|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.0016v2.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...Home/index.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Phys...re3_symme2.pdf "Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it - let's see how ......................................... But they [Michelson and Morley] saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears NOT to depend on frame." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
Other Einsteinians are envious:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/04/ma...elieve-in.html Lubos Motl: "Max Tegmark (MIT course 8033, preprint) decided to replace boring calculations by the Beatles, with the guitar help by Tali Figueroa. Let's hope that the students, including those in the Yellow Submarine, will get the point faster than ever before. :-)" The truth is that Lubos Motl sings better than Max Tegmark but the lyrics of his songs are very silly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZxPTRfztsE Very silly indeed. "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" is not silly at all. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm "But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe. The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different observers is an experimental observation." Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
On Aug 27, 2:13*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm "But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe. The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different observers is an experimental observation." Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Pentcho Valev Yes, the particle theory of light can explain the MMX, but it cannot explain other properties, such as interference. Photons, like all subatomic particles have wave-like properties as well as ballistic properties. An electron undergoes diffraction and interference, just as light does. Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons. Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic effects. Uncle Ben |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
Hello,
Wondeful ! Bye. Bernard Lempel http://lempel.net "Uncle Ben" a écrit dans le message de news: ... ....Cut. all the blablabla... Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons. Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic effects. Uncle Ben |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
On Aug 27, 2:39*pm, "Lempel" wrote:
Hello, Wondeful ! Bye. Bernard Lempel http://lempel.net "Uncle Ben" a écrit dans le message de news: ... ...Cut. all the blablabla... Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons. Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic effects. Uncle Ben Bernard, this "Uncle Ben" is even sillier than both "Uncle Al" and "Oncle Dom" so there is nothing "wonderful" in his questions. Still I have already answered some of them: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c2abc6159cd68? Note that his "complete theory of the behavior of light" is absolutely irrelevant as far as Einstein's relativity is concerned. The only property of light that matters is the dependence/independence of the speed of light on the speed of the light source. If the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, this means that this particular property can be explained in terms of the particle model, but this does not imply that ALL properties of light can be explained in terms of this model. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm "But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe. The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different observers is an experimental observation." So yet another group that is too stupid to realize the experiment was an "at rest" lightspeed test. How freaking stupid is such a group that they can not understand that such a test would nmot find a relative speed difference since it is like two cars measuring the speed of sound when they are doign the same speeds. The experiment would show the speed of sound as constant also.. But of course. The experiment is flawed. It is simply an "at rest" experiment and not a true observer moving wrt the the source. If any of them had brains they would do the Driscoll 1 second of light exeperiment with an at rest observer, then a moving towards the source observer and then a moving away from the source observer, then to really kill the lightspeed is constant to all bull**** they would move the source and keep the object in place instead. 1 second of light is all it takes.. And all these morons refuse to try it because it would be against the religion they have created and worshipped for far too long. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
On Aug 27, 3:12*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: Zombie education at the University of New South Wales: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm "But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe. The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different observers is an experimental observation." So yet another group that is too stupid to realize the experiment was an "at rest" lightspeed test. How freaking stupid is such a group that they can not understand that such a test would nmot find a relative speed difference since it is like two cars measuring the speed of sound when they are doign the same speeds. The experiment would show the speed of sound as constant also.. But of course. The experiment is flawed. It is simply an "at rest" experiment and not a true observer moving wrt the the source. If any of them had brains they would do the Driscoll 1 second of light exeperiment with an at rest observer, then a moving towards the source observer and then a moving away from the source observer, then to really kill the lightspeed is constant to all bull**** they would move the source and keep the object in place instead. 1 second of light is all it takes.. And all these morons refuse to try it because it would be against the religion they have created and worshipped for far too long. Yet the morons are much cleverer than Einsteiniana' genius Stephen Hawking who found it suitable to contradict Laplace and Michell by using the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." Another genius of Einsteiniana's, Clifford Will, believes that if Michell had known Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity, he would have immediately abandoned his idea that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field: http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)" Clearly, there is no upper limit on idiocy in Einsteiniana. Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
On Aug 27, 8:17*am, Uncle Ben wrote:
Yes, the particle theory of light can explain the MMX, but it cannot explain other properties, such as interference. *Photons, like all subatomic particles have wave-like properties as well as ballistic properties. *An electron undergoes diffraction and interference, just as light does. Actually not true. Electrons and Photons do NOT undergo diffraction and interference. Both are particles. (or at least interact with matter as if they are particles) If you take a monochromatic light source and reduce the intensity more and more eventually you reach a point where individual photons (or electrons) are striking your detector. If you place an object in the "beam" (such as a double slit etc.) you find that the individual particles are not replaced by diffracted "waves". It is only the statistics of where the particles land on the detector that are altered. Individual particles are STILL being detected. It's just that the statistical ensemble of where they land that has been altered. Think about it. If you compare the above process to classical wave theory, you immediately note that this weird process is NOT classical diffraction or interference! It is only a statistical mimicry of it! Waves "diffract". These particles are just doing something else strange. Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons. This is exactly correct even down to the words "wave-like"! Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic effects. Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It has already been shown that certain effects regarded as "relativistic" are not relativistic at all but just mathematical miscalculations. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Zombie education at MIT
On Aug 24, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.0016v2.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...Home/index.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Phys...re3_symme2.pdf "Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it - let's see how ........................................ But they [Michelson and Morley] saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears NOT to depend on frame." Advanced zombie education and some money making at MIT: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/spa...r-fiction.html "Making someone vanish in New York and appear an instant later in Tokyo is way beyond current technology but just might be possible in the far future, physicists told an audience at MIT attending a preview and panel discussion about the movie Jumper on Wednesday. Actor Hayden Christensen and director Doug Liman were at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, US, to show scenes from the upcoming movie and to discuss it with physicists Max Tegmark and Edward Farhi.....I was expecting the physicists to say that trying to teleport something as complex as a human being would be totally out of the question. So I was surprised when they said they wouldn't rule it out, even if it is way beyond current technology. Physicists have teleported individual particles of light called photons across distances of more than 3 kilometres, according to Farhi (below, right), who heads MIT's Center for Theoretical Physics, and have also teleported particles of matter such as electrons.....However, if it were one day possible to teleport a person, down to the quantum state of each of their atoms, he said the teleported person at point B should have exactly the same thoughts and memories as the person whose quantum state was destroyed at point A. The other physicist on the panel, Max Tegmark (above, left), pointed out another possible way to transport things quickly across space-time. The laws of physics allow for the existence of "wormholes", which are distortions in the fabric of space that can link two distant locations. If you could build and take such a shortcut, you could go faster than the speed of light and also time travel, Tegmark said." Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TRUTH IN THE CIA ZOMBIE WORLD | Ian Parker | Policy | 76 | September 9th 08 02:09 PM |
EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD IS GETTING SUSPICIOUS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | November 3rd 07 10:19 AM |
EARLY EDUCATION IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 25th 07 02:42 PM |
INTROSPECTION IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 23rd 07 07:04 AM |
Expedition 12 In-Flight Education Event with Department of Education | John | Space Station | 0 | November 15th 05 03:17 PM |