SCHIZOPHRENIC PHYSICS

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its
epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be
questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

The "international team of leading philosophers and physicists" wrote
this but did not find it profitable to inform the reader which
postulate - the principle of relativity or the principle of constancy
of the speed of light - is false. The book is probably a bestseller
and yet of all the readers not one could think of a reason why the
"international team of leading philosophers and physicists" should
indicate the false postulate. To quote Clifford Truesdell, this is "a
prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness
of crowds".

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 18, 5:19*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim...-Contemporary-...
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its
epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be
questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

The "international team of leading philosophers and physicists" wrote
this but did not find it profitable to inform the reader which
postulate - the principle of relativity or the principle of constancy
of the speed of light - is false. The book is probably a bestseller
and yet of all the readers not one could think of a reason why the
"international team of leading philosophers and physicists" should
indicate the false postulate. To quote Clifford Truesdell, this is "a
prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness
of crowds".

That's known, but it's also the reason that Goedel discovered
Goedel's Theorems, rather than Physicists.

And Turing discovered Turing Machines, rather than Qwerty.


And Engineers invented USB, Holograms, and 21st Century LEDs, rather
than LEDs.






Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)

Fake science, fake philosophy, fake university.

Just look who the editor is, Ken. And stop lying.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-.../dp/0520200292
Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's
Theories, Leo Sartori
p.131: "The special force, which became known as "Poincaré stress" or
"Poincaré pressure" is a red herring. As Einstein showed, the
contraction is inherently a kinematic effect, a direct consequence of
the properties of space and time expressed through the Lorentz
transformation. Whatever forces are present in matter must transform
in a manner consistent with the contraction; no special force is
needed. As late as 1909, Poincaré still had not disabused himself of
this fundamental misunderstanding. In a lecture at Göttingen, he
asserted that the "new mechanics" is based on three hypotheses, of
which the third is the longitudinal deformation of a body in
translational motion. (The first two were Einstein's two postulates.)"

Poincaré's insistance on a THIRD postulate is implicitly confirmed by
Banesh Hoffmann:

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."

In my view, Poincaré's purely logical intervention in this case
involved an element of warning:

"Don't be too enthusiastic about the "new mechanics" as it is based on
the untenable "length contraction" hypothesis!"

Of course, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world Poincaré's logic is
totally incomprehensible. The great scientist is mainly known, as Leo
Sartori suggests, for constantly abusing himself with "fundamental
misunderstanding".

Pentcho Valev

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1020024718.htm
"One of the counterintuitive predictions of Einstein's general
relativity is that gravity distorts the flow of time. The theory
predicts that clocks tick slower near a massive body and tick faster
the further they are away from the mass. This effect results in a so-
called "twin paradox": if one twin moves out to live at a higher
altitude, he will age faster than the other twin who remains on the
ground. This effect has been precisely verified in classical
experiments..."

Clocks do not tick slower near a massive body; rather, all clocks -
nearby and distant - go at the same rate. "Classical experiments" have
measured the gravitational redshift which "does not arise from changes
in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light
signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

What befalls light signals in the presence of gravitation? They
accelerate of course, in accordance with both Newton's emission theory
of light and Einstein's general relativity (the latter predicts that
photons accelerate two times faster than all other objects).

Pentcho Valev

Clever Einsteinians know that time is not distorted by gravity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"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."

Elsewhere Norton would sincerely claim that time IS distorted by
gravity - Orwell calls this kind of split personality "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.brera.unimi.it/sisfa/atti/1998/giannetto.pdf
Henri Poincaré: "...les termes du second ordre auraient dû devenir
sensibles, et cependant le résultat [de l'expérience de Michelson-
Morley] a encore été négatif, la théorie de Lorentz laissant prévoir
un résultat positif. On a alors imaginé une hypothèse supplémentai
tous les corps subiraient un raccourcissement dans le sens du
mouvement de la Terre... cette étrange propriété semblerait un
véritable coup de pouce donné par la nature pour éviter que le
mouvement de la Terre puisse être révélé par des phénomènes optiques.
Ceci ne saurait me satisfaire et je crois devoir dire ici mon
sentiment: je considère comme très problables que les phénomènes
optiques ne dépendent que des mouvements relatifs des corpes matériels
en presence...et cela non pas aux quantités près de l'ordre du carré
ou du cube de l'aberration, mais rigouresement."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092
Olivier Darrigol: "Moreover, Poincaré never derived the exact form of
the Lorentz transformations by directly combining the relativity
postulate and the light postulate. He instead assumed the Lorentz
contraction (justified by the negative result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment...)"

Poincaré finds the length contraction hypothesis unsatisfactory and
yet advances it as a third postulate in the deduction of the Lorentz
transformation? Was he inconsistent? Of course not - the length
contraction postulate, true or false, is LOGICALLY indispensable in
this particular deduction.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-.../dp/0520200292
Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's
Theories, Leo Sartori
p.131: "The special force, which became known as "Poincaré stress" or
"Poincaré pressure" is a red herring. As Einstein showed, the
contraction is inherently a kinematic effect, a direct consequence of
the properties of space and time expressed through the Lorentz
transformation. Whatever forces are present in matter must transform
in a manner consistent with the contraction; no special force is
needed. As late as 1909, Poincaré still had not disabused himself of
this fundamental misunderstanding. In a lecture at Göttingen, he
asserted that the "new mechanics" is based on three hypotheses, of
which the third is the longitudinal deformation of a body in
translational motion. (The first two were Einstein's two
postulates.)"

Poincaré's insistance on a THIRD postulate is implicitly confirmed by
Banesh Hoffmann:

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."

In my view, Poincaré's purely logical intervention in this case
involved an element of warning:

"Don't be too enthusiastic about the "new mechanics" as it is based on
the untenable "length contraction" hypothesis!"

Of course, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world Poincaré's logic is
totally incomprehensible. The great scientist is mainly known, as Leo
Sartori suggests, for constantly abusing himself with "fundamental
misunderstanding".

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 20, 2:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Einsteinians know that time is not distorted by gravity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-makes-the-uni...
"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."

Well, that's the problem. Many people in philosophy still
consider the ancient notion of 3space to be real space.
And time as a parameter of evolution. So that makes the
extra dimensions problem disappear.



Elsewhere Norton would sincerely claim that time IS distorted by
gravity - Orwell calls this kind of split personality "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

When discussing sound waves, physicists readily admit that an observer
moving towards the wave source cannot change the wavelength (it
remains constant) so the speed of the wave relative to him is equal to
the speed of the wave relative to a stationary observer plus the speed
of the observer relative to the source. That is, the speed of the wave
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIqSY...eature=related

This variation of the speed of the wave is obviously universal (valid
for all kinds of waves) but is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine
Theory. Accordingly, referring it to light waves could be fatal for
one's career. Still physicists forget the danger sometimes:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev

Stephen Hawking: Moving source changes the wavelength:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen,
visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance
from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant
wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be
the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the
gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a
significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward
us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us,
so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star
was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted."

What if the light source is stationary and the observer starts moving
towards it? How can the moving observer change the wavelength? If he
cannot, then the redshift and blueshift are due to... a variation of
the speed of light relative to the observer? Hawking would never
answer. Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think
of a reason why he should.

Pentcho Valev