Discussion:
Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late?
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-16 12:51:28 UTC
Permalink
A couple of weeks ago I wrote this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488614993/last-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein

Now Phys.Org uses almost the same title:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein

Perhaps it is too late. Einstein's ship is sinking but theoretical physics as a whole is going with it, and there may be no resurrection.

The idiocy called "Relativity" started with Einstein plagiarizing the principle of the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

But there was an awful problem. The constancy of the speed of light as established by the Lorentz equations was (and still is) an obvious nonsense:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

In the end Einstein did introduce the nonsense (he had no conscience) by advancing his 1905 false second ("light") postulate, but a new awful problem emerged. All VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were absurd (not even wrong) - if Einstein had honestly derived them in 1905, his paper would not have been published.

Einstein "solved" the second awful problem by circumventing valid arguments and offering an INVALID one. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion that "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Actually the conclusion

"The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates (the argument is invalid). The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation), being valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, entail absurdity (not even wrongness). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years were passing for the stationary system:

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")."

The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic magic was born. The gullible world immediately fell in love with the idiocy:

Loading Image...

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2017-03-16 18:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488614993/last-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein
As usual, your anti-Einstein agenda and your ignorance blinds you to the
context. Also, you constantly mistake pop-sci articles for the real thing.

The context is best understood by making the following simple observation:
all this "running away from Einstein" is exactly the same way as "running
away from Maxwell" or "running away from Newton" or "running away from
Schroedinger"(*).

In other words - Albert Einstein and his theory that makes you so
livid is not going away, ever. Stop wasting your time on this idiotic
crusade.

(*) etc. etc., you get the idea.

--
Jan
m***@wp.pl
2017-03-16 18:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
In other words - Albert Einstein and his theory that makes you so
livid is not going away, ever.
Poor idiot said!!! End of topic.
Idimi Higame
2017-03-16 18:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
The context is best understood by making the following simple
observation: all this "running away from Einstein" is exactly the same
You are right. Yet is not too late. Let them stay there a bit longer.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
2017-03-16 19:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488614993/last-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein
As usual, your anti-Einstein agenda and your ignorance blinds you to the
context. Also, you constantly mistake pop-sci articles for the real thing.
all this "running away from Einstein" is exactly the same way as "running
away from Maxwell" or "running away from Newton" or "running away from
Schroedinger"(*).
In other words - Albert Einstein and his theory that makes you so
livid is not going away, ever. Stop wasting your time on this idiotic
crusade.
(*) etc. etc., you get the idea.
My prediction: When the next major leap in the development of physics occurs,
the required paradigm shifts will be so bizarre that a new breed of "anti-next
generation" crackpots will emerge who will be nostalgic for the simplicity and
intuitiveness of relativity...
JanPB
2017-03-16 19:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Post by JanPB
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488614993/last-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein
As usual, your anti-Einstein agenda and your ignorance blinds you to the
context. Also, you constantly mistake pop-sci articles for the real thing.
all this "running away from Einstein" is exactly the same way as "running
away from Maxwell" or "running away from Newton" or "running away from
Schroedinger"(*).
In other words - Albert Einstein and his theory that makes you so
livid is not going away, ever. Stop wasting your time on this idiotic
crusade.
(*) etc. etc., you get the idea.
My prediction: When the next major leap in the development of physics occurs,
the required paradigm shifts will be so bizarre that a new breed of "anti-next
generation" crackpots will emerge who will be nostalgic for the simplicity and
intuitiveness of relativity...
Yes. It's virtually certain by now that any new theory will have to
include space and time as objects _derived_ from more fundamental
concepts. These new concepts will very likely have to include some sort
of mathematical model for "consciousness" (not in the biological sense,
of course, but something heavily abstracted and yet rather suggestive,
in a process analogous to, say, the one used in the Conway-Kochen
theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem )

--
Jan
Idimi Higame
2017-03-17 00:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Yes. It's virtually certain by now that any new theory will have to
include space and time as objects _derived_ from more fundamental
concepts. These new concepts will very likely have to include some sort
of mathematical model for "consciousness" (not in the biological sense,
of course, but something heavily abstracted and yet rather suggestive,
in a process analogous to, say, the one used in the Conway-Kochen
theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem )
"Others have argued that the indeterminism that Conway and Kochen claim to
have established was already assumed in the premises of their proof.[6]"

Circularity one more time, here we go.
JanPB
2017-03-17 01:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Idimi Higame
Post by JanPB
Yes. It's virtually certain by now that any new theory will have to
include space and time as objects _derived_ from more fundamental
concepts. These new concepts will very likely have to include some sort
of mathematical model for "consciousness" (not in the biological sense,
of course, but something heavily abstracted and yet rather suggestive,
in a process analogous to, say, the one used in the Conway-Kochen
theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem )
"Others have argued that the indeterminism that Conway and Kochen claim to
have established was already assumed in the premises of their proof.[6]"
Circularity one more time, here we go.
This is irrelevant.

--
Jan
Idimi Higame
2017-03-18 15:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Idimi Higame
Post by JanPB
Yes. It's virtually certain by now that any new theory will have to
include space and time as objects _derived_ from more fundamental
concepts. These new concepts will very likely have to include some
sort of mathematical model for "consciousness" (not in the biological
sense,
of course, but something heavily abstracted and yet rather
suggestive, in a process analogous to, say, the one used in the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem )
"Others have argued that the indeterminism that Conway and Kochen claim
to have established was already assumed in the premises of their
proof.[6]"
Circularity one more time, here we go.
This is irrelevant.
That invalidates your lemma.
Idimi Higame
2017-03-17 00:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Yes. It's virtually certain by now that any new theory will have to
include space and time as objects _derived_ from more fundamental
concepts. These new concepts will very likely have to include some sort
of mathematical model for "consciousness" (not in the biological sense,
of course, but something heavily abstracted and yet rather suggestive,
in a process analogous to, say, the one used in the Conway-Kochen
theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem )
"Others have argued that the indeterminism that Conway and Kochen claim to
have established was already assumed in the premises of their proof.[6]"

Circularity one more time, here we go.
m***@wp.pl
2017-03-17 07:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
My prediction: When the next major leap in the development of physics occurs,
the required paradigm shifts will be so bizarre that a new breed of "anti-next
generation" crackpots will emerge who will be nostalgic for the simplicity and
intuitiveness of relativity...
Simplicity and intuitiveness of your Shit is well known.

Your prediction is worthless (predictions of idiots usually
are). You follow your Shit because it's dark and twisted,
and following it makes you feeling sooo high above common
mortals. You will gladly replace it with something even
stupider.
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-16 19:03:19 UTC
Permalink
"Running away from Einstein. Einstein's theory of gravity may have to be rewritten..." https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html

How can it be rewritten? If Einstein's general relativity were a deductive theory, one could replace the false postulates with some true alternatives. But general relativity is not deductive - it has no postulates. The only alternative to deductive theory is empirical concoction (a "theory" that is not even wrong) - Einstein clearly explains this here:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Special relativity was indeed "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions" (even though a false assumption and an invalid argument spoiled it from the very beginning) but general relativity was, to use Einstein's words, "a purely empirical enterprise". Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner. Being an empirical concoction, general relativity allows Einsteinians to introduce, change and withdraw fudge factors until the "theory" manages to predict anything Einsteinians want. Then the prediction turns out to be confirmed by observations (surprise surprise).

The fudge-factor activity is inglorious and Einsteinians don't discuss it openly, but sometimes the truth comes out inadvertently. So conventional dark matter models based on general relativity "need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data" (how many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed in order to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/
"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data."

Being an empirical concoction, Einstein's general relativity has no postulates:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-postulates-of-General-Relativity
What are the postulates of General Relativity? Alexander Poltorak, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the CCNY: "In 2005 I started writing a paper, "The Four Cornerstones of General Relativity on which it doesn't Rest." Unfortunately, I never had a chance to finish it. The idea behind that unfinished article was this: there are four principles that are often described as "postulates" of General Relativity:

1. Principle of general relativity

2. Principle of general covariance

3. Equivalence principle

4. Mach principle

The truth is, however, that General Relativity is not really based on any of these "postulates" although, without a doubt, they played important heuristic roles in the development of the theory." [end of quotation]

The equations of general relativity can be defined as fudge equations - not deduced from postulates and concocted merely to make theory agree with known in advance results and pet assumptions:

https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

General relativity is analogous to the "empirical models" defined here and is as much a theory as they are:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2017-03-16 19:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
"Running away from Einstein. Einstein's theory of gravity may have to be rewritten..." https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
How can it be rewritten? If Einstein's general relativity were a deductive theory, one could replace the false postulates with some true alternatives.
Not even wrong. The rest of your post is not worth reading.

--
Jan
The Starmaker
2017-03-16 20:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488614993/last-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein
Perhaps it is too late. Einstein's ship is sinking but theoretical physics as a whole is going with it, and there may be no resurrection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
In the end Einstein did introduce the nonsense (he had no conscience) by advancing his 1905 false second ("light") postulate, but a new awful problem emerged. All VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were absurd (not even wrong) - if Einstein had honestly derived them in 1905, his paper would not have been published.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and h
Actually the conclusion
"The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation), being valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, entail absurdity (not even wrongness). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while six
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
Pentcho Valev
Einstein said:
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a
minute. But when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two
hours. That’s relativity."


My question is...what kind of clock was used to measure a minute/two
hours at the same time???? A two hour clock that is only one minute? i
don't get it..


where do you buy these clocks???
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-17 08:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Einsteinians know that Einstein's relativity is a science-killer since 2001:

https://www.amazon.ca/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."

Yet only John Baez was bold enough to openly leave the sinking ship:

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."

Other Einsteinians are also leaving the sinking ship but somewhat indecisively - on sunny mornings you can still hear them singing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "The faster you move, the heavier you get":

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. [...] 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."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...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."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."


Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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."

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.knetbooks.com/search-results?terms=9780544245594&referrer=KBCJ
"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..."

Loading Image...


"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"


Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."


Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

Loading Image...
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."

Pentcho Valev
The Starmaker
2017-03-17 17:13:44 UTC
Permalink
i don't understand what this hullabaloo about ...special relativity, the guy wrote it in 1905. Then, he realized it was no good so he
came out with a better one ten years later.

It took TEN YEARS!

Who writes books today that take ten years????

People had more time then to do nothing.

The great artists of the past is all a result of not having anything else to do. You can spend a whole year or years
painting one painting until it's perfect.

It took years to paint the Mona Lisa....they didn't have radio or TV then. The painting WAS the TV set!


Today, you got to get it out by five o'clock.

They tell you, "It doesn't have to be perfect!"

You think, if you want it to be perfect, you need at least ten years time! not by 5pm...


I don't know how long einstein took to write special relativity in 1905, ...probably he got it from somebody else.


and his book ten years later....based on Newton gravitation.


But where did he get the idea of building an atomic bomb????


Did you know he used to bang madam curie daughter just to get his hands on...uranium?


What did einsten want with radium?????



The first sentence of this letter is a lie!

"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate future."
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first


The letter was only about *one* thing, ...getting his hands on Uranium.


E.Fermi and L. Szilard came over to Einstein and told him..."If you want us to build your atomic bomb you're goona need more uranium then you're getting
from madam curie daughter!"
Post by Pentcho Valev
https://www.amazon.ca/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 establishi
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
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. [...] 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."
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...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."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
http://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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 rel
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.knetbooks.com/search-results?terms=9780544245594&referrer=KBCJ
"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..."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg
http://youtu.be/9lE-I2I4i00
"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://youtu.be/5PkLLXhONvQ
Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."
http://youtu.be/BuxFXHircaI
http://www.krugozormagazine.com/main/content/9-2009_Enshtein-3.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself imm
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2017-03-17 19:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
https://www.amazon.ca/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.
No. It's your mental condition which is the problem here.

--
Jan
Idimi Higame
2017-03-17 19:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Pentcho Valev
https://www.amazon.ca/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.
No. It's your mental condition which is the problem here.
Rather the one thinking an achievement in Physics and Engineering demands
no proofs. Make sure is not you.
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-18 00:01:20 UTC
Permalink
In 1954 Einstein became honest and admitted that, by basing his theory on the continuous field concept, he might have killed physics:

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."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false constancy of the speed of light which was a tenet of the ether field theory:

http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6019
Frank Wilczek, Fantastic Realities, p. 294: "One of the most basic results of special relativity, that the speed of light is a limiting velocity for the propagation of any physical influence, makes the field concept almost inevitable."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
2017-03-18 00:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
In 1954 Einstein became honest and admitted that, by basing his theory on
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."
How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the
false constancy of the speed of light which was a tenet of the ether
This just more of Prevaricating Pentcho's pony plop. And Saint Albert
was too hard on himself because GR predicts reality very, very well.
Post by Pentcho Valev
[Regurgitated quotations deleted to reduce boredom]
n***@gmail.com
2017-03-17 19:55:44 UTC
Permalink
In Einstein's (1905) electrodynamics (special relativity), Einstein justifies Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light using Maxwell's equations but altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations does not alter the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect. Furthermore, Einstein's translational velocity v = 30,462 m/s varies from 0 to 30,462 m/s between the times of 6:oo pm to 12:oo am. Not only that, because of the earth daily motion, the translation velocity vector is pointing in different directions at 12:oo am and 12:oo pm which proves Einstein's special relativity does not verify Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-18 11:46:34 UTC
Permalink
"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 at 53:29

"Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

"[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. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/

"Splitting Time from Space - New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime. Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots. Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity. [...] But now Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he understands the problem. It's all, he says, a matter of time. More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity. Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute - steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don't gel." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/

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..." https://edge.org/response-detail/25477

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we?

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
n***@gmail.com
2017-03-18 18:52:29 UTC
Permalink
In Einstein's (1905) electrodynamics (special relativity), Einstein justifies Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light using Maxwell's equations but altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations does not alter the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect. Furthermore, Einstein's translational velocity v = 30,462 m/s varies from 0 to 30,462 m/s between the times of 6:oo pm to 12:oo am. Not only that, because of the earth daily motion, the translation velocity vector is pointing in different directions at 12:oo am and 12:oo pm which proves Einstein's special relativity does not verify Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
2017-03-19 21:02:04 UTC
Permalink
"Was Einstein Wrong About Gravity? We've believed in his General and Special Theory of Relativity for so long. [...] And while some are saying that this might require rewriting of the Relativity Theory, shouldn't writing of an entirely new theory be considered too?" http://wallstreetpit.com/113118-einstein-wrong-gravity/

Too late perhaps. You've been singing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "The faster you move, the heavier you get" for too long - physics died irreversibly in the meantime:


"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

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://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

Pentcho Valev

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...