

Perhaps the best description of the relation between Einstein's second
postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

and the dilemma "DISCONTINUOUS partucles - CONTINUOUS waves" is given
by Banesh Hoffmann, one of Einstein's apostles:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

The Royal Society has found some hope in the end:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6957
"Physics remains on the critical list despite the slight increase in
numbers of students sitting the subject. In actual terms, we're
looking at just 98 more people taking the A-level compared to last
year. We need more evidence before we can conclude with confidence
that this is the beginning of a recovery."

So perhaps more "pandas" will be produced:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...648111,00.html
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. 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?"

But there is another problem - the new "pandas" may turn out to be
scientifically illiterate in the end:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

How about older "pandas" that owe all their literacy to intensive
education in Einstein zombie world? The best among them defend
Einstein's theory of relativity in the following way:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...w/31704765.cms
"Does fasterthan-light speeding up of photons violate Einstein's
theory of relativity?......The Nobel laureate Brian Josephson put it a
little differently: "The new speeds given for photons are in excess of
the current value for the speed of light in air, but they are still
light photons. So clearly, we are dealing with the speed of light -
only faster light."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so. At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts September92001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy. It is made up of tiny particles we now call photons
and NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES. So this is sort of like saying light is
also made up of light atoms."

If Professor Jim Al-Khalili had consulted Professor Lee Smolin and
Professor John Stachel, Professor Lee Smolin and Professor John
Stachel would have told Professor Jim Al-Khalili to rephrase this
particular greatness of Einstein so that NOT AS CONTINUOUS WAVES could
disappear forever:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a foundational
element in physics..." 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."

Perhaps the best description of the relation between Einstein's second
postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

and the dilemma "DISCONTINUOUS partucles - CONTINUOUS waves" is given
by Banesh Hoffmann, one of Einstein's apostles:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

The Royal Society has found some hope in the end:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6957
"Physics remains on the critical list despite the slight increase in
numbers of students sitting the subject. In actual terms, we're
looking at just 98 more people taking the A-level compared to last
year. We need more evidence before we can conclude with confidence
that this is the beginning of a recovery."

So perhaps more "pandas" will be produced:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...648111,00.html
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. 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?"

But there is another problem - the new "pandas" may turn out to be
scientifically illiterate in the end:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

How about older "pandas" that owe all their literacy to intensive
education in Einstein zombie world? The best among them defend
Einstein's theory of relativity in the following way:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...w/31704765.cms
"Does fasterthan-light speeding up of photons violate Einstein's
theory of relativity?......The Nobel laureate Brian Josephson put it a
little differently: "The new speeds given for photons are in excess of
the current value for the speed of light in air, but they are still
light photons. So clearly, we are dealing with the speed of light -
only faster light."

Pentcho Valev

while you read so many things valev, im sure
you should write a book with your conclusions

you may become foken rich

On 23 Aug, 12:20, John Kennaugh
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy.

Which is exactly what Newton predicted a couple of centuries earlier )

The point is having proved the existence of Newton's corpuscles using
the really original theoretical work of Planck he promptly ignored the
fact and carried on as if Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics was in no way
compromised by the discovery.

Einstein's problem was that the speed of Newton's corpuscules depends
on the speed of the emitting body - in this case no miracles can be
deduced and the transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is
impossible. If, as can be deduced from Lorentz transforms, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body, miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) are unavoidable and the
transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is guaranteed:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body....If at the points A and B of K there are stationary
clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if
the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B,
then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On 23 Aug, 12:20, John Kennaugh
: wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
: Newton:
:
: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
: "Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
: if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
: seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
: bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
: national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
: the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
: scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
: the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
: light is lumpy.
:
: Which is exactly what Newton predicted a couple of centuries earlier )
:
: The point is having proved the existence of Newton's corpuscles using
: the really original theoretical work of Planck he promptly ignored the
: fact and carried on as if Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics was in no way
: compromised by the discovery.
:
: Einstein's problem was that the speed of Newton's corpuscules depends
: on the speed of the emitting body - in this case no miracles can be
: deduced and the transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is
: impossible. If, as can be deduced from Lorentz transforms, the speed
: of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body, miracles
: (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are unavoidable and the
: transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is guaranteed:
:
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: Albert Einstein: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a
: definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
: emitting body....

That is pure aether theory for which Einstein cannot be held
responsible, he didn't think that up.

The core of Einstein's garbage is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO -- Albert Einstein.

All the rest follows from the third postulate, there is no need
to investigate its consequences. It is a simple matter to ask
Cassini the time. It will take t1 = x/(c-v) for the request
to get to Cassini and t2 = (x+vt)/(c+v) to get the answer back.
If (t1+t2)/2 = t1, Einstein's guess was right. So ask Cassini
what t1 is, it will take about 2 hours and 40 minutes to run the
experiment.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm

On 24 Aug, 17:00, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 23 Aug, 12:20, John Kennaugh
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
A reason why, according to Einsteinians, Einstein is greater than
Newton:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848
"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are regarded as two of the greatest,
if not the greatest, scientists who ever lived. The Royal Society is
seeking to find out who scientists and the public think made the
bigger contribution to both science and to humankind through a
national poll of the general public and a poll of the Fellowship of
the Royal Society, representing the UK and Commonwealth's leading
scientists....In support of Einstein. Professor Jim Al-Khalili puts
the case for Albert Einstein....He [Einstein, not Newton] proved that
light is lumpy.

Which is exactly what Newton predicted a couple of centuries earlier )

The point is having proved the existence of Newton's corpuscles using
the really original theoretical work of Planck he promptly ignored the
fact and carried on as if Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics was in no way
compromised by the discovery.

Einstein's problem was that the speed of Newton's corpuscules depends
on the speed of the emitting body - in this case no miracles can be
deduced and the transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is
impossible.

The question Lorentz and then Albert were trying to address was "why
does the MMX always find that the observer's speed relative to the
aether is zero". You will note that Einstein's second postulate is
simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether, who's
speed w.r.t. the aether is zero would observe. It is an acceptance of
the empirical interpretation that the MMX showed that every observer is
stationary w.r.t the aether.

If you assume light is particles there is no need for an aether - it
would simply get in their way. If one assumes no aether - an article of
faith of modern physics - then logically the question they were trying
to answer is the wrong question. If you assume no aether the question
becomes "if the speed of light is not c w.r.t the aether as previously
thought then what is it constant w.r.t.?" Well it can't be constant
w.r.t the observer can it? That would mean that the speed at which light
separates from the source is determined by an observation made some time
in the future. It has to be constant w.r.t the source doesn't it? If
space is empty the only physical process is that taking place at the
source - emitting photons at c w.r.t itself.

If, as can be deduced from Lorentz transforms, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body,

That is cart before horse if I may say so. The logic was as follows:
The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body
because it is constant w.r.t the aether. The MMX showed that the
observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether = the second postulate.
The Lorentz transforms can be derived from that starting point.

miracles
(time dilation, length contraction etc.) are unavoidable and the
transition "Albert the Juggler - Divine Albert" is guaranteed:

I still can't see how he got away with it.







http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body....If at the points A and B of K there are stationary
clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if
the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B,
then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Pentcho Valev

--
John Kennaugh

Curiously, some Einsteinians know they have killed science and are
trying to somehow justify the death:

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "L'histoire, precisement, nous montre que,
dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands episodes scientifiques
se sont termines : la science grecque a dure quelques siecles, la
science arabe, la superbe science arabe a laquelle nous devons tant, a
dure quelques siecles et puis s'est arretee. Le relais a ete pris par
d'autres. Il y a meme eu de grands episodes de civilisation dans
lesquels ce que nous appelons science n'etait pas une activite
fondamentale, reconnue et valorisee en tant que telle. Il suffit de
comparer a cet egard la civilisation romaine et la civilisation
grecque, qui entretiennent avec le savoir des rapports completement
differents - ou la civilisation chinoise et la civilisation indienne.
Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siecles a venir, notre
civilisation, desormais mondiale, continue a garder a la science en
tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siecles."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 16, 3:31 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6955
Ahead of tomorrow's (Thursday 16 August) publication of A-level
results Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Although
the number of students taking A-level biology is in reasonable shape
and we've seen an encouraging rise in numbers taking chemistry in the
last few years, physics is a subject on the ropes. We should be
encouraging far more students who have the ability to study physics at
A-level, to do so.

We knew that. Which is still why UK schools
are the only people who take A-level anything.
Since chemistry is nothing but cranks with
robots, and Physics is nothing but cranks with stop signs.



At its highest levels physics seeks to make sense
of the universe and our place within it, but for all students it opens
doors to great intellectual challenges, a better understanding of the
other sciences and a wide range of exciting and well paid careers.
Last year A-level entries for all subjects rose 2.8 per cent compared
with 2005, but entries in physics reached a new low with 2.7 per cent
fewer UK students taking the subject. This is a massive 37 per cent
fewer than in 1991."

Martin Rees could still have saved physics a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...postsSeptember 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einsteins theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEINS
BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles
a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at
the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private
conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Now it is too late.

Pentcho Valev