Zombie education at MIT

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.0016v2.pdf

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...Home/index.htm
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Phys...re3_symme2.pdf
"Does c depend on observer motion (frame)?
No 1st order effect had been seen
Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it - let's see how
.........................................
But they [Michelson and Morley] saw no fringe shift at all! So c
appears NOT to depend on frame."

Pentcho Valev

Other Einsteinians are envious:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/04/ma...elieve-in.html
Lubos Motl: "Max Tegmark (MIT course 8033, preprint) decided to
replace boring calculations by the Beatles, with the guitar help by
Tali Figueroa. Let's hope that the students, including those in the
Yellow Submarine, will get the point faster than ever before. :-)"

The truth is that Lubos Motl sings better than Max Tegmark but the
lyrics of his songs are very silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZxPTRfztsE

Very silly indeed. "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" is not silly at all.

Pentcho Valev

Zombie education at the University of New South Wales:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
"But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the
motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive
spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along
two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory
film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory
of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that
light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or
not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through
the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations
in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer
changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly
cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments
have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with
respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light
in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't
be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and
they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read
about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up
to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of
what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and
experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically
Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say
that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe
just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this
means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement
with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has
been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are
in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.
The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that
the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not
illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think
that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are
saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the
universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this
objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that
these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results
of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different
observers is an experimental observation."

Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given
access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and
Banesh Hoffmann:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 27, 2:13*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
"But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the
motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive
spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along
two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory
film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory
of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that
light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or
not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through
the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations
in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer
changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly
cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments
have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with
respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light
in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't
be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and
they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read
about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up
to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of
what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and
experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically
Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say
that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe
just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this
means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement
with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has
been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are
in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.
The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that
the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not
illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think
that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are
saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the
universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this
objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that
these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results
of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different
observers is an experimental observation."

Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given
access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and
Banesh Hoffmann:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev


Yes, the particle theory of light can explain the MMX, but it cannot
explain other properties, such as interference. Photons, like all
subatomic particles have wave-like properties as well as ballistic
properties. An electron undergoes diffraction and interference, just
as light does.

Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a
complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons.

Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic
effects.

Uncle Ben

Hello,

Wondeful !
Bye.
Bernard Lempel
http://lempel.net


"Uncle Ben" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

....Cut. all the blablabla...

Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a
complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons.

Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic
effects.

Uncle Ben

On Aug 27, 2:39*pm, "Lempel" wrote:
Hello,

Wondeful !
Bye.
Bernard Lempel http://lempel.net

"Uncle Ben" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

...Cut. all the blablabla...

Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a
complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons.

Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic
effects.

Uncle Ben

Bernard, this "Uncle Ben" is even sillier than both "Uncle Al" and
"Oncle Dom" so there is nothing "wonderful" in his questions. Still I
have already answered some of them:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c2abc6159cd68?

Note that his "complete theory of the behavior of light" is absolutely
irrelevant as far as Einstein's relativity is concerned. The only
property of light that matters is the dependence/independence of the
speed of light on the speed of the light source. If the speed of light
does depend on the speed of the light source, this means that this
particular property can be explained in terms of the particle model,
but this does not imply that ALL properties of light can be explained
in terms of this model.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
"But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the
motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive
spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along
two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory
film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory
of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that
light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or
not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through
the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations
in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer
changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly
cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments
have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with
respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light
in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't
be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and
they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read
about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up
to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of
what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and
experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically
Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say
that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe
just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this
means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement
with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has
been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are
in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.
The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that
the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not
illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think
that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are
saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the
universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this
objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that
these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results
of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different
observers is an experimental observation."

So yet another group that is too stupid to realize the experiment
was an "at rest" lightspeed test.
How freaking stupid is such a group that they can not understand
that such a test would nmot find a relative speed difference
since it is like two cars measuring the speed of sound
when they are doign the same speeds.
The experiment would show the speed of sound as constant
also..
But of course.
The experiment is flawed.
It is simply an "at rest" experiment and not a true observer
moving wrt the the source.
If any of them had brains they would do the Driscoll 1 second
of light exeperiment with an at rest observer, then a moving towards
the source observer and then a moving away from the source
observer, then to really kill the lightspeed is constant to all bull****
they would move the source and keep the object in place instead.
1 second of light is all it takes..
And all these morons refuse to try it because it would be against
the religion they have created and worshipped for far too long.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman










Students at the University of New South Wales should never be given
access to the writings of clever Einsteinians such as John Norton and
Banesh Hoffmann:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 27, 3:12*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education at the University of New South Wales:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
"But is it true? Is the speed of light really independent of the
motion of the observer? Michelson and Morley used a large, sensitive
spectrometer to compare the behaviour of light as it travelled along
two paths at right angles to each other. As we saw un the introductory
film clip, these results were vitally important for Einstein's theory
of relativity......The simplest interpretation of the results is that
light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab, whether or
not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the Earth through
the aether or at right angles to it. (One could also make explanations
in which the speed of light varied, but the shape of the spectrometer
changed according to its orientation, in such a way that it exactly
cancelled the effect of the lab's motion.) Many further experiments
have been performed to look for variations in the speed of light with
respect to relative motion, usually by looking at the speed of light
in different directions - as Michelson and Morley did...."But it can't
be so." "It just doesn't make sense." These are common responses - and
they were certainly the responses of this author when I first read
about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up
to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of
what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and
experiment (as Plato's student Aristotle, and even more emphatically
Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say
that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe
just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this
means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement
with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has
been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are
in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.
The principle of Special Relativity - and its weird consequence that
the speed of light is the same for different observers - is not
illogical. It is not false. It may be upsetting. Deep down, I think
that most people who object to the principle of Special Relativity are
saying "It may be true, but it wouldn't be true if I had designed the
universe" or "I don't like it the principle of relativity". To this
objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. Notice that
these objections are not objections to any theory, but to the results
of experiments. The invariance of the speed of light for different
observers is an experimental observation."

So yet another group that is too stupid to realize the experiment
was an "at rest" lightspeed test.
How freaking stupid is such a group that they can not understand
that such a test would nmot find a relative speed difference
since it is like two cars measuring the speed of sound
when they are doign the same speeds.
The experiment would show the speed of sound as constant
also..
But of course.
The experiment is flawed.
It is simply an "at rest" experiment and not a true observer
moving wrt the the source.
If any of them had brains they would do the Driscoll 1 second
of light exeperiment with an at rest observer, then a moving towards
the source observer and then a moving away from the source
observer, then to really kill the lightspeed is constant to all bull****
they would move the source and keep the object in place instead.
1 second of light is all it takes..
And all these morons refuse to try it because it would be against
the religion they have created and worshipped for far too long.

Yet the morons are much cleverer than Einsteiniana' genius Stephen
Hawking who found it suitable to contradict Laplace and Michell by
using the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Another genius of Einsteiniana's, Clifford Will, believes that if
Michell had known Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity, he would
have immediately abandoned his idea that the speed of light varies in
a gravitational field:

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to
the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the
Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular
theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the
speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be
reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell
of course did not know special relativity.)"

Clearly, there is no upper limit on idiocy in Einsteiniana.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 27, 8:17*am, Uncle Ben wrote:

Yes, the particle theory of light can explain the MMX, but it cannot
explain other properties, such as interference. *Photons, like all
subatomic particles have wave-like properties as well as ballistic
properties. *An electron undergoes diffraction and interference, just
as light does.

Actually not true. Electrons and Photons do NOT undergo diffraction
and interference. Both are particles. (or at least interact with
matter as if they are particles) If you take a monochromatic light
source and reduce the intensity more and more eventually you reach a
point where individual photons (or electrons) are striking your
detector. If you place an object in the "beam" (such as a double slit
etc.) you find that the individual particles are not replaced by
diffracted "waves". It is only the statistics of where the particles
land on the detector that are altered. Individual particles are STILL
being detected. It's just that the statistical ensemble of where they
land that has been altered.

Think about it. If you compare the above process to classical wave
theory, you immediately note that this weird process is NOT classical
diffraction or interference! It is only a statistical mimicry of it!
Waves "diffract". These particles are just doing something else
strange.

Until you can explain the wave-like properties, you do not have a
complete theory of the behavior of light or of electrons.

This is exactly correct even down to the words "wave-like"!

Quantum Electrodynamics explains both, including the relativistic
effects.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It has already been shown that certain
effects regarded as "relativistic" are not relativistic at all but
just mathematical miscalculations.

On Aug 24, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.0016v2.pdf

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...Home/index.htm
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Phys...re3_symme2.pdf
"Does c depend on observer motion (frame)?
No 1st order effect had been seen
Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it - let's see how
........................................
But they [Michelson and Morley] saw no fringe shift at all! So c
appears NOT to depend on frame."

Advanced zombie education and some money making at MIT:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/spa...r-fiction.html
"Making someone vanish in New York and appear an instant later in
Tokyo is way beyond current technology but just might be possible in
the far future, physicists told an audience at MIT attending a preview
and panel discussion about the movie Jumper on Wednesday. Actor Hayden
Christensen and director Doug Liman were at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, US, to show scenes from the
upcoming movie and to discuss it with physicists Max Tegmark and
Edward Farhi.....I was expecting the physicists to say that trying to
teleport something as complex as a human being would be totally out of
the question. So I was surprised when they said they wouldn't rule it
out, even if it is way beyond current technology. Physicists have
teleported individual particles of light called photons across
distances of more than 3 kilometres, according to Farhi (below,
right), who heads MIT's Center for Theoretical Physics, and have also
teleported particles of matter such as electrons.....However, if it
were one day possible to teleport a person, down to the quantum state
of each of their atoms, he said the teleported person at point B
should have exactly the same thoughts and memories as the person whose
quantum state was destroyed at point A. The other physicist on the
panel, Max Tegmark (above, left), pointed out another possible way to
transport things quickly across space-time. The laws of physics allow
for the existence of "wormholes", which are distortions in the fabric
of space that can link two distant locations. If you could build and
take such a shortcut, you could go faster than the speed of light and
also time travel, Tegmark said."

Pentcho Valev