MONEY DISTRIBUTION IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT

On Jul 30, 5:48*pm, moky wrote:
You don't need to say anything else. Your place in the pantheon is
guaranteed. Is Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond the founder of your incredible
school of thought?

No. I never heard about him. I just say what is taught at university.

Let us be clear. In your previous message you said:

"Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space."

and now you add that this is taught at university. But this is
incredible news: Einstein criminal cult has got rid of Einstein's 1905
false light postulate and even the respective educational reform has
already been carried out! You also said that Einstein's statement:

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

is wrong, but you did not say whether that is taught at university
too. Do you know any of your Masters teaching that Einstein's
statement is wrong?

Pentcho Valev

Let us be clear. In your previous message you said:

"Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space."

and now you add that this is taught at university. But this is
incredible news: Einstein criminal cult has got rid of Einstein's 1905
false light postulate and even the respective educational reform has
already been carried out! You also said that Einstein's statement:

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

is wrong, but you did not say whether that is taught at university
too. Do you know any of your Masters teaching that Einstein's
statement is wrong?


Why should I answer that, while you still did not answered a simple
question for weeks ?
Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational case. (yes/no)

But ok. I'll be good with you while you are not even fair. I'll answer
your question.

First, nobody says "invariance of light speed is wrong". For a simple
reason : it is experimentally true.
Second, I do not remember someone to have explicitelly said "Even in
case where an experiment would show a variation of light speed, we
would keep the Lorentz group as postulate". I precise : *I do not
remember* !!! It is possible.

Anyone who think about that question reach that conclusion, simply
because in the quantum field theory course, we postulate the Lorentz
covariance at the first line of the course, and we only deduce the
Maxwell equations from the U(1)-gauge theory on the end of the course
(and then, we check that the parameter $c$ is actually the speed of
the photon). Between the Lorentz postulate and the deduction of light
speed, we get some results (that contains the parameter $c$) in some
situations that have nothing to do with light.

So, in the case where light has not an invariant speed, one would keep
the Lorentz assumption, but change something in the construction of
the U(1)-gauge boson.

If you want a comparison, the name "helium" comes from "helios" (sun),
because that element was first discovered in sun. In the same way, $c$
is called "light speed" because the invariance of a speed it was first
observed for light.

If now, we discover that, in fact, the helium in the sun is not really
helium : we was wrong in our experiments about the sun. Okay, in that
case, we'll have to modify a lot of thinks in our models of sun ...
and we would think about changing the name "helium". But, it does not
change that helium exists and has some chemical properties that are
known ON HEARTH, in situations that have nothing to do with the Sun.

In the same way, if light has not an invariant speed, it does not
change that the speed $c$ is invariant, and has tons of properties
that have nothing to do with light.


I really wonder what you will do now to still delay the moment to
answer my question...
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4ee0e291b1760d

Have a good night
Laurent

PS : you did not even read what I wrote.
(I write it here, just in order to quote myself next time)

Why should I answer that, while you still did not answered a simple
question for weeks ?
Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational case. (yes/no)

I'm sorry; I did not posted my entire set of questions that you
escaped by changing the subject.
Here is.

1. Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational case. (yes/no)
2. Do you believe that string theory is compatible with Galilée ?
3. Do noncommutative geometry or quantum loop gravity solve the
problem of describing a theory compatible with general relativity in
the setting of a non continuous space ?

(the third one is a new one )

Laurent

Sir Roger explains the generalization of Divine Albert's Divine Theory
to taxpayers:

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/B...ks_Penrose.htm
Roger Penrose: "Einstein introduced special relativity and there is a
thing called the clock paradox or the twin paradox. It's not really a
paradox but if you have these two people, one who stays still on the
Earth and one goes in a rocket ship to a distant star and comes back
again. You find that the one who's gone off and comes back has
experienced less time back than the one back on Earth. But what you
don't find is that their clocks run at a different rate. You see, the
one who has gone off and come back again, he brings his clock and it
looks slow. Time has not moved as much, but it still ticks at the same
rate as your clock does. But in Wiles' theory, which he introduced as
a generalization of Einstein's theory, the idea was that you could
incorporate electromagnetism as well as gravity. And Wiles' idea was
to say why don't we generalize general relativity so instead of having
clocks, which with the paradox could be slow but is not running slow,
let's suppose it might run slow. In fact, if you go though different
routes in space to come back to the same point, you compare clocks and
you find that one of them is actually running at a different rate from
the other one. And if you introduce that idea, you get a formalism
that incorporates equations just like Maxwell's equations."

Pentcho Valev

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fef864d66723be

On Aug 5, 11:35 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Sir Roger explains the generalization of Divine Albert's Divine Theory
to taxpayers:

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/B...ks_Penrose.htm
Roger Penrose: "Einstein introduced special relativity and there is a
thing called the clock paradox or the twin paradox. It's not really a
paradox but if you have these two people, one who stays still on the
Earth and one goes in a rocket ship to a distant star and comes back
again. You find that the one who's gone off and comes back has
experienced less time back than the one back on Earth. But what you
don't find is that their clocks run at a different rate. You see, the
one who has gone off and come back again, he brings his clock and it
looks slow. Time has not moved as much, but it still ticks at the same
rate as your clock does. But in Wiles' theory, which he introduced as
a generalization of Einstein's theory, the idea was that you could
incorporate electromagnetism as well as gravity. And Wiles' idea was
to say why don't we generalize general relativity so instead of having
clocks, which with the paradox could be slow but is not running slow,
let's suppose it might run slow. In fact, if you go though different
routes in space to come back to the same point, you compare clocks and
you find that one of them is actually running at a different rate from
the other one. And if you introduce that idea, you get a formalism
that incorporates equations just like Maxwell's equations."

Both Sir Roger and Sir Martin have taken millions from taxpayers but
Sir Roger is obviously very silly and does not deserve the money
whereas Sir Marin is not so silly and perhaps not silly at all. I
think Sir Martin has reached some important and even revolutionary
conclusion. For the moment he finds it suitable to present his
revolutionary conclusion in a somewhat mysterious way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...xconnrite.html
Martin Rees: "....in some respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong
signal."

Some day Encyclopaedia Britannica may write: "Einstein had replaced
Newton and Rees was about to replace Einstein but the science called
"Physics" had died and nobody was giving a **** about who replaced
who."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 6, 1:49*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:35 am,PentchoValev wrote:

Sir Roger explains the generalization of Divine Albert's Divine Theory
to taxpayers:

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/B...ks_Penrose.htm
Roger Penrose: "Einstein introduced special relativity and there is a
thing called the clock paradox or the twin paradox. It's not really a
paradox but if you have these two people, one who stays still on the
Earth and one goes in a rocket ship to a distant star and comes back
again. You find that the one who's gone off and comes back has
experienced less time back than the one back on Earth. But what you
don't find is that their clocks run at a different rate. You see, the
one who has gone off and come back again, he brings his clock and it
looks slow. Time has not moved as much, but it still ticks at the same
rate as your clock does. But in Wiles' theory, which he introduced as
a generalization of Einstein's theory, the idea was that you could
incorporate electromagnetism as well as gravity. And Wiles' idea was
to say why don't we generalize general relativity so instead of having
clocks, which with the paradox could be slow but is not running slow,
let's suppose it might run slow. In fact, if you go though different
routes in space to come back to the same point, you compare clocks and
you find that one of them is actually running at a different rate from
the other one. And if you introduce that idea, you get a formalism
that incorporates equations just like Maxwell's equations."

Both Sir Roger and Sir Martin have taken millions from taxpayers but Sir Roger is obviously very silly and does not deserve the money
whereas Sir Marin is not so silly and perhaps not silly at all. I
think Sir Martin has reached some important and even revolutionary
conclusion. For the moment he finds it suitable to present his
revolutionary conclusion in a somewhat mysterious way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...xconnrite.html
Martin Rees: "....in some respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong
signal."

Some day Encyclopaedia Britannica may write: "Einstein had replaced
Newton and Rees was about to replace Einstein but the science called
"Physics" had died and nobody was giving a **** about who replaced
who."

Still Sir Roger should be given more money than Sir Martin because Sir
Roger is the author of the most idiotic camouflage ever devised by
Einsteiniana:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...R/penrose.html
"People sometimes argue over whether the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction is "real" or not. That's a topic for another FAQ entry,
but here's a short answer: the contraction can be measured, but the
measurement is frame dependent. Whether that makes it "real" or not
has more to do with your choice of words than the physics. Here we ask
a subtly different question. If you take a snapshot of a rapidly
moving object, will it look flattened when you develop the film? What
is the difference between measuring and photographing? Isn't seeing
believing? Not always! When you take a snapshot, you capture the
light rays that hit the film at one instant (in the reference frame of
the film). These rays may have left the object at different instants;
if the object is moving with respect to the film, then the photograph
may give a distorted picture. (Strictly speaking, snapshots aren't
instantaneous, but we're idealizing.) Oddly enough, though Einstein
published his famous relativity paper in 1905, and Fitzgerald proposed
his contraction several years earlier, no one seems to have asked this
question until the late '50s. Then Roger Penrose and James Terrell
independently discovered that the object will not appear flattened."

On the other hand, textbooks continue to teach that the object WILL
appear flattened:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 11:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
p. 42, Problem 11.7: "Seeing behind the stick"

So the existence of the combination "Sir Roger plus textbooks"
guarantees that rationality in Einstein zombie world is destroyed
IRREVERSIBLY.

Pentcho Valev