|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
Harvey Brown's and Oliver Pooley's idea:
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY is extremely dangerous since it naturally leads to: PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY which sounds like Bryan Wallace's: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm THE FARCE OF PHYSICS So the cleverest hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton, urgently published a rebutal which however is not convincing: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...Relativity.pdf John Norton: "These sentiments are captured more vividly in the earlier slogan of Brown and Pooley (2004) of Minkowski spacetime as a "glorious non-entity." This would make Brown's view a form of spacetime relationism, although I will suggest below in Section 6 that it might be more restrictive than familiar forms of relationism." The problem is that Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley CAN whereas John Norton CANNOT explain how a long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search= or a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
On Nov 20, 8:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentiuska http://www.movv.com/prvupload/upload...etard_stfu.jpg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Nov 20, 8:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentiuska http://www.movv.com/prvupload/upload...etard_stfu.jpg He's really more like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOks8ndk6sM Dirk Vdm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
On Nov 20, 7:10 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote: "Dono" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 8:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentiuska http://www.movv.com/prvupload/upload...etard_stfu.jpg He's really more like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOks8ndk6sM I like that. Bravo Moortel! Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
On Nov 20, 9:17 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:10 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com wrote: "Dono" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 8:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Pentiuska http://www.movv.com/prvupload/upload...etard_stfu.jpg He's really more like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOks8ndk6sM I like that. Bravo Moortel! Pentcho Valev The way to getan answer, you too may be like this when you grow up: http://www.movv.com/prvupload/upload...etard_stfu.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY?
On Nov 20, 6:58 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Harvey Brown's and Oliver Pooley's idea: MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY is extremely dangerous since it naturally leads to: PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY which sounds like Bryan Wallace's: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm THE FARCE OF PHYSICS So the cleverest hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton, urgently published a rebutal which however is not convincing: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...Relativity.pdf John Norton: "These sentiments are captured more vividly in the earlier slogan of Brown and Pooley (2004) of Minkowski spacetime as a "glorious non-entity." This would make Brown's view a form of spacetime relationism, although I will suggest below in Section 6 that it might be more restrictive than familiar forms of relationism." The problem is that Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley CAN whereas John Norton CANNOT explain how a long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search= or a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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." If Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley were honest scientists, their slogan: MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY would take a more precise form: EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE: A GLORIOUS FALSEHOOD In fact, Einsteinians have always being trying to solve the following problem: "How to get rid of Einstein's false light postulate without destroying Einstein money-spinner?" This task is idiotic of course and Einsteinians know that; at least dying Bryan Wallace has explained it to them quite clearly: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!" Still, without Einstein's false light postulate, Einsteinians would somehow feel "less criminal" so they will never stop trying to get rid of it: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html Jong-Ping Hsu: "....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://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c 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.physorg.com/news111075100.html "Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus. In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered several centuries before Einstein." http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glorious victory over forces of Darkness | greysky | Misc | 10 | April 22nd 07 07:18 PM |
[OT] Comrades! Czarist Jetpacks, or The Future That The Drunken Hooligan Lenin Stole From Glorious Mother Russia! | Herb Schaltegger | History | 5 | March 21st 07 03:39 AM |
By a glorious star ~ | Twittering One | Misc | 5 | September 23rd 05 11:56 PM |
Decaying antenna farm hints at glorious radioastronomy past (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | October 14th 04 10:08 PM |
Decaying antenna farm hints at glorious radioastronomy past (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 14th 04 10:06 PM |