PARANOIA AND MASOCHISTIC HUMOUR IN EINSTEIN CULT

"Relativity Revisited"
Authors: Flora Lopis (MIT), Max Tegmark (MIT)

abstract:
Was Einstein wrong? This paper provides a detailed technical review of
Einstein's special and general relativity from an astrophysical
perspective, including the historical development of the theories,
experimental tests, modern applications to black holes, cosmology and
parallel universes, and last but not least, novel ways of expressing
their seven most important equations.

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

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

Pentcho Valev

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track --
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific
formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the
speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic
constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick
scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant
at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in
Science is just around the corner?"

Pentcho Valev

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
Albert Einstein: "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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/ar....html?ref=arts
"This is not a “Da Vinci Code” seminar or a fright-doc about asteroids
hitting the earth. Dr. Magueijo, a theoretical physicist at Imperial
College, London, has for the last decade been an important player in
attempts to explain what some see as inconsistencies in the theory of
relativity.....We’re treated to the story of how he had his Einstein-
was-wrong-about-the-speed-of-light breakthrough while fighting a
hangover, and to the sight of him chuckling while watching what appear
to be fake home movies, with an actor playing the young João."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/ar....html?ref=arts
"This is not a “Da Vinci Code” seminar or a fright-doc about asteroids
hitting the earth. Dr. Magueijo, a theoretical physicist at Imperial
College, London, has for the last decade been an important player in
attempts to explain what some see as inconsistencies in the theory of
relativity.....We’re treated to the story of how he had his Einstein-
was-wrong-about-the-speed-of-light breakthrough while fighting a
hangover, and to the sight of him chuckling while watching what appear
to be fake home movies, with an actor playing the young João."
Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:
ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you and Magueijo make it all too
complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:

"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Andro, you have that post-script on for a
week now and alluded to it for years. Yet AFAICS not a
single one of the Einstein Dingleberries gave the obvious,
glaring answer that stares into the face of these fanatics.
.... All that one of the EDs came up with and then was
parroted by a few others, was them saying:
"But Einstein didn't say that"... despite the fact that
Albert so did.... ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...in_Specrel.htm

Why are these self-aggrandizing EDs not capable of
facing the fact that Einstein **HAD** to say that
because... ... ... ... Now, here is the chance for you EDs
to finish that sentence and show that you really do
UNDERSTAND REL, for if not then you EDs are nothing
more than Sunday school children, infantile BELIEVERS,
who are reciting and interpreting their bible.... worshipping
and following all the **** that it contains and represents...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. ahahaha.... ahahanson