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

EINSTEINIANA EATING ITS OWN TAIL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 3rd 13, 09:38 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA EATING ITS OWN TAIL

Breathtaking absurdities can be deduced from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - here is one of them:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

The future-already-exists absurdity, in its generalized form, is known as the Block Universe - something that, for unknown reasons, Einsteinians vigorously fight:

http://prce.hu/centre_for_time/jtf/passage.html
"Philosophers: David Albert, Christophe Bouton, David Braddon-Mitchell, Jeremy Butterfield, Christoph Hoerl, *Luciano Floridi, Rick Grush, Nick Huggett, Kristie Miller, Wayne Myrvold, Huw Price, Dean Rickles, Don Ross, Jos Uffink. Physicists: Edward Anderson, Fay Dowker, Avshalom Elitzur, George Ellis, Daniele Oriti, Carlo Rovelli, Rafael Sorkin. (...) Twentieth century physics is often thought to have established that there is no distinction between past, present and future, no flow of time, and no fundamental direction of time. This viewpoint - the Block Universe, as it is sometimes called — is reflected in remarks such as the following: 'We physicists know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.' (Einstein) (...) However, the Block Universe view is under challenge from within physics, from theorists such as George Ellis, Lee Smolin and Chris Fuchs, who believe that in leaving out these elements, physics is missing something essential."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

So Einsteiniana is eating its own tail:

http://www.prizrakk.ru/uploads/photo...uroboros_1.jpg

but will never go to the heart - Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will remain intact.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old January 15th 13, 07:12 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEINIANA EATING ITS OWN TAIL

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/time...lin/1113637683
Lee Smolin: "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable. That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary. (...) Einstein's theories of relativity make even stronger arguments that time is inessential to a fundamental description of the world, as I'll discuss in chapter 6. Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality. (...) In Part I, I will present the case from science for believing that time is an illusion. In Part II, I will demolish those arguments and show why time must be taken to be real if fundamental physics and cosmology are to overcome the crises they currently face."

Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it makes "even stronger arguments" in favour of something that Smolin and his brothers Einsteinians do not accept, it does so based on some false postulate. Has Smolin identified it in his new book? In a previous book he did expose the false postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

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
Is Jupiter Eating Its Own Heart? Magnificent Universe Amateur Astronomy 0 December 23rd 11 11:56 PM
ASTRO: Reprocess of M81 eating Holmberg IX Rick Johnson[_2_] Astro Pictures 5 July 17th 07 01:13 AM
Daily eating of Republicans [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 24th 07 05:18 PM
Eating monsters [email protected] Astronomy Misc 15 January 24th 07 02:47 AM
Want some ketchup with those words some of you are eating? [email protected] Space Shuttle 13 July 30th 05 06:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:07 PM.


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.