SUICIDAL PHYSICS

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
"ABC News spoke to author, astrophysicist, cosmologist and basically one of the smartest men on the planet, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson... (...) ABC: Is time travel possible? Dr. Tyson: We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
"In this video lecture, Neil deGrasse Tyson, America's most noted astrophysicist, describes the Twins Paradox, a hypothetical scenario in which high-speed travel slows down the aging of one twin, while the other twin ages at a normal rate."

So physics disfigured the Newtonian universal time, but was that a suicidal act? Yes it was:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back?"

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

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..."

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-mason...an/snake01.jpg

Pentcho Valev

As shown in the picture below, according to Einstein's relativity, a single MOVING clock shows less time elapsed than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY clock shows less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that moving clocks run both slower and faster than stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his stationary brother.

We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

The picture has been taken from this site:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html

Let us now imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein almost admitting that he has killed physics by basing his theory on the field concept:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Ev.../9780671201562
Albert Einstein (1938): "The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory according to which the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, 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

Einsteinians mercilessly killed physics but still find it profitable to mourn it from time to time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.lesechos.fr/21/01/2004/Le...seduisante.htm
E. Klein: "Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue."

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

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/22/why-converge/
"My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he [Neil Turok] says."

http://www.nature.com/news/scientifi...hysics-1.16535
George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/op...f-physics.html
Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/fe...tific-theories
Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "I don't think though that this will have any effect on multiverse mania and its use as an excuse for the failure of string theory unification. It seems to me that we're now ten years down the road from the point when discussion revolved around actual models and people thought maybe they could calculate something. As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

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

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians killed physics and are now leaving the sinking ship:

http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-conte...iam-andiam.jpg

Yet there is another money-spinner - Einsteinians are going to destroy and plunder life sciences:

http://futureoflife.org/who
Max Tegmark's Future of Life Institute

Pentcho Valev

Max Tegmark will no longer sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". Physics is dead, brothers Einsteinians are leaving it, and Max Tegmark has decided to become a savior of mankind:

https://occupycorporatism.com/home/m...killer-robots/
"Meet the Man Who Might Save Humanity From Killer Robots. Elon Musk has given $10 million to Max Tegmark's Future of Life Institute (FLI) to investigate the viable risk that artificial intelligence will become sentient killers. (...) Tegmark is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the brains behind that "ultimate ensemble theory of everything" which supposes that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically" - with no free parameters. This theory holds that should a structure be complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), those SASs would be subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physical "real" world as is explained in depth in Tegmark's book, "Our Mathematical Universe". Incorporating this theory into the investigation into artificial intelligence's propensity toward sentience, Tegmark and FLI have opened the project to scientists researching the benefits of robotic intelligence."

The good old days:

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

Pentcho Valev