THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH?
in [Math]
|
Prev: speed of light is likely to be more accurately that of 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/s; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #185; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Musatov shows his writing chops: Prolog to new novel, sneek peek!
From: Kevin on 26 Jun 2010 15:12 On Jun 21, 4:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_physics > The Crisis in Physics - and Its Cause > By David Harriman Theoretical Physics can't go very far if it is lacking in passion... The sophistication of our society detracts from the incentive to advance.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 27 Jun 2010 07:06 On Jun 27, 5:12 am, Kevin <barry196...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 4:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_physics > > The Crisis in Physics - and Its Cause > > By David Harriman > > Theoretical Physics can't go very far if it is lacking in passion... > The sophistication of our society detracts from the incentive to > advance. Einsteinian physics is pure nonsense, and the fundamental laws or physics need revision. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Pentcho Valev on 27 Jun 2010 07:31 Karl Popper used to teach that theories can be refuted by a single experiment. Einsteinians agree with Popper but, on the other hand, they have discovered that experiments confirming Newton's emission theory of light, a theory which contradicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate by stating that the speed of light is VARIABLE, gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2 John Norton (a famour Einsteinian): "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts (a famous Einsteinian): "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Also, Einsteinians find it tedious to constantly repeat that experiments confirm both Newton's emission theory of light and Divine Albert's Divine Theory. So they omit Newton's emission theory of light and constantly repeat that experiments gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas LATER WRITERS ALMOST UNIVERSALLY USE IT AS SUPPORT FOR THE LIGHT POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY......The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States) at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66 Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042105274.html "Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering. Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it." http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1 "Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example, shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of some energy. But the effect is tiny in earth's modest gravity. In 1960 Robert Pound and Glen Rebka of Harvard University finally succeed in testing this crucial prediction, and they reported their results in PRL. Today the so-called gravitational redshift is essential for understanding the cosmos and operating the Global Positioning System (GPS)." http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html "In 1960, Robert V. Pound and Glen A. Rebka demonstrated that a beam of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it climbed out of Earth's gravity and up an elevator shaft in the Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift predicted by Einstein's Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift detected came within ten percent of the computed value. Quite a feat!" Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Don Stockbauer on 2 Jul 2010 10:04
On Jul 2, 12:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The three classical tests of general relativity (Einsteinians know no > limits): > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727671.900-general-relativity... > Pedro Ferreira in NEW SCIENTIST, 30 June 2010: "Using general > relativity, Einstein (snip) THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH? Er - any room for the excluded middle? |