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

FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 4th 13, 05:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...tting-crowded/
John Horgan: "Last week, my students read an old Michio Kaku piece, which explains-celebrates dark matter, super strings, cosmic strings (remember them?), inflation and other physics phantasms."

These are secondary phantasms, metastases finishing off the agonizing science. Here is a fundamental phantasm which is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

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

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 5th 13, 08:22 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS

Initially the observer is at rest with respect to the light source and measures the frequency to be f=c/L, where c is the speed of the light waves relative to the observer and L is the wavelength.

Hypothesis: If the observer starts moving towards the source with speed v, the speed of the light waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v.

The hypothesis is extremely easy to test experimentally: if the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v, then the frequency the observer measures will shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer does measure the frequency: yes it shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. The hypothesis is confirmed... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

So the obvious fact that the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently because their speed relative to him has increased is consigned to oblivion in Divine Albert's world. Still there is a fundamental phantasm dwelling in the subconsciousness of Einsteinians:

If the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L but the speed of the waves relative to the observer should remain unchanged because Divine Albert said so, then the motion of the observer causes the wavelength to shift from L=c/f to L'=c/f', Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!

See more he

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...equency_Im.pdf
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 5th 13, 03:42 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Cr.../dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Yes the relativistic concept of time, a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, is an obvious absurdity that paralyzed science for more than a century. Now Einsteinians are "faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier":

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."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old April 6th 13, 07:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS

Split personality in Divine Albert's world:

http://th00.deviantart.net/fs50/PRE/...y_bigcas61.jpg

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.ph...cles&Itemid=68
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

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..."

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."

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "When Minkowski (1908) introduced the routine use of spacetime into physics, it seemed that this represented the victory of a particular view of time. Minkowski's spacetime represented all there was: past, present and future, and all at once. Did this finally vindicate an idea whose pedigree traces back to Parmenides in antiquity: time and change are mere illusions? (...) Might there be something special in the nature of the relativistic spacetime that supports the illusory character of change? An ingenious line of analysis suggests there might be."

No "ingenious line of analysis" is needed, John Norton. What is "special" about the fundamental phantasm called "spacetime" is that it is, logically, a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Yet, since the light postulate was a tenet of the ether theory, the construction of spacetime began before 1905, with the introduction of "contracting lengths" and "local time":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

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
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics GSS Astronomy Misc 17 March 1st 10 06:48 AM
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics GSS Astronomy Misc 85 October 5th 09 09:23 AM
Astronomers Gain Clues About Fundamental Physics (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 December 21st 05 12:45 AM
Astronomers Gain Clues About Fundamental Physics (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 December 21st 05 12:16 AM
Physics is fundamental wrong Sarah Schwartz Astronomy Misc 134 June 27th 04 02:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 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.