CLIMATE-GATE, RELATIVITY-GATE, ENTROPY-GATE
in [Math]
|
From: spudnik on 12 Feb 2010 12:42 who says, the redshift canonically is a doppler effect?... oh, yeah; the Einsteinmaniacs! like, I really have to read *less* of this ****. > read more ยป... http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 15 Feb 2010 03:59 Two valuable (incompatible) contributions to the COSMOLOGY-GATE: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "We can now return to the red shift that figures in the Hubble expansion and give a more precise account of its origin. It is not a traditional Doppler shift, but something more subtle. A distant galaxy emits light towards us. The light waves with their crests are carried by space towards us. For a distant galaxy, it can take a very long time for the light to reach us. During that time, the cosmic expansion of space proceeds. The effect is that the waves of the light signal get stretched with space. So the wavelength of the light increases and its frequency decreases. It becomes red shifted." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this, we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue- shifted." The scientific community sees nothing idiotic in any procrusteanization of the wavelength allowing the speed of light to appear constant. The reason: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ "DIVINE EINSTEIN" (No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o- ohr!) http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm Pentcho Valev wrote: The essence of COSMOLOGY-GATE: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/wiggles-on-the-dark-side-20100205-nh2d.html "The wavelength of light from a galaxy that is accelerating away from our Milky Way is "stretched" so the light is seen as "shifted" towards the red part of the spectrum." The above fraud is a relatively new version of a classical fraud designed to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate: in order for the speed of light to appear constant, the wavelength should change in an idiotic way (it is granted that the scientific community invariably sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"): http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again, this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: spudnik on 15 Feb 2010 22:12 if y'can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan! > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind... > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 15 Feb 2010 22:30 yeah, massless rocks o'light, built a hugely impenetrable wall around EinsteinoNewtonianism! thus: the photographic record that I saw, in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania, seemed to show quite an effect, I must say; not that the usual interpretation is correct, though. Nude Scientist said: > > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- > > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned --Another Flower for Einstein: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Pentcho Valev on 16 Feb 2010 05:03
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud: "By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let's get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering." Relativitygate's John Norton Confesses to Relativity Fraud: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." Entropygate's Jos Uffink Confesses to Entropy Fraud: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest- Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING." Cosmologygate's Leonard Susskind Confesses to Cosmology Fraud: http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484 "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |