|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 1, 8:36*am, Pentcho Valev wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: On Feb 29, 10:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...29physics.html Brian Greene: "By 1915, with his "General Theory of Relativity," Einstein took these realizations one step further, concluding that something similar happens in a gravitational field. He figured out that the stronger the gravity you experience, the slower time elapses. After synchronizing our watches, were I to stay in the lobby of the Empire State Building while you went sightseeing on the observation deck, I would experience stronger gravity (being closer to Earth) and according to Einstein, when we rejoin, my watch would be behind yours. The effect would be incredibly small, since the difference in gravity you and I would experience is trifling." Silly Brian does not even understand that the idiocy called "gravitational time dilation", as defined by his cleverer brothers, depends on the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL difference between "you and me", not on "the difference in gravity you and I would experience". Silly Brian is even clearer he http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63 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." Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner he http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...hor_number=989 Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?" Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled." Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 5, 11:48*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:36*am, Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Feb 29, 10:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...time-oped-time.... Brian Greene: "By 1915, with his "General Theory of Relativity," Einstein took these realizations one step further, concluding that something similar happens in a gravitational field. He figured out that the stronger the gravity you experience, the slower time elapses. After synchronizing our watches, were I to stay in the lobby of the Empire State Building while you went sightseeing on the observation deck, I would experience stronger gravity (being closer to Earth) and according to Einstein, when we rejoin, my watch would be behind yours. The effect would be incredibly small, since the difference in gravity you and I would experience is trifling." Silly Brian does not even understand that the idiocy called "gravitational time dilation", as defined by his cleverer brothers, depends on the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL difference between "you and me", not on "the difference in gravity you and I would experience". Silly Brian is even clearer he http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1E3EF932A35752.... 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." Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner he http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...cfm?author_num... Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?" Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled." Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w Pentcho Valev - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. Since it is possible to show what Newton thought of a medium or aether in 1704 or about 15 years after the Principia,it becomes impossible to justify relativity as the revoltion it was made ot to be,specifically Albert's attachment of Newton's absolute space to aether - "In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''" http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html While Newton did adhere to an aether in 1670,by the time the Principia came around he had no se for it (whether for right or wrong) and was pretty explicit about it in 1704,using words like "utterly rejected" - "I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies." Principia 1687 "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Optics 1704 All this handwringing about Albert being right or not depends on the validity of the basic reasoning for the emergence of the concept in 1905,the so-called overturning of Newton's idea of absolute/relative space,time and motion.As long as the absolute space/aether fiction is maintained it appears that the relativity concept is setting its own terms, however ,remove the fiction and it is Newton still setting the terms therefore it becomes an exercise in protecting Newton's conceptions whether people care to recognise it or not. Judging from the responses and reactions,it appears that most are content to remain with the fiction of aether/absolute space ,a few have tried to sever the ties between Newton and relativity but that oes not work and a few have abandoned the whole setup.The last reaction is the most unproductive,while Newton did create a terrible situation by making a mess of known methods and insights of timekeeping and structural astronomy,the fact is that when the various threads are untangled,there are enormous productive avenues for dynamicists to pursue using all the availible resourses of 21st century technology. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner he http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...hor_number=989 Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?" Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled." Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w My last claim is not quite correct perhaps: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light THEREFORE must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves." This particular silly walk of Lee Smolin's is undoubtedly sillier than (at least as silly as) silly Brian's silly walk. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 wrote:
It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein. Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory of light, because both equations are TRUE. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 wrote: It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein. Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory of light, because both equations are TRUE. Pentcho Valev I already told another participant that regardless of your viewpoint,once you remove the fiction which links Newton's absolute/ relative space definitions to aether,it is Isaac that remains running the show and relativity, as a solid proposal ,evaporates .You may frame relativity in repect to later concepts and the cast of characters surrounding such as Fitzgerald,Lorentz and whatnot but effecvtively it involves going along with a fiction which conspires to squeeze Newton's definitions in their terms. The guys in the mid 19th century ,due to the working framework Newton provided,were faced with a dilemma and it has not gone away despite the capitulation to Newton by the guys in the early part of the last century - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425 The language of the Principia is geometry and I assure you that the absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion which Newton took it upon himself to 'define' are enitirely geometric in content and character and nothing to do with a vague non geometric equational treatment.In short,your appeal to mathematical notation lacks any precision whereas Newton's efforts are completely understandable even as he tries his best to obscure the astronomical/geometric content of actual astronomers,their methods and insights .In his own way Newton suceeded but what he did to astronomy was eventually done to him,the choices he give himself were expanded to unlimited choices by relativity and so we arrive today at a situation were there are any amount of hypotheses and no central theme to any of it. It is not all bad news,there is a huge amount of data built up however it requires a complete break from this 'scientific method' cult which originated with Newton and specifically this statement - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion" Principia I already know he chose the wrong astronomical framework (Flamsteed) and intepreted Kepler and Copernicus incorrectly in the matter of retrogrades in arriving at that working principle above but Pentcho,nobody seems interested in the astronomical side of the matter.You seem happy enough to remain in the fiction the 20th century guys created for themselves and who am I to complain in that case. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 16, 3:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 wrote: It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein. Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory of light, because both equations are TRUE. Pentcho Valev I already told another participant that regardless of your viewpoint,once you remove the fiction which links Newton's absolute/ relative space definitions to aether,it is Isaac that remains running the show and relativity, as a solid proposal ,evaporates .You may frame relativity in repect to later concepts and the cast of characters surrounding such as *Fitzgerald,Lorentz and whatnot but effecvtively it involves going along with a fiction which conspires to squeeze Newton's definitions in their terms. The guys in the mid 19th century ,due to the working framework Newton provided,were faced with a dilemma and it has not gone away despite the capitulation to Newton by the guys in the early part of the last century - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...page&seq=9&siz.... The language of the Principia is geometry and I assure you that the absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion which Newton took it upon himself to 'define' are enitirely geometric in content and character and nothing to do with a vague non geometric equational treatment.In short,your appeal to mathematical notation lacks any precision whereas Newton's efforts are completely understandable even as he tries his best to obscure the astronomical/geometric content of actual astronomers,their methods and insights .In his own way Newton suceeded but what he did to astronomy was eventually done to him,the choices he give himself were expanded to unlimited choices by relativity and so we arrive today at a situation were there are any amount of hypotheses and no central theme to any of it. It is not all bad news,there is a huge amount of data built up however it requires a complete break from this 'scientific method' cult which originated with Newton and specifically this statement - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion" *Principia I already know he chose the wrong astronomical framework (Flamsteed) and intepreted Kepler and Copernicus incorrectly in the matter of retrogrades in arriving at that working principle above but Pentcho,nobody seems interested in the astronomical side of the matter.You seem happy enough to remain in the fiction the 20th century guys created for themselves and who am I to complain in that case. No I cannot accept your argument and any other argument unrelated to Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c+v. In a world where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5, arguments that ignore this replacement make no sense. First basic truth should be restored: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
The people in the mid 19th century had a dilemma created by Newton,you
and your colleagues have an illness. On 16 Mar, 14:21, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Mar 16, 3:22*pm, oriel36 wrote: On Mar 15, 4:29*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Mar 5, 2:23*pm, oriel36 wrote: It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein. Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory of light, because both equations are TRUE. Pentcho Valev I already told another participant that regardless of your viewpoint,once you remove the fiction which links Newton's absolute/ relative space definitions to aether,it is Isaac that remains running the show and relativity, as a solid proposal ,evaporates .You may frame relativity in repect to later concepts and the cast of characters surrounding such as *Fitzgerald,Lorentz and whatnot but effecvtively it involves going along with a fiction which conspires to squeeze Newton's definitions in their terms. The guys in the mid 19th century ,due to the working framework Newton provided,were faced with a dilemma and it has not gone away despite the capitulation to Newton by the guys in the early part of the last century - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...page&seq=9&siz.... The language of the Principia is geometry and I assure you that the absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion which Newton took it upon himself to 'define' are enitirely geometric in content and character and nothing to do with a vague non geometric equational treatment.In short,your appeal to mathematical notation lacks any precision whereas Newton's efforts are completely understandable even as he tries his best to obscure the astronomical/geometric content of actual astronomers,their methods and insights .In his own way Newton suceeded but what he did to astronomy was eventually done to him,the choices he give himself were expanded to unlimited choices by relativity and so we arrive today at a situation were there are any amount of hypotheses and no central theme to any of it. It is not all bad news,there is a huge amount of data built up however it requires a complete break from this 'scientific method' cult which originated with Newton and specifically this statement - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion" *Principia I already know he chose the wrong astronomical framework (Flamsteed) and intepreted Kepler and Copernicus incorrectly in the matter of retrogrades in arriving at that working principle above but Pentcho,nobody seems interested in the astronomical side of the matter.You seem happy enough to remain in the fiction the 20th century guys created for themselves and who am I to complain in that case. No I cannot accept your argument and any other argument unrelated to Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c+v. In a world where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5, arguments that ignore this replacement make no sense. First basic truth should be restored: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984": "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 - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
The people in the mid 19th century had a dilemma created by Newton,you
and your colleagues have a severe disability .The novelist you require is not Orwell but rather H.G. Wells - "Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that Time is only a kind of Space. " 1898 http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html Why would a group of people in the early 20th century formalise a science fiction narrative that could be found on any bookshelf in the late 19th century is perhaps for future generations to judge,even if I understand the complex reasons why Newton still ultimately runs the show,the early 20th century views are extremely unhealthy and they are still as visible as ever. The rapid disappearance of relativistic concepts from the tv screens has not really be replaced by a balanced view,one that actually promotes the obstacles Isaac created in geometric/astronomical terms and goodness knows they are fascinating under genuine scrutiny and without bluff. Humanity can quickly forgive great errors such as the mass ideology which partially created World war II but the empirical ideology is much more difficult to tackle by virtue that it hijacks the machinary of the education system and will always generate clones to keep its precepts up and running.It is a great injustice that forces it adherents into indoctrination and everyone else into bewilderment and so it continues day after day without any sign of abating,the problem being that most people are unaware that errors exist and mistake unlimited hypothesising as vibrant and brilliant discussion. I have no complaints about people here,they choose to remain stuck in somebody else's imagination and no matter how horrified I may be at such a condition,it is their choice,the problem is that they try to extend the nightmare to a bewildered human race.Read Well's 'Time Machine',put it down as good fiction and leave it at that. On 16 Mar, 14:21, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Mar 16, 3:22 pm, oriel36 wrote: On Mar 15, 4:29 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Mar 5, 2:23 pm, oriel36 wrote: It is not so important to dwell on individual characters and their opinions,after all,they inherit the concepts from previous generations and most here are in the same boat.After many years looking at the way the proponents and opponents of relativity operate,it comes down to an overwhelming sense that everyone is protecting Newton rather than attacking or promoting relativity. ESSENTIALLY I am neither protecting Newton nor attacking Einstein. Rather, I am attacking Einstein's 1905 light postulate (and its implications) because it is FALSE, and I am trying to reintroduce Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) valid in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent equation c'=c+v valid in the absence of a gravitational field and given by Newton's emission theory of light, because both equations are TRUE. Pentcho Valev I already told another participant that regardless of your viewpoint,once you remove the fiction which links Newton's absolute/ relative space definitions to aether,it is Isaac that remains running the show and relativity, as a solid proposal ,evaporates .You may frame relativity in repect to later concepts and the cast of characters surrounding such as Fitzgerald,Lorentz and whatnot but effecvtively it involves going along with a fiction which conspires to squeeze Newton's definitions in their terms. The guys in the mid 19th century ,due to the working framework Newton provided,were faced with a dilemma and it has not gone away despite the capitulation to Newton by the guys in the early part of the last century - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...page&seq=9&siz... The language of the Principia is geometry and I assure you that the absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion which Newton took it upon himself to 'define' are enitirely geometric in content and character and nothing to do with a vague non geometric equational treatment.In short,your appeal to mathematical notation lacks any precision whereas Newton's efforts are completely understandable even as he tries his best to obscure the astronomical/geometric content of actual astronomers,their methods and insights .In his own way Newton suceeded but what he did to astronomy was eventually done to him,the choices he give himself were expanded to unlimited choices by relativity and so we arrive today at a situation were there are any amount of hypotheses and no central theme to any of it. It is not all bad news,there is a huge amount of data built up however it requires a complete break from this 'scientific method' cult which originated with Newton and specifically this statement - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion" Principia I already know he chose the wrong astronomical framework (Flamsteed) and intepreted Kepler and Copernicus incorrectly in the matter of retrogrades in arriving at that working principle above but Pentcho,nobody seems interested in the astronomical side of the matter.You seem happy enough to remain in the fiction the 20th century guys created for themselves and who am I to complain in that case. No I cannot accept your argument and any other argument unrelated to Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c+v. In a world where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5, arguments that ignore this replacement make no sense. First basic truth should be restored: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984": "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 - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 5, 12:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:36*am, Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Feb 29, 10:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...29physics.html Brian Greene: "By 1915, with his "General Theory of Relativity," Einstein took these realizations one step further, concluding that something similar happens in a gravitational field. He figured out that the stronger the gravity you experience, the slower time elapses. After synchronizing our watches, were I to stay in the lobby of the Empire State Building while you went sightseeing on the observation deck, I would experience stronger gravity (being closer to Earth) and according to Einstein, when we rejoin, my watch would be behind yours. The effect would be incredibly small, since the difference in gravity you and I would experience is trifling." Silly Brian does not even understand that the idiocy called "gravitational time dilation", as defined by his cleverer brothers, depends on the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL difference between "you and me", not on "the difference in gravity you and I would experience". Silly Brian is even clearer he http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63 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." Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner he http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_int...hor_number=989 Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?" Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled." Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w It seems you can never define the silliest string theorist: there is always a sillier one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...michiokaku.xml "The importance Prof Kaku places on childishness in theoretical physics extends to science fiction, and this, in part, is the subject of his new book, Physics of the Impossible. It argues that because there is no law of physics preventing the existence of concepts such as time travel, teleportation and invisibility, physics has to take their possibility seriously." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN
On Mar 20, 12:41*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
It seems you can never define the silliest string theorist: there is always a sillier one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...michiokaku.xml "The importance Prof Kaku places on childishness in theoretical physics extends to science fiction, and this, in part, is the subject of his new book, Physics of the Impossible. It argues that because there is no law of physics preventing the existence of concepts such as time travel, teleportation and invisibility, physics has to take their possibility seriously." Lubos Motl is definitely sillier than Professor Michio Kaku: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/05/va...-theories.html Motl: "The meter is moreover defined as 1/299,792,458 of a light second, so according to current definitions, a varying speed of light is simply a contradiction." String theorists are the silliest Einsteinians but extreme silliness can be found everywhere in Einstein criminal cult. Steve Carlip (who is not a string theorist) is just as silly as Lubos Motl: 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!" Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BRIAN GREENE ASKS, ALBERT EINSTEIN ANSWERS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | October 25th 07 02:41 AM |
Notice to Rich Greene and his alleged UGLY GRANDKIDS | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | September 12th 06 08:28 AM |
Terry Gross of NPR Interviewed Brian Greene | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | March 18th 04 06:06 PM |