EINSTEINIANA'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
| "Prof Brian Cox explores Time in super slow motion"
|
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
| "Prof Brian Cox explores Einstein's understanding of time"

The handwaving makes it all worthwhile.

http://hiltonratcliffe.com/blog/?p=66
Hilton Ratcliffe: "A few years ago, I had the great privilege of
sharing a supper table with some of the finest scientific minds of my
era. Directly opposite me sat Professor Huseyin Yilmaz, formerly of
the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University, a hallowed
and ivy-decked place where Albert Einstein had spent his later,
introspective years. To his left sat the larger-than-life Professor
Carroll Alley, Yilmaz's experimentalist colleague from the University
of Maryland. On my right was the quietly spoken, amiable Professor
Harold Puthoff, a director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
Austin in Texas. Dr Puthoff has achieved a fair measure of notoriety
for his work on anti-gravity and the Zero Point Field, but that
doesn't frighten me in the least. What did overawe me was the enormous
scientific stature of these gentlemen, but I needn't have worried.
They were to a fault courteous and accommodating, and entertained my
dumb questions with remarkable patience. The conversation, once we had
come to terms with the unfamiliar cuisine, was about Relativity. (...)
Here were people discussing with great insight and authority the
mathematical implications of the field equations in General
Relativity. What's more (to my great astonishment) it sounded
distinctly like they were suggesting improvements to the Gospel! I
could contain myself no longer. "Professor Yilmaz," I said, glancing
furtively around the room and then dropping my voice to a whisper,
"does that mean Einstein was wrong?" All three gentlemen laughed
spontaneously at my obvious discomfort, and Hal Puthoff put his hand
good-naturedly on my shoulder. "Hilton," he said, "you don't have to
hide under the table. It's no longer controversial to say that
Einstein made mistakes. Most physicists accept that quite openly now."
I had learned one of the most valuable lessons of my life."

Kuhn would say the situation in science is pre-revolutionary, with
anomalies in the leading theory accumulating and being openly
discussed. He would be wrong. An internet search would show that the
"finest scientific minds" have abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory
long ago. No serious discussions, no conferences, no seminars,
nothing. Only a few minds that are not so fine still defend the dead
science in much the same way that the salesman proves the vitality and
the beauty of the dead parrot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
.........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of
inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

Note the unavoidable total frustration of anyone pursuing some
rational "line of inquiry" in a schizophrenic situation. This is
perhaps the main reason why Einstein's relativity has been so vital
and so beautiful for so long.

Pentcho Valev

Albert Einstein: The principle of constancy of the speed of light is a
consequence of the principle of relativity:

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that
according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at
school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place
in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. (...) If a ray
of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the
tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again
travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its
direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of
course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of
the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can
here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of
light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the
carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here
replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the
required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w
= c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into
conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For,
like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."

David Morin: The principle of constancy of the speed of light is NOT a
consequence of the principle of relativity:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "Given the second postulate [the principle of relativity],
you might wonder if we even need the first [the principle of constancy
of the speed of light]. If all inertial frames are equivalent,
shouldn't the speed of light be the same in any frame? Well, no. For
all we know, light might behave like a baseball. A baseball certainly
doesn't have the same speed with respect to different frames, and this
doesn't ruin the equivalence of the frames."

Believers react to Albert Einstein's and David Morin's teachings:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

David Morin: The intrinsic rate of clocks does vary with the
gravitational potential:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 14:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Banesh Hoffmann: The intrinsic rate of clocks does NOT vary with the
gravitational potential:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from WHAT BEFALLS
LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
GRAVITATION."

Believers react to David Morin's and Banesh Hoffmann's teachings:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

David Morin: The acceleration of the travelling twin occurring during
"the turning-around period" is essential for explaining the old age of
the sedentary twin but, on the other hand, "a discussion of
acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the [twin]
paradox":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14:
"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

The ecstasy reaches its maximum: believers tumble to the floor, start
tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev

Stéphane Durand: The relativity theory cannot be false (more
precisely, it is the only possible theory) because "it is impossible
to detect a movement at constant speed":

http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/~durand/club-math-2011.pdf
Stéphane Durand: "Puis nous expliquerons pourquoi la théorie de la
relativité ne peut pas être fausse (du moins, dans notre univers).
Plus précisément, dans un univers où il est impossible de détecter un
mouvement à vitesse constante (comme c'est le cas dans le nôtre), la
théorie de la relativité est la seule possible; avec comme cas limite
la physique galiléenne."

Believers react to Stéphane Durand's teaching:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Steve Carlip: The principle of constancy of the speed of light cannot
be false because the speed of light is constant by definition. The
fact that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is both
variable and constant makes the principle absolutely irrefutable:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general theory
of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime,
and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In
the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

The ecstasy reaches its maximum: believers tumble to the floor, start
tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev