|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | February 12th 11 03:55 PM |
Heuristics in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | December 8th 10 08:29 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 11:24 AM |
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | January 1st 09 03:20 PM |