A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 28th 13, 12:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Clowno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OBUj-LBsVo

Bingo the Einsteiniano:

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 claim that the theory of relativity is logically consistent for reasons that are too complex for non-professionals to grasp is not only convenient, but is rhetorically unassailable - as whenever a critic disproves one argument, the professional physicist can allude to another more abstruse one. Einstein's transformation of the clock paradox from a purported expression of the special theory to a purported expression of the much more complicated general theory is one example of such a defence. (...) 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."

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/
"Teaching Children to Worship Albert Einstein. (...) During the morning, children spent time with their parents. Afternoon brought a special production of Einstein! Einstein! (...) Professor Chanteuse led the audience in singing "Divine Einstein" while the scientists changed into their real costumes.. (...) Einstein explains that imagination is more important than knowledge.. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! led by volunteers from the audience. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rBmN2wq5c
"Einstein theory of relativity"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
"Prof Brian Cox explores Einstein's understanding of time"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
"Prof Brian Cox explores Time in super slow motion"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LintCKKbDxk
"Prof Brian Greene sings string theory"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pLCOizNSLI
"Max Tegmark and Prof Brian Cox on the minus sign"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN4DthXDu68
"Relativité restreinte"

http://www.staqs.com/images/Waterloo...in_09-2005.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old March 28th 13, 08:42 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

The principle "Any student converted into Bingo the Einsteiniano" seemed victorious - Einsteiniana got rid of any dangerous criticism. Yet the victory proved Pyrrhic - science died in the process and Einsteinians are weeping bitterly nowadays:

http://ceportugues.files.wordpress.c...-crocodilo.jpg

http://www.autodidactproject.org/oth...deology_2.html
Ideology of/in Contemporary Physics, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "In this way, major advances in modern physics, especially in relativity and quantum mechanics, have paradoxically fed an intensely irrational current. (...) Modern physics appears as a collection of mathematical formulae, whose only justification is that 'they work'. Moreover, the 'examples' used to 'concretise' the knowledge are often totally unreal, and actually have the effect of making it even more abstract. Such is the case when the explanation of special relativity is based on the consideration of the entirely fictitious spatial and temporal behaviour of clocks and trains (today sometimes one speaks of rockets... it sounds better... but it is as stupid!)."

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave."

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives...077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la société. (....) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux »."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation.. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either."

http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 29th 13, 08:34 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

A student does not want to become Bingo the Einsteiniano; the professor-hypnotist, Etienne Klein, is shocked:

http://www.acfas.ca/publications/dec...parle-physique
Etienne Klein: "Une anecdote m'a permis de prendre conscience de cette évolution. Récemment, j'ai eu l'occasion de donner un cours de relativité (et non de relativisme...) à de futurs ingénieurs. Alors que je venais d'effectuer un calcul montrant que la durée d'un phénomène dépend de la vitesse de l'observateur, un étudiant prit la parole : « Monsieur, personnellement, je ne suis pas d'accord avec Einstein ! » J'imaginai qu'il allait défendre une théorie alternative, ou bien réinventer l'éther luminifère, en tout cas qu'il allait argumenter. Mais il se contenta de dire : « Je ne crois pas à cette relativité des durées que vous venez de démontrer, parce que je ne la... sens pas ! » Là, j'avoue, j'ai éprouvé une sorte de choc : ce jeune homme qui n'avait certainement pas lu Einstein avait suffisamment confiance dans son « ressenti » personnel pour s'autoriser à contester un résultat qu'un siècle d'expériences innombrables avait cautionné. (...) Grâce à la sympathie intellectuelle quasi spontanée dont elles bénéficient, les doctrines relativistes contribuent à une forme d'illettrisme scientifique d'autant plus pernicieuse que celle-ci avance inconsciente d'elle-même. Au demeurant, pourquoi ces doctrines séduisent-elles tant? Sans doute parce que, interprétées comme une remise en cause des prétentions de la science, un antidote à l'arrogance des scientifiques, elles semblent nourrir un soupçon qui se généralise, celui de l'imposture : « Finalement, (en science comme ailleurs) tout est relatif. ». Ce soupçon légitime une forme de désinvolture intellectuelle, de paresse systématique, et procure même une sorte de soulagement : dès lors que la science produit des discours qui n'auraient pas plus de véracité que les autres, pourquoi faudrait-il s'échiner à vouloir les comprendre, à se les approprier?"

Etienne Klein became Bingo the Einsteiniano at an early age but still from time to time he also puts to doubt the absurd concept of time Einstein's 1905 false light postulate entails:

http://www.franceinter.fr/player/reecouter?pause=442163
"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..."
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein."
"C'est pas la vôtre?"
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

http://philodutemps.free.fr/?tag=presentisme
"Etienne Klein exprime sa sympathie pour une solution intermédiaire entre le présentisme et la théorie de l'univers-bloc... (...) Etienne Klein: "Mais ces deux interprétations, univers-bloc et présentisme, sont loin d'avoir clos le débat. Dans le premier cas, l'existence même du cours du temps est relativisée, ou bien, selon une manoeuvre idéaliste assez classique, transformée sans que l'on nous précise comment en un produit de notre conscience : ce serait seulement par et pour une conscience que se succéderaient les instants du monde. De surcroît, l'interprétation de l'univers-bloc ne semble pas aisément compatible avec l'indéterminisme de la physique quantique qui, d'une certaine façon, laisse l'avenir ouvert à plusieurs possibilités. Quand au présentisme, il s'accorde mal avec la théorie de la relativité restreinte..."

http://www.franceculture.fr/player/r...r?play=4512239
Etienne Klein: "D'où ma proposition, sans attendre que les physiciens accordent leurs violons, ne faudrait-il pas bricoler d'urgence une habile synthèse entre le présentisme et l'univers bloc, les mélanger astucieusement pour donner corps à l'idée que le futur existe déjà, que c'est une authentique réalité, mais que cette réalité n'est pas complètement configurée, pas intégralement définie, qu'il y a encore place pour du jeu, des espaces pour la volonté, le désir, l'invention."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old March 29th 13, 07:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Einsteiniano does not need to understand the invariance of the speed of light:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know."

Here are some of the breathtaking consequences of the invariance of the speed of light that Bingo the Einsteiniano does need to understand:

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
"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."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old March 29th 13, 10:57 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Einsteiniano often becomes professor but then he should teach two fundamental lies:

1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (In fact, Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer.)

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (In fact, in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.)

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old March 31st 13, 06:38 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Einsteiniano demonstrates how both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer but declares that only the frequency varies, the speed of light does not, no it doesn't, Divine Albert clearly said it doesn't, Bingo can clearly see it doesn't, why on earth should it vary, what will happen to Bingo if it varies, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev
  #7  
Old April 3rd 13, 10:46 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Einsteiniano teaches future Bingos to trap long trains inside short tunnels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

The only unresolved problem: Is the long train trapped inside the short tunnel IN A COMPRESSED STATE or not? Some Bingos say it is, others say it isn't:

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.."

Pentcho Valev
  #8  
Old April 4th 13, 08:15 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Einsteiniano is not going back to absolute simultaneity, never, why on earth should Bingo go there, what would happen to Bingo if absolute simultaneity starts looming over the horizon, there is no absolute simultaneity, never has been, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics
Carlo Rovelli: "If we have learned that the earth is not flat, there will be no theory in the future in which the earth is 'flat.' If we have learned that the earth is not at the center of the universe, that's forever. We're not going to go back on this. If you have learned that simultaneity is relative, with Einstein, we're not going back to absolute simultaneity, like many people think."

Less faithful Bingos see no reason why they should refrain from going back to absolute simultaneity (from time to time) and extracting career and money from it:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who have come together to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics, and physics. (...) Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=21470
William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (eds.), Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity, Routledge, 2008, Reviewed by Thomas Ryckman, Stanford University: "The subject of this book is clearly stated by its title. The editors (...) unite here in bringing together "the first collection of essays devoted . . . to arguing that simultaneity is absolute". (...) Differences emerge on the grounds for "absolute simultaneity" and on what it implies."

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/c...st%20tense.doc
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_...an_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev
  #9  
Old April 4th 13, 01:42 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingos trying to convince other Bingos that, even if light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be unaffected, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern physics would not be threatened."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Why do Bingos behave so dishonestly? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev
  #10  
Old April 9th 13, 10:25 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO

Bingo the Iconoclast:

http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/20...terview-theory
"String theorist Brian Greene has grown from maths prodigy to physics iconoclast. Now he hopes to prove a grand theory of everything. (...) Asked to name his scientific hero, he picks Albert Einstein, along with Edward Witten, a Princeton physicist. At the start of the 20th century, Einstein overturned the principles of physics by rejecting Isaac Newton's theory of gravity because it conflicted with his discovery that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. "So many of us," Greene says, "revere [Einstein], but it needs to be said - because I've seen it reported in an odd way - that we don't revere Einstein like some gurus of New Age cults may be revered, or some religious leaders. We are constantly critical of everyone's contributions, even Witten's. We look at a given paper, we bang it around, knock it, try to break it." The same goes for string theory, which could turn out to be completely wrong. "It's a highly speculative subject, but I don't shrink from that," he says. "If you ask me: 'Do I believe in string theory?' The answer is: no, I don't."

Bingo the Einsteiniano exercises himself in crimestop:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher, recounts Einstein's telling him that "the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics." And later, in a condolence letter to the widow of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein wrote: "In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." (...) Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding.. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power, however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter3.4.html
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy.. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MN66 Collimation - BINGO! Dan Amateur Astronomy 14 July 22nd 06 06:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.