CLIMATE-GATE, RELATIVITY-GATE, ENTROPY-GATE

if y'can't take the heat,
get out of the frying pan!

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/big_bang/ind...
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

yeah, massless rocks o'light,
built a hugely impenetrable wall around EinsteinoNewtonianism!

thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite an effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.

Nude Scientist said:
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...es_confes.html
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud:
"By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let's get right
to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the
discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising
insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was
that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As
the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on
correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an
IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering."

Relativitygate's John Norton Confesses to Relativity Fraud:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Entropygate's Jos Uffink Confesses to Entropy Fraud:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

Cosmologygate's Leonard Susskind Confesses to Cosmology Fraud:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

your rotating list of anti-einsteinmania is getting rather
repeatative,
dood.

thus:
Michelson-Morley not null; just say, Duh!

thus:
most of Russell;'s lagubrious paradoxes are perilinguistic,
lacking the element (or variable) of time; are they not?

thus:
of course, there is a base-one;
what is it's digital counter, by induction on base-ten?
in factorial base, it has n digits; eh?
In base 1, the factorial n! has n! digits.
[OK I realize there's no "base 1"...]

thus:
sea-level is not rising, globally --
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...rInterview.pdf
-- and warming is mostly equatorial. however,
there is massive loss of soil, and that might change *relative* sea-
level,
in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea!

thus quoth:
Let’s take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the
polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived
both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago),
when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole. Clearly, polar
bears have adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their
presence today.
(This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and the
other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar bear survived the
last Interglacial because it did not have computer climate models that
said polar bears should not have survived!)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...polarbears.pdf
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...l_Warming.html

thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.

Nude Scientist said:
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://communities.canada.com/calgar...?postid=542737
"Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud. The Climategate e-
mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it's curious so few
scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their
feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the
same sentence lately - and, frankly, it's about time. After all,
what's astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is
myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific
fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very
long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just
shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of
man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As
French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind
does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right
questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask
the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers."

http://exilestreet.com/?p=1337
"In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the
Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced
to recant his lifes work. The fact that the earth revolves around the
sun threatened the church establishment's doctrine. Galileo was worse
than right - he was inconvenient. Since his trial, scientists have
mythologized him as their secular saint. How times have changed: With
the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of
inquisitors - suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting
researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming
clergy."

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 gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This
incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour
guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and
claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker.
The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the
sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily
deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science
establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein.
Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are
prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."

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."
Albert Einstein 1954: "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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/o...und/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...nishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SI...orts/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 17, 4:18*am, John Jones wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://communities.canada.com/calgar...?postid=542737
"Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud. The Climategate e-
mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it's curious so few
scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their
feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the
same sentence lately - and, frankly, it's about time. After all,
what's astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is
myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific
fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very
long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just
shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of
man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As
French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind
does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right
questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask
the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers."

http://exilestreet.com/?p=1337
"In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the
Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced
to recant his lifes work. The fact that the earth revolves around the
sun threatened the church establishment's doctrine. Galileo was worse
than right - he was inconvenient. Since his trial, scientists have
mythologized him as their secular saint. How times have changed: With
the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of
inquisitors - suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting
researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming
clergy."

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 gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This
incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour
guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and
claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker.
The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the
sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily
deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science
establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein.
Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are
prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi...
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/o...und/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...CornishBowden/...
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SI...orts/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hehe! makes a change from all the arsehole orifices normally on display

CLIMATE-GATE:

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...tegate-scandal
"As the Climategate scandal continues to broaden and as more
information is disclosed pointing to a stunning consortium of fraud,
false information, and shoddy science, it is becoming clear that laws
have been broken and that many nations around the world have lost
billions of dollars as a result."

How about the billions lost as a result of the centennial RELATIVITY-
GATE? The latest relativity fraud:

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02...e-stringently/
"This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General
Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part-
in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though
this work was done while he was at the University of California
Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt
University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift
test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of
the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The
equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the
same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the
downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an
upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent
upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the
lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to
tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the
lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and
acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field;
in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a
clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will
tick."

The formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon. On seeing it, clever
Einsteinians get petrified and stop claiming that clocks "tick more
slowly" for a while. The reason is that, according to this formula,
the experimentally confirmed frequency shift f'=f(1+V/c^2), where V is
the gravitational potential, is consistent with a variation of the
speed of light obeying the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911.
Clever Einsteinians know that, if the speed of light is variable in a
gravitational field, clocks simply cannot "tick more slowly".

Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more
slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational
field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L
should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the
equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just
physically absurd.

Pentcho Valev

if you reply to me,
you will be removed by the grammarians!

Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more
slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational
field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L
should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the
equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just
physically absurd.

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...odynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Ricw & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://communities.canada.com/calgar...?postid=542737
"Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud. The Climategate e-
mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it's curious so few
scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their
feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the
same sentence lately - and, frankly, it's about time. After all,
what's astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is
myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific
fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very
long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just
shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of
man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As
French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind
does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right
questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask
the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers."

http://exilestreet.com/?p=1337
"In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the
Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced
to recant his lifes work. The fact that the earth revolves around the
sun threatened the church establishment's doctrine. Galileo was worse
than right - he was inconvenient. Since his trial, scientists have
mythologized him as their secular saint. How times have changed: With
the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of
inquisitors - suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting
researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming
clergy."

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 gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This
incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour
guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and
claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker.
The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the
sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily
deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science
establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein.
Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are
prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."

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."
Albert Einstein 1954: "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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/o...und/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...nishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SI...orts/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."

Pentcho Valev

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...asurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
the potential difference) but experience virtually the same
gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as Banesh Hoffmann have moments
of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the
worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that
gravitational time dilation simply does not exist; rather, something
"befalls light signals [their speed changes] 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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

CLIMATE-GATE:

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...tegate-scandal
"As the Climategate scandal continues to broaden and as more
information is disclosed pointing to a stunning consortium of fraud,
false information, and shoddy science, it is becoming clear that laws
have been broken and that many nations around the world have lost
billions of dollars as a result."

How about the billions lost as a result of the centennial RELATIVITY-
GATE? The latest relativity fraud:

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02...e-stringently/
"This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General
Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part-
in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though
this work was done while he was at the University of California
Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt
University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift
test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of
the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The
equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the
same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the
downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an
upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent
upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the
lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to
tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the
lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and
acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field;
in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a
clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will
tick."

The formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon. On seeing it, clever
Einsteinians get petrified and stop claiming that clocks "tick more
slowly" for a while. The reason is that, according to this formula,
the experimentally confirmed frequency shift f'=f(1+V/c^2), where V is
the gravitational potential, is consistent with a variation of the
speed of light obeying the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911.
Clever Einsteinians know that, if the speed of light is variable in a
gravitational field, clocks simply cannot "tick more slowly".

Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more
slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational
field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L
should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the
equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just
physically absurd.

Pentcho Valev