EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
in [Math]
|
Prev: I request of NANA to expunge all Hughes posts where my name isat the bottom Re: An Ultrafinite Set Theory
Next: Boundedness in L^p[0,1]
From: Arindam Banerjee on 12 Jun 2010 03:52 On Jun 12, 2:55 pm, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (6/11/10 2:56 AM), Arindam Banerjee wrote:> Which means, e=mcc is totally ballocks, and thus energy is NOT formed > > by the destruction of mass. > > Solar energy thus is NOT formed from fusion, but from the effects of > > the equation > > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > which throws out the law of conservation of energy > > and explains the reason for the strong magnetic fields of terrerstrial > > bodies like the Sun, Earth and Jupiter as a result of electric > > currents flowing in a cold superconducting metal core. > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > I had a yawn from ear to ear. Did you get your Nobel already, Arindam? I claim kinship with da Vinci, Newton, Maxwell and Tesla - on scientific and technical matters... Did any of them get a Nobel prize? I have no use for institutionalised cretins. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee.
From: Pol Lux on 12 Jun 2010 14:23 On Jun 12, 12:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 2:55 pm, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (6/11/10 2:56 AM), Arindam Banerjee wrote:> Which means, e=mcc is totally ballocks, and thus energy is NOT formed > > > by the destruction of mass. > > > Solar energy thus is NOT formed from fusion, but from the effects of > > > the equation > > > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > > which throws out the law of conservation of energy > > > and explains the reason for the strong magnetic fields of terrerstrial > > > bodies like the Sun, Earth and Jupiter as a result of electric > > > currents flowing in a cold superconducting metal core. > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > I had a yawn from ear to ear. Did you get your Nobel already, Arindam? > > I claim kinship with da Vinci, Newton, Maxwell and Tesla - on > scientific and technical matters... Did any of them get a Nobel > prize? > I have no use for institutionalised cretins. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. Arindam, don't forget your medicine, ok?
From: Pentcho Valev on 13 Jun 2010 01:15 Einsteiniana's marauders in action: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "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.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 Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf 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." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Jun 2010 01:51 On Jun 13, 4:23 am, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 12:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 2:55 pm, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (6/11/10 2:56 AM), Arindam Banerjee wrote:> Which means, e=mcc is totally ballocks, and thus energy is NOT formed > > > > by the destruction of mass. > > > > Solar energy thus is NOT formed from fusion, but from the effects of > > > > the equation > > > > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > > > which throws out the law of conservation of energy > > > > and explains the reason for the strong magnetic fields of terrerstrial > > > > bodies like the Sun, Earth and Jupiter as a result of electric > > > > currents flowing in a cold superconducting metal core. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > I had a yawn from ear to ear. Did you get your Nobel already, Arindam? > > > I claim kinship with da Vinci, Newton, Maxwell and Tesla - on > > scientific and technical matters... Did any of them get a Nobel > > prize? > > I have no use for institutionalised cretins. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee. > > Arindam, don't forget your medicine, ok. I take none, so don't project.
From: Pentcho Valev on 13 Jun 2010 06:48
It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below): http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5683551.ece "Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting Albert Einsteins lifelong search for a theory of everything was probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on his website, www.hawking.org.uk: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. Im now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einsteiniana's marauders in action: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles." Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty space": http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10 "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.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 Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211 Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law Wilfred H. Sorrell "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill- founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing acceleration." Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has irreversibly killed physics: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf 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." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |