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: Pentcho Valev on 11 Jun 2010 02:36 High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: 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.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." 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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to maraud without restrictions. What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up." 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." 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)." 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 11 Jun 2010 05:56 On Jun 11, 4:36 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905 > light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's > emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession > announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: 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 > > 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.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts > "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws > thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of > relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor > Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such > laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now > also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the > rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are > actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, > Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as > even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is > Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - > 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf > John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion > of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of > light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." > > http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm > Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of > intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong > within two years of publishing it." > > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi.... > 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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/... > Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la > théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement > oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de > découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines > historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, > Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les > principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces > questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, > l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème > est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que > le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." > > Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding > dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the > greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The > length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum > opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's > Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to > maraud without restrictions. > > What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as > impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's > miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it > still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine > Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, > Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in > opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach > that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: > > http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html > John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to > explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics > into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which > tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into > account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but > until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, > our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I > realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in > these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions > to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the > right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight > less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html > John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies > and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is > expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is > speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, > since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can > possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity > says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have > pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times > its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's > gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the > expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure > makes the expansion tend to speed up." > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni... > "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." > > 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)." > > 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." > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Jun 2010 10:10 Einsteinians are not allowed to explicitly reject Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (their whole world would collapse) but they can safely reject one of its idiotic consequences stating that the passage of time is an illusion (see also John Norton's confessions below): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion From the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine: "We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it. Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now - they are like a map without the "you are here" symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see "That Mysterious Flow," by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past." Pentcho Valev wrote: High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable: 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.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." 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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to maraud without restrictions. What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly, Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up." 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." 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)." 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jun 2010 00:53 A persistent marauder: http://www.rfdesignline.com/news/225600027 "Ronald Mallett, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Connecticut, gave a mind-bending keynote speech on the physics of time travel to an enthralled audience at the Embedded Systems Conference here Tuesday morning, describing how black holes, blue giant stars, and worm holes (tunnels that connect the mouths of black holes) - some of the strangest things in the Universe - illustrate (at least in theory) the potential for time travel some day. And that day, Mallett claimed, is not so far in the future as one might think. (...) Author of "Time Traveler: A Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality," Mallett explained how the trauma of his father's unexpected death when he was just ten and H.G. Well's book The Time Machine set him on a mission to travel back in time and save his father's life. (...) How weird it must have been, he mused, for 19th century scientists to discover through their experiments that the speed of light was constant. "The only way that speed of light can stay the same is that something else has to be altered. That something else is time - it has to slow down, as experiments have shown," he said." How can a marauder become "a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Connecticut"? Peter Hayes gives part of the answer: 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 prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pollux on 12 Jun 2010 00:55
(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? |