CLIMATE-GATE, RELATIVITY-GATE, ENTROPY-GATE
in [Math]
|
From: spudnik on 16 Feb 2010 12:54 your rotating list of anti-einsteinmania is getting rather repeatative, dood. thus: Michelson-Morley not null; just say, Duh! thus: most of Russell;'s lagubrious paradoxes are perilinguistic, lacking the element (or variable) of time; are they not? thus: of course, there is a base-one; what is it's digital counter, by induction on base-ten? in factorial base, it has n digits; eh? > In base 1, the factorial n! has n! digits. > [OK I realize there's no "base 1"...] thus: sea-level is not rising, globally -- http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf -- and warming is mostly equatorial. however, there is massive loss of soil, and that might change *relative* sea- level, in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea! thus quoth: Lets take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago), when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole. Clearly, polar bears have adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. (This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and the other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar bear survived the last Interglacial because it did not have computer climate models that said polar bears should not have survived!) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html thus: the photographic record that I saw, in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania, seemed to show quite a "bending" 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 Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Feb 2010 02:02 CLIMATE-GATE: http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m2d18-UN-climate-chief-resigns-amid-Climategate-scandal "As the Climategate scandal continues to broaden and as more information is disclosed pointing to a stunning consortium of fraud, false information, and shoddy science, it is becoming clear that laws have been broken and that many nations around the world have lost billions of dollars as a result." How about the billions lost as a result of the centennial RELATIVITY- GATE? The latest relativity fraud: http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/19/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/ "This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part- in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though this work was done while he was at the University of California Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field; in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will tick." The formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon. On seeing it, clever Einsteinians get petrified and stop claiming that clocks "tick more slowly" for a while. The reason is that, according to this formula, the experimentally confirmed frequency shift f'=f(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential, is consistent with a variation of the speed of light obeying the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911. Clever Einsteinians know that, if the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field, clocks simply cannot "tick more slowly". Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just physically absurd. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: spudnik on 20 Feb 2010 16:22 if you reply to me, you will be removed by the grammarians! > Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more > slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational > field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L > should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the > equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just > physically absurd. --Another Flower for Einstein: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny, Ricw & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Pentcho Valev on 21 Feb 2010 05:00 http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/scientists-obtain-highly-accurate-relativity-measurements.ars "For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame, and time passed more slowly there." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed." Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of the potential difference) but experience virtually the same gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland, identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause. Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as Banesh Hoffmann have moments of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that gravitational time dilation simply does not exist; rather, something "befalls light signals [their speed changes] as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation": http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." Pentcho Valev wrote: CLIMATE-GATE: http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m2d18-UN-climate-chief-resigns-amid-Climategate-scandal "As the Climategate scandal continues to broaden and as more information is disclosed pointing to a stunning consortium of fraud, false information, and shoddy science, it is becoming clear that laws have been broken and that many nations around the world have lost billions of dollars as a result." How about the billions lost as a result of the centennial RELATIVITY- GATE? The latest relativity fraud: http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/19/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/ "This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part- in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though this work was done while he was at the University of California Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field; in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will tick." The formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon. On seeing it, clever Einsteinians get petrified and stop claiming that clocks "tick more slowly" for a while. The reason is that, according to this formula, the experimentally confirmed frequency shift f'=f(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential, is consistent with a variation of the speed of light obeying the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911. Clever Einsteinians know that, if the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field, clocks simply cannot "tick more slowly". Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just physically absurd. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Mar 2010 03:29
COLLIDER-GATE: http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/features/features/671-could-it-be-that-the-large-hadron-collider-is-being-clock-blocked "The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created, or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future, when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote, "for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion"." http://consideronline.org/2010/03/10/the-large-hadron-collider-is-still-a-fantastic-waste-of-money/ "The Large Hadron Collider Is Still a Fantastic Waste of Money...."The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a year to address design issues, according to an LHC director. Dr Steve Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its full potential for two years." Basically, the LHC is still probably an egregiously bad investment. Dr. Myers does caution that the LHC is "its own prototype," and while its shutdowns get huge press coverage, "you don't hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other areas that have gone incredibly well." Fair enough. But these shutdowns are still hugely expensive, and they push any benefits the LHC may yield to humankind back into an increasingly distant future. The scientists at CERN have yet to convince me that the LHC is a good idea." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/print.aspx?postid=542737 "Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud. The Climategate e- mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it's curious so few scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the same sentence lately - and, frankly, it's about time. After all, what's astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers." http://exilestreet.com/?p=1337 "In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced to recant his lifes work. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun threatened the church establishment's doctrine. Galileo was worse than right - he was inconvenient. Since his trial, scientists have mythologized him as their secular saint. How times have changed: With the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of inquisitors - suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming clergy." http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616 "Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them. Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker. The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." 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." ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf "From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6 of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854 (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |