Where Are the Einsteinians?

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin (2005): "Where are the Einsteinians? 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."

Judicious Einsteinians left the sinking ship long time ago but lately even the silliest ones (Brian Greene and Brian Cox for instance) have become suspiciously silent:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. 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. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:43:23 AM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[the usual]

"Einsteinians" don't exist. Simple!

--
Jan

[The Starmaker]

Post by JanPB
[the usual]
"Einsteinians" don't exist. Simple!
--
Jan

The Eisteinians still exist....they just are smart enough Not to get
into the field of Science.


They are doing other things...


what they should be doing..


what Nature intended them to be doing.


Like saving lives instead of building bombs to kill them.


To grab all the scientist in the world
just to build an atomic bomb because you simply
don't like Germans is a waste of natures time.


They rather be playing a bongo, and be a baffoon.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by JanPB
[the usual]
"Einsteinians" don't exist. Simple!
--
Jan

The Eisteinians still exist....they just are smart enough Not to get
into the field of Science.
They are doing other things...
what they should be doing..
what Nature intended them to be doing.
Like saving lives instead of building bombs to kill them.
To grab all the scientist in the world
just to build an atomic bomb because you simply
don't like Germans is a waste of natures time.
They rather be playing a bongo, and be a baffoon.

It's like being drafted in the army, ...your whole life is ruined just because
*somebody* wants to kill Germans.


What do you call it when *somebody* tells Richard Feynman, "You gotta
stop what you're doing with your life and career and go kill some Germans!"?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by JanPB
[the usual]
"Einsteinians" don't exist. Simple!
--
Jan

The Eisteinians still exist....they just are smart enough Not to get
into the field of Science.
They are doing other things...
what they should be doing..
what Nature intended them to be doing.
Like saving lives instead of building bombs to kill them.
To grab all the scientist in the world
just to build an atomic bomb because you simply
don't like Germans is a waste of natures time.
They rather be playing a bongo, and be a baffoon.

It's like being drafted in the army, ...your whole life is ruined just because
*somebody* wants to kill Germans.
What do you call it when *somebody* tells Richard Feynman, "You gotta
stop what you're doing with your life and career and go kill some Germans!"?

Of course, it wasn't the United States of America that drafted Richard Feynman...

it was...


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


today it's called...espionage, when you try to get the U.S. into a war with another country.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by JanPB
[the usual]
"Einsteinians" don't exist. Simple!
--
Jan

The Eisteinians still exist....they just are smart enough Not to get
into the field of Science.
They are doing other things...
what they should be doing..
what Nature intended them to be doing.
Like saving lives instead of building bombs to kill them.
To grab all the scientist in the world
just to build an atomic bomb because you simply
don't like Germans is a waste of natures time.
They rather be playing a bongo, and be a baffoon.

It's like being drafted in the army, ...your whole life is ruined just because
*somebody* wants to kill Germans.
What do you call it when *somebody* tells Richard Feynman, "You gotta
stop what you're doing with your life and career and go kill some Germans!"?

Of course, it wasn't the United States of America that drafted Richard Feynman...
it was...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
today it's called...espionage, when you try to get the U.S. into a war with another country.

This is the blueprint to Einstein's atomic bomb:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first


Einstein was already building an atomic bomb before he wrote the letter..

Here is the lab where he was building it...

"b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being car-

ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories,.."
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

Then, Szilard (einstein's private messenger) told Einstein,

"Huston, we got a problem!"

Einstein said, "What the fuck is the problem?"

Szilard said, "We are going to need more uranium to build dis fuckin bomb of yours!"

Einstein said, "Here some more, I had to bang Madame Curie and her daughter just
to get this stuff!"

Szilard said, "You don't seem to understand, we need tons of this stuff!!!"

Szilard said, "Where are we going to get it from? The U.S. doesn't even have
enough for what we need?"

Einstein said, "Don't worry, I'll think of somnething..."

to be continued

excerpt--from the book:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

[Pentcho Valev]

Walter Isaacson, the Einsteinian who made a lot of money by boosting Einstein mythology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/the-light-beam-rider.html
Walter Isaacson: "Einstein’s first great thought experiment came when he was about 16. He had run away from his school in Germany, which he hated because it emphasized rote learning rather than visual imagination, and enrolled in a Swiss village school based on the educational philosophy of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, who believed in encouraging students to visualize concepts. While there, Einstein tried to picture what it would be like to travel so fast that you caught up with a light beam. If he rode alongside it, he later wrote, “I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest.” In other words, the wave would seem stationary. But this was not possible according to Maxwell’s equations, which describe the motion and oscillation of electromagnetic fields. The conflict between his thought experiment and Maxwell’s equations caused Einstein “psychic tension,” he later recalled, and he wandered around nervously, his palms sweating. Some of us can recall what made our palms sweaty as teenagers, and those thoughts didn’t involve Maxwell’s equations. But that’s because we were probably performing less elevated thought experiments."

John Norton is another Einsteinian extracting career and money from Einstein mythology but he is much more moderate than Walter Isaacson. The following text suggests that the chasing-a-light-beam thought experiment was a hoax Einstein fabricated in 1946:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein_Discover.pdf
John Norton: "Behind Einstein’s Chasing a Light Beam Thought Experiment. These cartoonish impersonations of Einstein’s thought experiment are possible because Einstein’s account of the thought experiment is brief, cryptic and puzzling. First, the events recounted happened in late 1895 or early 1896. Yet Einstein mentions Maxwell’s equations, the key equations of the 19th century electrodynamics. He did not learn them until his university studies around 1898. Einstein’s first report of the thought experiment in his own writings comes in 1946. The thought experiment does not appear in the 1905 special relativity paper, in any later writings prior to 1946 or in correspondence. Second, unlike the luminous clarity of Einstein’s other thought experiments, it is not at all clear how this thought experiment works. In the dominant theories of the late nineteenth century, light propagates as a wave in a medium, the luminiferous ether. It was an entirely uncontroversial result in the theory that, in a frame of reference that moved with the light, the wave would be static."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Perhaps the last seance in Einstein schizophrenic world (like LIGO conspirators, Brian Greene is trying to extract maximum money from the doomed "theory" of Einstein):

https://www.facebook.com/nytimesscience/videos/1068812286532130/
"We are at rehearsal for "Light Falls," a performance with Brian Greene at the 2016 World Science Festival that tells the story of Albert Einstein's discovery of the General Theory of Relativity."

Light Falls: Space, Time, & An Obsession Of Einstein

Other Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship but the problem is that the metastases of the relativistic tumor have irreversibly killed physics and even science as a whole, insofar as the Einsteinian idiocy has become the paradigm of scientific thinking:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Einsteinians crying over dead physics:

Loading Image...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html
Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories
Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

How about you going to see a doctor?

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

Another famous Einsteinian is jumping from the sinking ship:

http://www.scoopnest.com/user/ProfBrianCox/746000830994735104
Brian Cox, Professor of Particle Physics at the University of Manchester and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science, June 23, 2016: "Arrived at a hotel with a modem cable in the drawer. I'm worried Einstein was wrong."

Almost all Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship - the pioneer was John Baez who had been Einsteiniana's Tomas de Torquemada:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. 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. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.scoopnest.com/user/ProfBrianCox/746000830994735104
Brian Cox, Professor of Particle Physics at the University of Manchester
and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science, June 23,
2016: "Arrived at a hotel with a modem cable in the drawer. I'm worried
Einstein was wrong."

???

Post by Pentcho Valev
Almost all Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship - the pioneer
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest!
- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. 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.
[...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Which means he didn't "ship": he's staying with relativity. Puerile
Pentcho doesn't even understand what he posts :-)))

Gary

[Dr. Bob John]

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which means he didn't "ship": he's staying with relativity. Puerile
Pentcho doesn't even understand what he posts )) Gary

You need to polish your tensors, my beloved friend Harnagel. Relativity is
pretty much digitally passe. The future is analog in Divergent Matter.
That's why Tensors are unavoidable here, they are much more than data
structures. They are action, merely objects having both structures and
methods. A lot of mainstream Relativists are as we speak still not
understanding Tensors.

[Dr. Bob John]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.scoopnest.com/user/ProfBrianCox/746000830994735104
Brian Cox, Professor of Particle Physics at the University of
Manchester and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in
Science, June 23, 2016: "Arrived at a hotel with a modem cable in the
drawer. I'm worried Einstein was wrong."

This is absolutely incorrect. Eisntein cannot possibly be wrong. Modern
Science does. tHE rOYAL sOCIETY needs to shift focus. It's all about
increasing profit and class struggle.

[Paul B. Andersen]

[]

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk

[JanPB]

There is no "sinking ship". There are simply ideas of progress in physics, same over
hundreds of years now.

It's not peculiar to relativity in any way although all of Pentcho's posts bend over
backwards to pretend it is so (he is one of the anti-relativity, anti-Einstein crackpots).

--
Jan

[Dr. Bob John]

Post by JanPB
There is no "sinking ship". There are simply ideas of progress in
physics, same over hundreds of years now.

Are you knowing eveerthing in science? Let's suppose you know only a half
of everything. Could be thinking that the sinking Relativity ship is in
the half you dont know in modern science? Dr. Pentcho is very consistent.
Are you? No. Tensors is the only thing you might be able to manipulate.
All the rest seems to be in the other half.

[JanPB]

Post by Dr. Bob John

Post by JanPB
There is no "sinking ship". There are simply ideas of progress in
physics, same over hundreds of years now.

Are you knowing eveerthing in science? Let's suppose you know only a half
of everything. Could be thinking that the sinking Relativity ship is in
the half you dont know in modern science? Dr. Pentcho is very consistent.
Are you? No. Tensors is the only thing you might be able to manipulate.
All the rest seems to be in the other half.

That's not the point. What I'm saying is that Pentcho is singling out a trend to
update some concepts in _relativity_ and presenting this as if this one some sort
of "crisis" in the theory while (conveniently) ignoring the obvious historical precedent:
_all theories_ in physics are subject to exactly the same scrutiny.

You'll notice all of Pentcho's posts are simply anti-relativity crackpottery, they have
nothing to do with real science.

--
Jan