Brian Greene Tests Einstein Zombie World

Sometimes hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult want to know if
Einstein zombie world would still accept any idiocy they produce or,
rather, some form of criticism has imperceptibly emerged. So they say
something equivalent to "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length" and wait for the reaction: if the wind brings, from all
universities in the world, the sounds of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", hypnotists sleep
well and continue to safely distribute large amounts of taxpayers'
money among themselves. So Brian Greene, the Showman of Einstein
criminal cult, tested Einstein zombie world in 2004, just before 2005,
the Big Money Year:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63
Brian Greene: "As we pass each other in the street, this rotation is
imperceptibly tiny; that's why common experience fails to reveal the
discrepancy between our respective senses of past, present and future.
But just as a tiny angular shift will cause a rocket to miss a distant
target by a large margin, the tiny angular shift between our notions
of now results in a significant time discrepancy if our separation in
space is substantial. If instead of being next to me, you were 10
light years away (and moving at about 9.5 miles an hour), what you
consider to have happened just now on earth would include events that
I'd experienced about four seconds later or earlier (depending on
whether your motion was toward or away from earth). If you were 10
billion light years away, the time discrepancy would jump to about 141
years."

It is not clear however what a more recent test would show.

Pentcho Valev

Recently Brian Greene did test Einstein zombie world again but in a
different way:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/eins...n07_index.html
BRIAN GREENE: "When it comes to Albert Einstein, his contributions are
of such incredible magnitude that to get inside his head, and even for
a moment to get a feel for what it would be like to see the world with
such clarity and such insight, would be amazing. But if I was going to
ask him one question, I would probably stick to one a little bit more
down to earth, which is—he famously said that when it came to the
general theory of relativity, in some sense he wasn't waiting for the
data to show whether it was right or wrong; the theory was so
beautiful that it just had to be right. And when the data came in and
confirmed it, he claimed he wasn't even surprised, he in fact famously
said that had the data turned out differently, he would have been
sorry for the [dear lord?] because the theory was correct. That's how
much faith he had in theory. So the question I have is, we, many of
us, are working on Einstein's legacy in a sense, which is trying to
find the unified theory that he looked for such a long time and never
found, and we've been pursuing an approach called super string theory
for many years now. And it is a completely theoretical undertaking. It
is completely mathematical. It has yet to make contact with
experimental data. I would like to ask Einstein what he would think of
this approach to unification. Does he see the same kind of beauty, the
same kind of elegance, the same kind of powerful incisive ideas in
this framework to give him the confidence that he had in the general
theory of relativity? It would be great to have a response from him in
that regard, because we don't know when we're going to make contact
with experimental data. I think most of us in the field absolutely
will never have faith that this approach is right until we do make
contact with data, but it would be great to have the insight of the
master as to whether he feels that this smells right. That it is going
in the right direction. Many of us think that it is, but it would be
great to have his insight on that question as well."

So Brian Greene challenges Einstein zombie world: General relativity
is so beautiful that no experiment can refute it. How is that
possible? No answer from Einstein zombie world, the wind is still
bringing the sounds of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity", and Brian Greene is happy:
Einsteiniana, the money-spinner, is OK. Yet an answer does exist and
it is simple: General relativity is an INCONSISTENCY and therefore can
satisfy any experiment:

W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds
for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal
of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is
inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the
following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of
the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means
that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows.
And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’
will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it
follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p
or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory
we have to admit everything."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

Recently Brian Greene did test Einstein zombie world again but in a
different way:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/eins...n07_index.html
BRIAN GREENE: "When it comes to Albert Einstein, his contributions are
of such incredible magnitude that to get inside his head, and even for
a moment to get a feel for what it would be like to see the world with
such clarity and such insight, would be amazing. But if I was going to
ask him one question, I would probably stick to one a little bit more
down to earth, which is—he famously said that when it came to the
general theory of relativity, in some sense he wasn't waiting for the
data to show whether it was right or wrong; the theory was so
beautiful that it just had to be right. And when the data came in and
confirmed it, he claimed he wasn't even surprised, he in fact famously
said that had the data turned out differently, he would have been
sorry for the [dear lord?] because the theory was correct. That's how
much faith he had in theory. So the question I have is, we, many of
us, are working on Einstein's legacy in a sense, which is trying to
find the unified theory that he looked for such a long time and never
found, and we've been pursuing an approach called super string theory
for many years now. And it is a completely theoretical undertaking. It
is completely mathematical. It has yet to make contact with
experimental data. I would like to ask Einstein what he would think of
this approach to unification. Does he see the same kind of beauty, the
same kind of elegance, the same kind of powerful incisive ideas in
this framework to give him the confidence that he had in the general
theory of relativity? It would be great to have a response from him in
that regard, because we don't know when we're going to make contact
with experimental data. I think most of us in the field absolutely
will never have faith that this approach is right until we do make
contact with data, but it would be great to have the insight of the
master as to whether he feels that this smells right. That it is going
in the right direction. Many of us think that it is, but it would be
great to have his insight on that question as well."

So Brian Greene challenges Einstein zombie world: General relativity
is so beautiful that no experiment can refute it. How is that
possible?

You really a retard, you know that?
"Pentcho makes a synopsis":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...oSynopsis.html

Let's add this to the top of the list of differences ignored by Pentcho
Valev.... between
- a personal humorous musing and a common dogma,
- children's books and inspired essays,
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion

Thank you Pentcho.

Dirk Vdm