DEDUCTION AND DEAD SCIENCE

The neutrino hysteria is almost over but the crucial question has not
been asked, at least by official science: Which of the postulates of
special relativity is (are) false? The principle of relativity?
Perhaps some absolute reference frame exists? Or the speed of light
simply does depend on the speed of the light source? No such question
- mainstream scientists are now going to wait - two or three years or
even more until the result of the OPERA experiment is verified and
then, if the result is confirmed and if someone still cares, some
revision of Divine Albert's Divine Theory may start or may not. Until
then mainstreamers are to regularly get their salaries, grants, Nobel
prizes etc. and sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity", not as loudly as in the good old
days of course.

Propositions in a deductive theory (in physics) can be true or false
and the following rule gives the necessary guidance to the solution to
the truth/falsehood problem:

If conclusions have been shown to be (or suspected of being) false or
absurd, then some of the postulates are (possibly) false. Accordingly,
the whole activity within the scientific community should be directed
towards identifying the false postulate and eventually replacing it
with the true antithesis.

However science may have been dead since long - then the whole
activity within the scientific community is directed towards playing
up the vitality and the beautiful plumage of the dead science:

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/30/140954...gy-and-the-lhc
Lisa Randall: "You have principles. You test them as accurately as you
can. Eventually, they might break down. And so people presented a
story a lot of the time in the context of Einstein's theory of
breaking down. But even, even if this result turned out to be true, I
mean, Einstein's theory has been very successful over a large range of
parameters, and it clearly will still be a useful theory. (...) It
would probably - more likely mean that the underlying assumptions of
Einstein's theory, the underlying fundamental assumptions break down
at some level. (...) But, again, it doesn't mean that everything
we've done using Einstein's theory is wrong. It doesn't mean it
wouldn't be a useful theory."

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

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

Pentcho Valev

In 1905 Divine Albert did not resist "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.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have behaved
differently. Honest Albert knows that other honest people, Henri
Poincaré for instance, are embarrassed by those "contracting lengths",
find them absurd and are trying to build a theory devoid of them.
Unlike Divine Albert, Honest Albert is intelligent and quickly
realizes that the "contracting lengths" are indeed very, very absurd,
even idiotic:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is
sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to
its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end
is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped
IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse
dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce
tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait
possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc
réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION
matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999), LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John
Steele:
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in
both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will
presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Honest Albert also realizes that the "contracting lengths" idiocies
are unavoidable consequences of the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the motion of the object emitting it. So in the end
Honest Albert finds himself unable to resist "the temptation to
account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple,
familiar Newtonian ideas": the speed of light clearly varies with v,
the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance
with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Oops! I mistakenly wrote:

"In 1905 Divine Albert did not resist "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"..."

Of course Divine Albert did resist the temptation. Honest Albert
didn't.

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 13, 12:20*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Oops! I mistakenly wrote:

"In 1905 Divine Albert did not resist "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"..."

Of course Divine Albert did resist the temptation. Honest Albert
didn't.


**** My boy, there's definitely something dead there, and I'm afraid
that something is between your ears and upon your shoulders.
My deepest condolences to the grieving family.

Tonio




Pentcho Valev

http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N44/cern.html
"MIT Physics Professor Scott A. Hughes said, "Carl Sagan had this
saying, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This
is not extraordinary evidence." (...) Despite concerns, the neutrino
results have been a great teaching opportunity for many professors. In
Hughes's 8.033 (Relativity) class, he discussed the concept of the
experiment in lecture and asked students to think carefully about
whether they believed that neutrinos could travel faster than the
speed of light. "In the hands of someone who can discuss this well,
and the ears of students open to listening, it's a great topic,"
Hughes said."

Huges could have asked students to think carefully about whether they
believed in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed a speed
of light independent of the speed of the light source as predicted by
the ether theory (and later adopted in special relativity), or a speed
of light varying with the speed of the light source as predicted by
Newton's emission theory of light. "In the hands of someone who can
discuss this well, and the ears of students open to listening", this
would be the end of special relativity (the OPERA experiment would
prove superfluous).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1905 Divine Albert "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.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have behaved
differently. Honest Albert knows that other honest people, Henri
Poincaré for instance, are embarrassed by those "contracting lengths",
find them absurd and are trying to build a theory devoid of them.
Unlike Divine Albert, Honest Albert is intelligent and quickly
realizes that the "contracting lengths" are indeed very, very absurd,
even idiotic:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is
sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to
its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end
is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped
IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse
dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce
tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait
possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc
réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION
matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999), LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John
Steele:
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in
both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will
presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Honest Albert also realizes that the "contracting lengths" idiocies
are unavoidable consequences of the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the motion of the object emitting it. So in the end
Honest Albert finds himself unable to resist "the temptation to
account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple,
familiar Newtonian ideas": the speed of light clearly varies with v,
the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance
with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians know no limits when it comes to destruction of human
rationality:

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
"Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all.
(...) To understand how relativity altered the neutrino experiment, it
helps to pretend that we're hanging out on one of those GPS
satellites, watching the Earth go by underneath you. Remember, from
the reference frame of someone on the satellite, we're not moving, but
the Earth is. As the neutrino experiment goes by, we start timing one
of the neutrinos as it exits the source in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the
detector in Italy is moving just as fast as the rest of the Earth, and
from our perspective it's moving towards the source. This means that
the neutrino will have a slightly shorter distance to travel than it
would if the experiment were stationary. We stop timing the neutrino
when it arrives in Italy, and calculate that it moves at a speed
that's comfortably below the speed of light. (...) Researchers at the
University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the
numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment,
and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional
nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond
speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has
to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it
seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed
once again."

The original author, Ronald A.J. van Elburg, is by no means the
cleverest Einsteinian:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...110.2685v1.pdf
Ronald A.J. van Elburg: "The Michelson and Morley experiment
demonstrated the speed of light is the same in all inertial frame of
reference and on this axiom Einstein built special relativity."

Einsteinians,

The OPERA experiment may be flawed but the flaw has surely nothing to
do with your "perspective" according to which the detector is moving
towards the source. This "perspective" is not very sane, to say it
mildly. It has been teaching you (and, unfortunately, the rest of the
world) for over a century that the Michelson-Morley experiment
"demonstrated the speed of light is the same in all inertial frame of
reference" while in fact this experiment demonstrated just the
opposite: the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light
source relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c
+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Mirth in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

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."
Einstein's 1954 confession: "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."

Stachel could have referred to Walter Ritz but he did not because Ritz
is an unperson in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion
like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the
laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of (...) the
notion of field..."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not
exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true, then
the youthfulness of the travelling twin both has nothing to do with
the acceleration she has suffered and is entirely caused by the
acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack
has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of
the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect
that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the
effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical
accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as
far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler
abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial
motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the
analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely
the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces
of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-
around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler
will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days.
That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have
jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump
puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that
it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of
the travelers when they reunite."

Pentcho Valev

Gary W. Gibbons FRS defends Einstein's 1911 conviction (the
youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the
acceleration she has suffered):

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
Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if
it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as
a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us
what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden
change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer
the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in
a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the
smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

John Norton defends Einstein's 1918 conviction (the youthfulness of
the travelling twin is entirely caused by the acceleration she has
suffered):

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a
clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the
location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens
to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The
calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice
as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.
This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

Pentcho Valev

Dr Bertolucci, the director of research at Cern, explains how
Michelson and Morley managed to publish:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118
"Dr Bertolucci called this study "elegant", but added: "An
experimentalist has to prove that a measurement is either right or
wrong. If you interpret every new measurement with older theories, you
will never get a new theory. "More than a century ago, Michelson and
Morley measured the speed of light in the direction Earth was moving
and in the opposite direction. They found the speed was equal in both
directions." This result helped to spur the development of the radical
new theory of special relativity. "If they had interpreted it using
classical, Newtonian theory they would never have published," said Dr
Bertolucci."

If Michelson and Morley had interpreted their experiment in terms of
Newton's emission theory of light, Divine Albert would have thought
twice before plagiarizing Poincaré:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with
an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

Pentcho Valev