A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GROUNDBREAKING EINSTEINIANS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old November 16th 13, 08:12 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GROUNDBREAKING EINSTEINIANS

http://ttbook.org/book/lee-smolin-cr...oblems-physics
"Groundbreaking theoretical physicist Lee Smolin weighs in on creative problem solving in physics. Some advice that has served him? Start fresh every ten years."

Ten years ago Groundbreaking Smolin launched a fierce attack against Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Recently Groundbreaking Smolin started fresh - now he is fiercely attacking a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - Einstein's idiotic concept of time - but is wholeheartedly defending the postulate itself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"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.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ.. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

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.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

In ten years Groundbreaking Smolin will start fresh again and launch a fierce attack against Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate while wholeheartedly defending its consequence, Einstein's idiotic concept of time.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HOW BLATANTLY EINSTEINIANS CAN LIE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 March 16th 10 02:49 PM
EINSTEINIANS AND OTHER PHYSICISTS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 January 14th 09 02:20 PM
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 28 November 16th 08 02:52 AM
DESPERATE EINSTEINIANS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 4th 08 02:17 AM
Mars Foundation Completes Groundbreaking Mars Settlement Stud [email protected] News 0 July 25th 05 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.