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: 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
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 |