|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538 Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to maraud without restrictions. What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....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 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. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented 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.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
Einsteinians are not allowed to explicitly reject Einstein's 1905
false light postulate (their whole world would collapse) but they can safely reject one of its idiotic consequences stating that the passage of time is an illusion (see also John Norton's confessions below): http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion From the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine: "We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it. Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now - they are like a map without the "you are here" symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see "That Mysterious Flow," by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past." Pentcho Valev wrote: High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538 Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to maraud without restrictions. What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....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 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. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented 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.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
On Jun 11, 10:05*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinians are not allowed to explicitly reject Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (their whole world would collapse) but they can safely reject one of its idiotic consequences stating that the passage of time is an illusion (see also John Norton's confessions below): http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion From the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine: "We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it. Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now - they are like a map without the "you are here" symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see "That Mysterious Flow," by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past." Pentcho Valev wrote: High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538 Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi.... John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...ail/lna40/pgs/... Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to maraud without restrictions. What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-makes-the-uni... "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....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 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. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all read more »... xxein: What is your solution to understand the all of the physic? All you do is complain without a solution. Learn something about critical thinking and offer a solution that works. It's not that any prior theories are right, but what is better? If you cannot produce one, you are wasting bytes and your sanity. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
A persistent marauder:
http://www.rfdesignline.com/news/225600027 "Ronald Mallett, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Connecticut, gave a mind-bending keynote speech on the physics of time travel to an enthralled audience at the Embedded Systems Conference here Tuesday morning, describing how black holes, blue giant stars, and worm holes (tunnels that connect the mouths of black holes) - some of the strangest things in the Universe - illustrate (at least in theory) the potential for time travel some day. And that day, Mallett claimed, is not so far in the future as one might think. (...) Author of "Time Traveler: A Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality," Mallett explained how the trauma of his father's unexpected death when he was just ten and H.G. Well's book The Time Machine set him on a mission to travel back in time and save his father's life. (...) How weird it must have been, he mused, for 19th century scientists to discover through their experiments that the speed of light was constant. "The only way that speed of light can stay the same is that something else has to be altered. That something else is time - it has to slow down, as experiments have shown," he said." How can a marauder become "a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Connecticut"? Peter Hayes gives part of the answer: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse." Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
xxein: *What is your solution to understand the all of the physic? All you do is complain without a solution. Learn something about critical thinking and offer a solution that works. The solution that works was the last thing in relativty. Its called closing velocity. It's not that any prior theories are right, but what is better? If you cannot produce one, you are wasting bytes and your sanity. Matter and light move through the space-time frame. Matter can accelerate and get behind light. Light inches ahead in closing velocity. It can also leave light behind in the same way. Increasing motion while ahead of light can create a motion black hole. Mitch Raemsch |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
Theoretical physics has been schizophrenic for a long time but still
from time to time a reasonable question surprises Einsteiniana's marauders. They don't reply or give an answer as idiotic as possible: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...photonmass.htm "Question: Do photons have mass? If not, why does the gravitational field of a star bend passing light? "A particle like a photon is never at rest and always moves at the speed of light; thus it is massless," says Dr. Michael S. Turner, chair of the Department of Astrophysics at the University of Chicago." This Turner surely knows that in 1911 Einstein showed that the speed of a photon varies with the gravitational potential exactly as the speed of a cannonball does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light. Then in 1915 Einstein found it profitable to discover that the speed of the photon is even more variable but in any case Turner's statement "a photon...always moves at the speed of light" is a blatant lie. According to Einstein's relativity, a photon NEVER moves at the speed of light in a gravitational field: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
Einsteiniana's marauders in action:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist." http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "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! (...) The speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end
of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below): http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...ntum-mechanics "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683551.ece "Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting Albert Einsteins lifelong search for a theory of everything was probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on his website, www.hawking.org. uk: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. Im now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einsteiniana's marauders in action: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist." http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "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! (...) The speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
On Jun 13, 3:44*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below): http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...iew-roger-penr... "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683551.ece "Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting Albert Einsteins lifelong search for a theory of everything was probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on his website,www.hawking.org. uk: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. Im now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einsteiniana's marauders in action: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...sts-the-freedo... Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist." http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "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! (...) The speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev mother****er |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
On Jun 13, 6:44*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below): http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep...iew-roger-penr... "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683551.ece "Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting Albert Einsteins lifelong search for a theory of everything was probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on his website,www.hawking.org. uk: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. Im now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einsteiniana's marauders in action: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...sts-the-freedo... Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist." http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "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! (...) The speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev Awwwww Pancho |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOW BLATANTLY EINSTEINIANS CAN LIE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | March 16th 10 03:49 PM |
HUMILIATED EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 22 | February 12th 09 08:02 AM |
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 28 | November 16th 08 03:52 AM |
DESPERATE EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 4th 08 02:17 AM |
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 28th 08 01:02 AM |