From: Pentcho Valev on 14 Jan 2010 10:30 Einsteiniana's superluminal idiocy: http://www.physorg.com/news182671620.html "...the group velocity of the pulse can increase to a velocity greater than any of the waves within the pulse, but the energy of the pulse still travels at the speed of light, which means information is transmitted in accordance with Einstein's theory. (...) The faster- than-light pulses do not violate Einstein's theory because technically the pulse carries no information. The effect has been known in laboratory experiments, but these observations were the first in an astrophysical context." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 28 Jan 2010 02:36 Unlimited madness in Einsteiniana: http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/features/features/671-could-it-be-that-the-large-hadron-collider-is-being-clock-blocked "The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created, or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future, when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote, "for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion"." In Einsteiniana, time is an illusion because Divine Albert said so (and because this follows from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Yet clever Einsteinians make career and money by teaching that time is not an illusion: 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: spudnik on 29 Jan 2010 14:22 I would say that the LHC or its omnipotent caretakeers had to take a few pages out of its flip-book -- just rip them right out & shred, like the Royal Astronomer would try to do to yours, if you were to question the Reality Bumpersticker. > 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. --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 30 Jan 2010 01:30 More (unlimited) madness in Einsteiniana: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html "Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti- gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to call this unidentified force "dark energy". However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and were looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. (...) Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating." http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/01/29/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4b635a6fb7f4a650056500.txt "Dr. Ronald Mallett, physics professor at the University of Connecticut and author of the book, "Time Traveler: A Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality," speaks to Penn State Abington student Andrew Menezes after Mallett's lecture on time travel Thursday at the Abington campus. (...) "What I teach students is the importance of realizing that the possibility of time travel rests on solid physics based on the work of [Albert] Einstein," said Mallett, a theoretical physics professor at the University of Connecticut, in an interview before the lecture. "Einstein is the basis of my work, and that is extremely important. His special theory of relativity is now about 105 years old. The thing is, right in that theory is the possibility of time travel into the future." What has become a lifelong journey to prove the real possibility of time travel actually started when Mallett was a boy after the devastating and sudden death of his father, Boyd, at age 33. It was then that he got the idea to build a time machine so that he could go back, change history by warning his father to improve his lifestyle and thus prevent the fatal heart attack. "He was the center of my life. His death completely turned my life inside out," said Mallett." Pentcho Valev wrote: Unlimited madness in Einsteiniana: http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/features/features/671-could-it-be-that-the-large-hadron-collider-is-being-clock-blocked "The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created, or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future, when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote, "for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion"." In Einsteiniana, time is an illusion because Divine Albert said so (and because this follows from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Yet clever Einsteinians make career and money by teaching that time is not an illusion: 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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Peter Webb on 30 Jan 2010 02:06 So you don't believe that SR is correct ? Where has it *ever* been shown to be wrong ?
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: is this theory consistent? Next: Russel Prawitz Operator, the interesting Case |