CLIMATE-GATE, RELATIVITY-GATE, ENTROPY-GATE
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Some history on the Series concept #324 should be #3 ; Correcting Math
Next: history of Series and why Peano did not use Series for Successor #325 ; Correcting Math
From: Pentcho Valev on 4 Feb 2010 05:02 RELATIVITY-GATE: Joseph Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". Nowadays Einsteinians believe that, as they start moving against waves, the wavelength decreases and the speed of the wave remains constant relative to them (so that they can safely sing "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)." A lie that has become the truth CAN be challenged in Einsteiniana but in the end it should be replaced by another lie (the genuine truth should remain buried forever): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation Stephan J. G. Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering The University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies Email: Stephan.Gift(a)sta.uwi.edu "Light speed variation relative to a moving observer occurring according to classical velocity composition is demonstrated using Doppler Shift. This directly contradicts the light speed invariance postulate of special relativity and confirms ether drift." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 8 Feb 2010 11:22 W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 3: "For vewed sub specie eternitatis scientists (even physical scientists) are a fickle lot. The history of science is a tale of multifarious shiftings of allegiance from theory to theory." Scientists that are "a fickle lot" kill science much more efficiently than orthodox gatekeepers in science. Nowadays they appropriate and in the end fatally distort any sound heretical idea: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article7018438.ece Lord John Krebs, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford: "An Oxford colleague, one of the world's top climate scientists, made the same point last week when he said to me: "It's odd that people talk about 'climate sceptics' as though they are a special category. All of us in the climate science community are climate sceptics." http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538 Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? 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?" http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/13/quantum-challenge-usd-professor/ "Clean-cut and middle-aged, a tenured professor at a conservative Catholic university, Sheehan is hardly a rebel. Yet for years, he and a few other physicists have been pressing peers to re-examine the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most celebrated and cherished tenets of physics. (...) But Sheehan suggests big things are possible if even the tiniest of violations can be proven, and ultimately exploited in an economically feasible way. For example, it might become possible to convert ambient heat into an infinite energy source, he said." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Feb 2010 04:01 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 wrote: COSMOLOGY-GATE: http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a BILLION DOLLARS, are at the design concept stage." http://cosmologystatement.org/ An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist." http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci "Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non- expanding one." 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." http://www.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autres/dp/2360120026 "Le big bang n'est pas une théorie comme les autres. Ce n'est d'ailleurs pas une théorie physique au sens propre du terme, mais un scénario cosmologique issu des équations de la relativité générale. Il est le modèle qui s'ajuste le mieux aux observations actuelles, mais à quel prix ? Il nous livre un Univers composé à 96 % de matière et d'énergie noires inconnues. C'est donc un euphémisme que de dire que le big bang semble poser autant - sinon plus - de questions qu'il n'en résout. En ce sens, le big bang apparaît davantage comme une paramétrisation de notre ignorance plutôt que comme une modélisation d'un phénomène. Pourtant, le succès du big bang et l'adhésion qu'il suscite, tant dans la sphère scientifique que dans la sphère médiatique, ne se démentent pas. Surmédiatisé, son statut dépasse celui de modèle théorique, et la simple évocation de son nom suffit pour justifier des opérations de marketing scientifique ou rejeter des cosmologies alternatives. Pour éclaircir les problématiques - scientifiques, médiatiques, économiques ou politiques - liées à la cosmologie d'aujourd'hui, il est nécessaire de multiplier les angles de vue et de distinguer, selon leur registre, les différents enjeux. C'est le but que se sont fixés les auteurs de cet ouvrage. Pour chaque point soulevé, leurs regards croisés contribuent à favoriser l'émergence citoyenne d'un esprit éclairé et critique." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html Suppression of Science Within Science by Henry Bauer "I wasn't as surprised as many others were, when it was revealed that climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private e-mails how to keep important data from public view lest it shake public belief in the dogma that human activities are contributing significantly to global warming. (...) Take cosmology and the Big-Bang theory of the origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected, senior American observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs of quasars that are physically close together nevertheless have very different redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are not Doppler effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative motion away from us. That means the universe-expansion calculations have to be revised. It may not have started as a Big Bang! That's just the sort of major potential discovery that scientists are always hoping for, isn't it? Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more telescope time to continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp emigrated to Germany to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. But Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior astronomers from 10 countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a letter to Nature pointing out that Big Bang theory: *relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . . things . . . never observed; *that alternative theories can also explain all the basic phenomena of the cosmos *and yet virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology go to Big-Bang studies. Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science all the time, arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that Nature refused to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet, and by now hundreds of additional signatures have been added... (...) Then there's that most abstract of fundamental sciences, theoretical physics. The problem has long been, How to unify relativity and quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the world as made up of discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as governed by continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the mid-1970s, there has been no real progress. Everyone has been working on so-called "string theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions and remains a hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless, theoretical physicists who want to look at other approaches can't find jobs, can't get grants, can't get published. (...) You begin to wonder, don't you, how many other cases there could be in science, where a single theory has somehow captured all the resources? And where competent scientists who want to try something different are not only blocked but personally insulted?" Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
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 »... 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 |