EVEN STRING THEORISTS NEED A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

String theorists, the silliest Einsteinians, need a scientific
revolution:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...n-1380370.html
"Michael Duff: Einstein didn't explain everything. We need a
scientific revolution
Michael Duff is Abdus Salam Professor of Theoretical Physics at
Imperial College London, where he was speaking on Wednesday"

Other well-fed Einsteinians also need a scientific revolution:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong?....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?"

Yet there is some disagreement in Einsteiniana:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208093v3.pdf
Michael Duff: "In our opinion [2], however, this debate has been
marred by a failure to distinguish between dimensionless constants
such as alpha, which may indeed be fundamental, and dimensional
constants such as the speed of light c, the charge on the electron e,
Planck’s constant ¯h, Newton’s constant G, Boltzmann’s constant k etc,
which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from
one choice of units to the next and which have no intrinsic physical
significance.....Asking whether c has varied over cosmic history (a
question unfortunately appearing on the front page of the New York
Times [7], in Physics World [8]4, in New Scientist [10, 11, 12], in
Nature [3] and on CNN [13]) is like asking whether the number of
liters to the gallon has varied."

So "asking whether c has varied over cosmic history" seems absurd to
string theorists but perhaps asking whether c varies otherwise would
not be so silly? It seems that at least one string theorist, Leonard
Susskind, is slowly going in this direction:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"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."

Pentcho Valev

On 16 Jan, 07:00, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice

On Jan 15, 11:46*pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 16 Jan, 07:00, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.

2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.
|
3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.

4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice

Pentcho Valev is one of the physicists who understood that Einstein
theory of relativity is wrong. But his proceeding is limited only to
the phenomenon of the light propagation and this is wrong. We can't
say that light can be considered as having mass when we can't
determine it and consider it as having a similar motion with the
motion of the material bodies. This is so because in Newtons laws is
used the mass (m) in his formulas. But because in our vicinity at the
earth surface we can say that the light propagation is in a right line
and we can experiment that, and taking in to account that at the earth
surface we have an approximate inertial coordinate system then we can
conclude that the light motion is real and in a right line, only in an
inertial coordinate system. And this is in accord with the Galilei
Principle of relativity. But Einstein has concluded that he could
create a theory for the description of both phenomena fact that is
allowed by the Lorentz transformation. And here is the problem, we
know too little about the light and just we don't know what is a
photon. And the Lorentz transformation is an errant mathematical
formula. But scientists went ahead and try to create a theory for
everything. This is the enormous problem in physic. Einstein's theory
being errant shows that, that is impossible.
My procedure is that we have to show why the Einstein theory of
relativity, special and general is errant and in this way liberate
physic of the confusion in which is thrown today.
More explanations about mine conclusions you can find in galilei-
newton-group at:
http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group

On Jan 16, 8:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
String theorists, the silliest Einsteinians, need a scientific
revolution:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...el-duff-einste...
"Michael Duff: Einstein didn't explain everything. We need a
scientific revolution
Michael Duff is Abdus Salam Professor of Theoretical Physics at
Imperial College London, where he was speaking on Wednesday"

Other well-fed Einsteinians also need a scientific revolution:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong?....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?"

Yet there is some disagreement in Einsteiniana:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208093v3.pdf
Michael Duff: "In our opinion [2], however, this debate has been
marred by a failure to distinguish between dimensionless constants
such as alpha, which may indeed be fundamental, and dimensional
constants such as the speed of light c, the charge on the electron e,
Planck’s constant ¯h, Newton’s constant G, Boltzmann’s constant k etc,
which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from
one choice of units to the next and which have no intrinsic physical
significance.....Asking whether c has varied over cosmic history (a
question unfortunately appearing on the front page of the New York
Times [7], in Physics World [8]4, in New Scientist [10, 11, 12], in
Nature [3] and on CNN [13]) is like asking whether the number of
liters to the gallon has varied."

So "asking whether c has varied over cosmic history" seems absurd to
string theorists but perhaps asking whether c varies otherwise would
not be so silly? It seems that at least one string theorist, Leonard
Susskind, is slowly going in this direction:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"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."

Pentcho Valev


Maybe they are referring to light in the physics sense rather than the
dictionary. You know like theoretical is not theory. A != A You
know...

It's the theorieatron striking the consensic field, it easilly
explains everything away.


_______
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

On Jan 16, 2:00*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
String theorists, the silliest Einsteinians, need a scientific
revolution:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...el-duff-einste...
"Michael Duff: Einstein didn't explain everything. We need a
scientific revolution
Michael Duff is Abdus Salam Professor of Theoretical Physics at
Imperial College London, where he was speaking on Wednesday"

Other well-fed Einsteinians also need a scientific revolution:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong?....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?"

Yet there is some disagreement in Einsteiniana:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208093v3.pdf
Michael Duff: "In our opinion [2], however, this debate has been
marred by a failure to distinguish between dimensionless constants
such as alpha, which may indeed be fundamental, and dimensional
constants such as the speed of light c, the charge on the electron e,
Planck’s constant ¯h,

But since the cranks where the speed of light like a badge, it's
why also the people with actual science brains invented Bi-Optical
Computers,
Laser-Guided Phasors, On-Line Publishing, and Post McDonald's for
the wanks.




Newton’s constant G, Boltzmann’s constant k etc,
which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from
one choice of units to the next and which have no intrinsic physical
significance.....Asking whether c has varied over cosmic history (a
question unfortunately appearing on the front page of the New York
Times [7], in Physics World [8]4, in New Scientist [10, 11, 12], in
Nature [3] and on CNN [13]) is like asking whether the number of
liters to the gallon has varied."

So "asking whether c has varied over cosmic history" seems absurd to
string theorists but perhaps asking whether c varies otherwise would
not be so silly? It seems that at least one string theorist, Leonard
Susskind, is slowly going in this direction:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"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."

Pentcho Valev

Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted


1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 17, 11:31 pm, ukastronomy wrote:

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.

What is the point of identifying a piece of sh*t that does not smell
like a piece of sh*t? shrug

2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.

Why are you so concerned that any scholarly reasoning is not published
in your local newspaper for the witches?

3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.

You are just so wrong. A lot of us value Mr. Valev’s postings.
Although we don’t agree with most of what he posted, this is called
the freedom of speech. If you have a problem with that, you need to
get over with it yourself, punk. shrug

4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

Who cares about a whole bunch of Einstein Dingleberries trying to eat
the politically correct sh*t? Let me give you a hint. Koobee Wublee
does not, and I am sure Mr. Valeve does not either. shrug

F*ck off, punk. “Have I made myself cleared enough?”, quoting from
Sponge Bob, Square Pants. shrug