|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS OR WITH ITSELF?
On Mar 13, 12:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" Saying Is Believing: This has been called the "saying is believing" paradigm. That is, dissonance theory predicts that we begin to believe our own lies—but only if there is not abundant external justification for making the statements that run counter to our original attitudes. ....the greater the reward for compliance, the greater the probability that a person will comply. ....When it comes to producing a lasting change in attitude, the greater the reward, the less likely any attitude change will occur. If all I want you to do is recite a speech favoring Fidel Castro, the Marx brothers, socialized medicine, or anything else, the most efficient thing for me to do would be to give you the largest possible reward. This would increase the probability of your complying by making that speech. But suppose I have a more ambitious goal: Suppose I want to effect a lasting change in your attitudes and beliefs. In that case, just the reverse is true. The smaller the external reward I give to induce you to recite the speech, the more likely it is that you will be forced to seek additional justification for delivering it by convincing yourself that the things you said were actually true. This would result in an actual change in attitude rather than mere compliance. The importance of this technique cannot be overstated. If we change our attitudes because we have made a public statement for minimal external justification, our attitude change will be relatively permanent; we are not changing our attitudes because of a reward (compliance) or because of the influence of an attractive person (identification). http://tinyurl.com/459wx We are changing our attitudes because we have succeeded in convincing ourselves that our previous attitudes were incorrect. This is a very powerful form of attitude change. ....Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith. These investigators asked college students to perform a very boring and repetitive series of tasks—packing spools in a tray, dumping them out, and then refilling the tray over and over, or turning rows and rows of screws a quarter turn and then going back and turning them another quarter turn. The students engaged in these activities for a full hour. The experimenter then induced them to lie about the task; specifically, he employed them to tell a young woman (who was waiting to participate in the experiment) that the task she would be performing was interesting and enjoyable. Some of the students were offered $20 for telling the lie; others were offered only $1 for telling the lie. After the experiment was over, an interviewer asked the liars how much they enjoyed the tasks they had performed earlier in the experiment. The results were clear-cut: Those students who had been paid $20 for lying — that is, for saying the spool packing and screw turning had been enjoyable — rated the activity as dull. This is not surprising — it was dull. But what about the students who had been paid only $1 for lying? They rated the task as enjoyable. In other words, people who received abundant external justification for lying told the lie but didn't believe it, whereas those who told the lie in the absence of a great deal of external justification moved in the direction of believing that what they said was true. Research support for the "saying is believing" phenomenon has extended beyond relatively unimportant attitudes like the dullness of a monotonous task. Attitude change has been shown on a variety of important issues. ....in one experiment, Arthur R. Cohen induced Yale college students to engage in a particularly difficult form of counterattitudinal behavior. Cohen conducted his experiment immediately after a student riot in which the New Haven police had behaved in a rather brutal manner toward the students. The students (who strongly believed the police had behaved badly) were asked to write an essay in support of the actions taken by the police. They were urged to write the strongest, most forceful defense of the police actions they could muster. Before writing the essay, students were paid for their efforts. There were four conditions: Some students were paid $10; others, $5; still others, $1; and a fourth group, the paltry sum of 50 cents. After writing his essay, each student was asked to indicate his own private attitudes about the police actions. The results were perfectly linear: The smaller the reward, the greater the attitude change. Thus, students who wrote in support of the New Haven police for the meager sum of 50 cents developed a more favorable attitude than did those who wrote the essay for $1; the students who wrote the essay for $1 developed a more favorable attitude toward the actions of the police than did those who wrote the essay for $5; and those who wrote the essay for $10 remained the least favorable. The less the external justification in terms of money, the greater the attitude change. Let's look at race relations and racial prejudice — surely one of our nation's most enduring problems. Would it be possible to get people to endorse a policy favoring a minority group — and then see if their attitudes become more favorable toward that group? In an important set of experiments, Mike Leippe and Donna Eisen-stadt induced white college students to write an essay demonstrating counter-attitudinal advocacy: publicly endorsing a controversial proposal at their university—to double the amount of funds available for academic scholarships for African-American students. Because the total amount of scholarship funds were limited, this meant cutting by half the amount of funds available for scholarships for white students. As you might imagine, this was a highly dissonant situation. How might the students reduce dissonance? The best way would be to convince themselves that they really believed deeply in that policy—that, taking the big picture into consideration, it was only fair to offer more financial aid to African-Americans. Moreover, it is reasonable to suggest that dissonance reduction might generalize beyond the specific policy— that is, the theory would predict that their general attitude toward African-Americans would become more favorable and much more supportive. And that is exactly what Leippe and Eisenstadt found. What constitutes external justification? As I mentioned a moment ago, external justification can and does come in a variety of forms. People can be persuaded to say things or do things that contradict their beliefs or preferences if they are threatened with punishment or enticed by rewards other than monetary gain—such as praise or the desire to please. Furthermore, most of us would consider doing something that we otherwise wouldn't do if a good friend asked us to do it as a favor. To take a farfetched example, suppose a friend asked you to eat an unusual food she or he had recently learned to prepare in an "exotic foods" cooking class. And just to make things interesting, let's say the food in question was a fried grasshopper. Now, imagine the reverse situation—that someone you didn't like very much asked you to sink your teeth into a fried grasshopper. Okay, are you ready? Assuming you went ahead and ate the grasshopper, under which circumstance do you think you would enjoy the taste of it more—when asked to eat it by a good friend or by someone you didn't like? Common sense might suggest that the grasshopper would taste better when recommended by a friend. After all, a friend is someone you can trust and, hence, would be a far more credible source of information than someone you didn't like. But think about it for a moment: Which condition involves less external justification? Common sense notwithstanding, the theory of cognitive dissonance would predict that you would come to like eating grasshoppers more if you ate one at the request of someone you didn't like. Here's how it works: Your cognition that eating a grasshopper is repulsive would be at odds with the fact that you just ate one. But if it was your friend who made the request, you would have a great deal of external justification for having eaten it—you did it as a favor for a good friend. On the other hand, you would not have adequate external justification for munching on a grasshopper if you did it at the request of someone you didn't like. In this case, how could you justify your contradictory behavior to yourself? Simple. The way to reduce dissonance would be to change your attitude toward grasshoppers in the direction of liking them better—"Gee, they're pretty tasty critters after all." While this may seem a rather bizarre example of dissonance-reducing behavior, it's not as farfetched as you might think. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues conducted an analogous experiment in which army reservists were asked to try fried grasshoppers as part of a study allegedly about "survival" foods. For half of the subjects, the request was made by a warm, friendly officer; for the other half, it was made by a cold, unfriendly officer. The reservists' attitudes toward eating grasshoppers were measured before and after they ate them. The results were exactly as predicted above: Reservists who ate grasshoppers at the request of the unpleasant officer increased their liking for them far more than those who ate grasshoppers at the request of the pleasant officer. Thus, when sufficient external justification was present—when reservists complied with the friendly officer's request—they experienced little need to change their attitudes toward grasshoppers. They already had a convincing explanation for why they ate them—they did it to help a "nice guy." But reservists who complied with the unfriendly officer's request had little external justification for their action. As a result, they adopted a more positive attitude toward eating grasshoppers in order to rationalize their discrepant behavior. What Is Inadequate Justification? Throughout this section, I have made reference to situations where there is inadequate external justification and to those with an abundance of external justification. These terms require some additional clarification. In the Festinger-Carlsmith experiment, all of the subjects did, in fact, agree to tell the lie—including all of those paid only $1. In a sense, then, $1 was adequate—that is, adequate to induce the subjects to tell the lie; but as it turns out, it wasn't sufficient to keep them from feeling foolish. In order to reduce their feeling of foolishness, they had to reduce the dissonance that resulted from telling a lie for so paltry a sum. This entailed additional bolstering in the form of convincing themselves that it wasn't completely a lie and the task wasn't quite as dull as it seemed at first; as a matter of fact, when looked at in a certain way, it was actually quite interesting. The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/ Pentcho Valev |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLO UNDERPANTSCAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
John Jones wrote:
John Jones wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2): http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain: (A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15 (B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12 Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4 is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" Pentcho Valev |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLO UNDERPANTS CAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
John Jones wrote in message
Camarillo Brillo. Dirk Vdm |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLOUNDERPANTS CAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
On Mar 16, 9:27*pm, John Jones wrote:
John Jones wrote: John Jones wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2): http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...ein-papers/191.... ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and Rebka); *c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain: (A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15 (B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12 Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4 is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" Pentcho Valev You're shining brillo underpants in your lives. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS OR WITH ITSELF?
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 "If relativity theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory power enhances the real power and authority of theoretical physicists. Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Popper's doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einstein's questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them." Pentcho Valev |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS OR WITH ITSELF?
RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS OR WITH ITSELF? Then they should all get into family counseling. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone
My dear friends,Thanks for your concern. I am sorry to disturb you, But hope i can bring your happys and good news now!!! Recently, I find one well electronic company , They can wholesale or retail more and more popular electronic products (Apple iPhone 3GS HTC HD2 BlackBerry Bold 9700). Of course, I have order some items from this company, And surprised received my likes items in 3-5 days!!! As you know, I have pay very cheap money and get one best quality items, All items are full new with the genuine guarantee and Original packaging. All the products have one to three years of international warranty. You can have the warranty service at your place with the invoice we issue. So i must have to introduce and recommend you this good electronic company!!! The better service with low price,what are you waiting for??? Please Join this company immediately, All items will bring you more profit and pleasantly surprised price. Hope we can get more cheap price and High-quality items from this popular company in future!!! Looking forward to your good news soon!!! Best regards,yours sincerely!
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beyond relativity and quantum mechanics | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 22nd 09 07:03 AM |
PHILIP BALL: Why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics AreIncompatible | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 19 | August 4th 08 03:41 AM |
THE NEW QUANTUM MECHANICS | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 24th 07 03:38 PM |
THE NEW QUANTUM MECHANICS | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 18th 04 12:47 PM |
QUANTUM MECHANICS | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 14th 04 04:20 PM |