Discussion:
Einstein's Ideology and the Collapse of Human Civilization
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-21 06:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order": the apotheosis of Einstein's ideology, a symptom of not just dead science, but dying civilization as well:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."


Michelle Thaller: "All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light."


Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2015/04/science-fiction-and-cosmic-speed-limit.html

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Erin Lauer
2020-08-21 08:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order": the
apotheosis of Einstein's ideology, a symptom of not just dead science,
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries,
pp.
123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the
same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of
things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft
increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your
spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone
This Tyson is stupid like shit, I don't even have to read. A completely
brain dead stand-up comedian. In a normal country these guys would be put
in prison the rest of their life, being a danger to their own each
individual country. Their stupid mouth kills people mass scale.
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-21 09:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"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." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Yes, Einstein's special relativity is the root of all the evil, not just in theoretical physics, but in all human rational activity. But how could a single false axiom, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, become such a threat to human rationality? The introduction of the false axiom was Einstein's original sin (he knew that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved Newton's variable speed of light in 1887), but there was a second, logical sin in 1905 that confused and eventually paralyzed critics.

Einstein's 1905 postulates entailed SYMMETRIC time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. The concept was sterile in terms of predictions. It says how the two observers see things, but it says nothing about the objective behavior of the two clocks. If Einstein had obeyed logic and deduced symmetric time dilation in his 1905 paper, special relativity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

ASYMMETRIC time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast - is an obvious non sequitur (doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates) but Einstein "derived" it in 1905 because it produced a quantitative (and breathtaking) prediction:

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics 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." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Symmetric time dilation (the valid deduction from the postulates) doesn't, but asymmetric time dilation (the non sequitur) does imply time travel into the future - the miracle (idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

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")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Einstein's 1905 second, logical sin is brilliantly discussed in this paper (written by a lecturer in politics https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/about/staff/history/peterhayes/):

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248987568_The_Ideology_of_Relativity_The_Case_of_the_Clock_Paradox

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Keith Stein
2020-08-21 15:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
"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.
Yes, Einstein's special relativity is the root of all the evil, not just in theoretical physics, but in all human rational activity. But how could a single false axiom, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, become such a threat to human rationality? The introduction of the false axiom was Einstein's original sin
Eve and Adam's original sin was eating
of the tree of knowledge
of good and evil eh!
Post by Pentcho Valev
(he knew that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved Newton's variable speed of light in 1887),
And you conclusion is no better than Einstein's constant speed of light
nonsense. The correct conclusion to be drawn from the null result of the
Michelson Morley experiment is that the speed of light waves, just like
the speed of all waves, is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, ie the stuff the
waves are traveling through.
Post by Pentcho Valev
but there was a second, logical sin in 1905 that confused and eventually paralyzed critics.
Einstein's 1905 postulates entailed SYMMETRIC time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. The concept was sterile in terms of predictions. It says how the two observers see things, but it says nothing about the objective behavior of the two clocks. If Einstein had obeyed logic and deduced symmetric time dilation in his 1905 paper, special relativity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics 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." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Symmetric time dilation (the valid deduction from the postulates) doesn't, but asymmetric time dilation (the non sequitur)
I do agree with what you say here Mr.Valev. That is one argument which
convinces me that the SR time dilations will never show up on real
clocks, because even according to Einstein's own argument, which is
bullshit anyway, but even according to the bullshit the time dilations
SHOULD BE SYMETRICAL eh!


You do good work exposing the relativists Mr.Valev,
but your solution is just as bad as the disease Pentcho.

keith stein
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-21 18:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

Technically, "to free physics from Einstein's legacy" is easy - physicists denounce Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light nonsense and relativity, entirely predicated on the nonsense, automatically collapses. The problem is that the idiocies (e.g. time travel) triggered by the nonsense are now inherent in the culture of our civilization - removing them may produce an incurable psychological trauma and greatly accelerate the decline of the civilization. So, paradoxically, continuing to worship Einstein's idiocies may turn out to be a civilization-friendly strategy:

Loading Image...

"Divine Einstein! No-one's as divine 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 divine 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 divine 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, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "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..."


If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-22 06:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Georgia State University: "The Bug-Rivet Paradox. The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. [...] All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug. [...] The paradox is not resolved." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world, "the paradox is not resolved" would mean that there is reductio ad absurdum. The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, two incredibly idiotic fudge factors are introduced and Divine Albert's Divine Theory is saved:

1. The rivet gets longer than itself.

2. The end of the rivet moves at a speed close to the speed of light but a wave moving at the speed of sound chases it, catches up to it and stops it.

Here is how the two fudge factors are introduced:

Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d." http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?" http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.html

This is immeasurably more idiotic than flat-earth myths, and yet no one ever mentions - let alone criticizes - the idiocy. The civilization is just dying, isn't it?

Pentcho Valev
David Thomson
2021-09-14 21:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it.
If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom
"The speed of light is constant"
will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom
"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".
I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Actually, the whole problem of Special Relativity can be eliminated by making the most logical statement, "The speed of photons is c in the local space."

The belief that photons are independent particles is a large part of the Einstein time dilation myth. Photons are emitted when electrons jump an atomic orbital into space, and space imparts the speed of c to the angular momentum:

phtn = h * c

Light occurs when atoms produce photons at a given frequency:

ligt = phtn * freq

So light is not the same thing as a photon, a photon is a quantum of light. Further, light is the whole spread of photons in space, and light is not an isolated particle. The "energy packet" is produced when a receiving atom has an empty valence position, and the valence position fills with light to the quantity equal to the energy of one electron:

enrg = ligt / c

which is the same as:

enrg = angm * freq

In other words, the energy packet only exists as a filled valence position; the energy packet is not what was flying through space. The stuff flying through space is a continuous stream of dispersing photons.

In any local space, the space can only move photons at speed c, and no other speed. The physics behind this limitation is rooted in the half-spin nature of subatomic particles. Subatomic particle half-spin does not refer to a spatial spinning or rotation, it therefore must refer to a temporal spin. In order for a temporal spin in the forward time direction to result, space must itself be oscillating between forward time and backward time. The net result of forward time - backward time is the present moment. Within the present moment, subatomic particles are spinning in the forward time direction (but they are remaining in the present moment even with their forward time trajectory). Thus the half-spin nature of subatomic particles coincides with a fixed "grain" of forward time.

The rate at which angular momentum can pass from one quantum unit of space to the next is therefore limited to the forward time - backward time vibration rate of space, itself. This is what sets the speed c for photons. Knowing that subatomic particles behave with a fixed length of the Compton wavelength, whether the length be a line, an area (Compton wavelength squared), or a volume (Compton wavelength cubed), we can then determine the exact duration of one subatomic particle half-spin, which is w.C / c.

The idea in Special Relativity that physical particles (or wave functions) of light travel through non-existent space at just the right speed to appear as c to any observer is illogical. There are no particles of light with inherent lengths and frequencies that can change based on who is looking at them. There is only the structure of space, which already has both volume and resonance (frequency squared). Also, there is no need to tack a time dimension onto space; space already accounts for temporal dimensions. Space is a structure, volume is a unit; space has the property of volume but space also has the property of resonance. Light always travels at c in the local space.

The greater fabric of space, however, is not fixed or rigid. Space, like atmosphere and bodies of water, can flow, compress, stretch, and generally behave as a fluid. Think of a soap bubble which contains a specific volume of atmosphere; this bubble can float independent of the rest of the atmosphere. Space can do the same thing. When relative velocities are considered, space is being displaced by physical matter between the bodies, and therefore the light moving through the local space is also being distorted. It is the distortion of space that causes the relativity effects, and not some mythological time dilation along a mythological physical timeline.

Everything can be completely normal in physics, without time travel, without postulates, and without any kind of weirdness at all if we accept the fact that space is a structure of itself, even though it is a non-material structure.
Tom Roberts
2021-09-15 02:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Actually, the whole problem of Special Relativity can be eliminated
by making the most logical statement, "The speed of photons is c in
the local space."
Nonsense. You're another one who is making up their own meaning of
"photon" that in no way corresponds to what the word actually means.
Individual photons have no speed, but you are apparently unable to
understand that because you make up your own meaning for the word and go
off into never-never land.
Post by David Thomson
The belief that photons are independent particles is a large part of
the Einstein time dilation myth.
Nonsense! While SR and quantum mechanics were developing sort-of in
parallel, the notion "time dilation" came LONG before photons were a
part of modern physics (other than speculative guesses and conjectures).

[In particular, SR was in essence fully developed in
1905, when light was still thought to be a wave
phenomenon. The modern understanding of photons did
not arise until the 1930s, and was not practical for
calculations until Feynman diagrams in 1948.]

Note also that "time dilation" has nothing whatsoever to do with light.
It is an aspect of clocks and how they relate to the time coordinates of
various inertial frames.
Post by David Thomson
[... unsubstantiated speculations and nonsense inextricably
intertwined]
You REALLY need to learn something abut the subject before attempting to
write about it.

Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
2021-09-15 02:45:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Actually, the whole problem of Special Relativity can be eliminated by
making the most logical statement, "The speed of photons is c in the
local space."
I forgot to mention that there is no "problem" of Special Relativity.
Indeed it is among the best-tested theories we have. It is only people
who do not understand modern physics who doubt this.
Post by Tom Roberts
Nonsense. You're another one who is making up their own meaning of
"photon" that in no way corresponds to what the word actually means.
Individual photons have no speed, but you are apparently unable to
understand that because you make up your own meaning for the word and go
off into never-never land.
Post by David Thomson
The belief that photons are independent particles is a large part of
the Einstein time dilation myth.
Nonsense! While SR and quantum mechanics were developing sort-of in
parallel, the notion "time dilation" came LONG before photons were a
part of modern physics (other than speculative guesses and conjectures).
    [In particular, SR was in essence fully developed in
     1905, when light was still thought to be a wave
     phenomenon. The modern understanding of photons did
     not arise until the 1930s, and was not practical for
     calculations until Feynman diagrams in 1948.]
Note also that "time dilation" has nothing whatsoever to do with light.
It is an aspect of clocks and how they relate to the time coordinates of
various inertial frames.
Post by David Thomson
[... unsubstantiated speculations and nonsense inextricably intertwined]
You REALLY need to learn something abut the subject before attempting to
write about it.
Tom Roberts
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-15 15:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Actually, the whole problem of Special Relativity can be eliminated by
making the most logical statement, "The speed of photons is c in the
local space."
I forgot to mention that there is no "problem" of Special Relativity.
And we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
Post by Tom Roberts
Indeed it is among the best-tested theories we have.
And GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 05:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>
[In particular, SR was in essence fully developed in 1905, when light was still thought to be a wave
phenomenon.
<snip>
Note also that "time dilation" has nothing whatsoever to do with light.
It is an aspect of clocks and how they relate to the time coordinates of
various inertial frames.
<snip>

IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back
to the first attempt to describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c",
which was the work of Woldemar Voigt in his 1887 paper.

His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into
another domain E'(x',y',z',t') in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant
under such linear transformation. Even the accepted form of "local time" was born there.

There was no difference between the general wave equation used at that epoch with
the formulation that is used, even today, for the composite wave equation for an EM wave
in vacuum, which is derived from the application of these two Maxwell's equations:

∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ

As it can be seen from the formuale above, the speed of light is embedded into such equations,
and the composite wave equation (using only E and replacing B) is similar to the most general one.

And, for me, this is crucial in the statement of the 2nd. postulate of 1905 SR, developed by Einstein:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reasoning is as follows: IF a set of transforms can be applied to any given reference frame E(x,y,z,t)
to transform it into another domain E'(x',y',z',t'), which moves INERTIALLY at constant velocity "v" with
respect to the first, the set of transforms IS VALID (Lorentz) as long as the wave equation is INVARIANT.

Why is this VITAL for the integrity of the SR theory?: because Maxwell's wave equations have the speed
of light c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ embedded into them, so NO CHANGES are allowed into both equations at E and E',
disregarding any arbitrary and constant velocity "v" between them.

This explain the "apparently irreconcilable" term used by Einstein for his 2nd. Postulate. For "c" having
universal constancy it's required: 1) The invariance of wave equation under Lorentz transformation and
2) That, with total independence of the relative velocity "v" between E and E', a beam of light emitted at
any of those two frames could be received with the same and universal velocity of c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ.

Accepting the 2nd. Postulate with the meaning stated above, everything else is valid within SR domain
of applicability.

This understanding of mine regarding the 2nd. Postulate is not shared by many, and has caused a lot of
controversies in the last 100 years (c, c+v or c-v).

And a final disclaimer: I don't adhere to the validity of SR. I'm just trying to be fair and analyze it from the
pure mathematical point of view (not a physical one).
Dono.
2021-09-15 16:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
. I'm just trying to be fair and analyze it from the pure mathematical point of view (not a physical one).
You need to stop lying, kapo. Your agenda is quite transparent.
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 18:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I hear some weird noise at the end of this thread. It's like a buzzing fly of some non-human lifeform,
probably bigger than a mosquito (maybe a Psorophora ciliata), that has also appeared on some other threads.

It doesn't worth a spry of Raid, so I'll ignore that shit. After all, Cypermethrin and Imiprothrin would do the job,
but can be harmful to humans, so the bug is lucky.
Dono.
2021-09-15 18:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't have any agenda
Dick,

You are lying. Again.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 21:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
[In particular, SR was in essence fully developed in 1905, when light was still thought to be a wave
phenomenon.
<snip>
Note also that "time dilation" has nothing whatsoever to do with light.
It is an aspect of clocks and how they relate to the time coordinates of
various inertial frames.
<snip>
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back
to the first attempt to describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c",
which was the work of Woldemar Voigt in his 1887 paper.
His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into
another domain E'(x',y',z',t') in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant
under such linear transformation. Even the accepted form of "local time" was born there.
There was no difference between the general wave equation used at that epoch with
the formulation that is used, even today, for the composite wave equation for an EM wave
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
As it can be seen from the formuale above, the speed of light is embedded into such equations,
and the composite wave equation (using only E and replacing B) is similar to the most general one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reasoning is as follows: IF a set of transforms can be applied to any given reference frame E(x,y,z,t)
to transform it into another domain E'(x',y',z',t'), which moves INERTIALLY at constant velocity "v" with
respect to the first, the set of transforms IS VALID (Lorentz) as long as the wave equation is INVARIANT.
Why is this VITAL for the integrity of the SR theory?: because Maxwell's wave equations have the speed
of light c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ embedded into them, so NO CHANGES are allowed into both equations at E and E',
disregarding any arbitrary and constant velocity "v" between them.
This explain the "apparently irreconcilable" term used by Einstein for his 2nd. Postulate. For "c" having
universal constancy it's required: 1) The invariance of wave equation under Lorentz transformation and
2) That, with total independence of the relative velocity "v" between E and E', a beam of light emitted at
any of those two frames could be received with the same and universal velocity of c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ.
And this is what physics has been stating for the last 100+ years. The
speed of light will be measured as c regardless of the (inertial)
motions of the source or observer.
Post by Richard Hertz
Accepting the 2nd. Postulate with the meaning stated above, everything else is valid within SR domain
of applicability.
This understanding of mine regarding the 2nd. Postulate is not shared by many, and has caused a lot of
controversies in the last 100 years (c, c+v or c-v).
Are you saying Maxwell was wrong with his classic electrodynamics?
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-21 18:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

Technically, "to free physics from Einstein's legacy" is easy - physicists denounce Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light nonsense and relativity, entirely predicated on the nonsense, automatically collapses. The problem is that the idiocies (e.g. time travel) triggered by the nonsense are now inherent in the culture of our civilization - removing them may produce an incurable psychological trauma and greatly accelerate the decline of the civilization. So, paradoxically, continuing to worship Einstein's idiocies may turn out to be a civilization-friendly strategy:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg

"Divine Einstein! No-one's as divine 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 divine 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 divine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!" http://youtu.be/9lE-I2I4i00

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/5PkLLXhONvQ

Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "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..." http://youtu.be/BuxFXHircaI

If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2020-08-22 06:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Georgia State University: "The Bug-Rivet Paradox. The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. [...] All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug. [...] The paradox is not resolved." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world, "the paradox is not resolved" would mean that there is reductio ad absurdum. The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, two incredibly idiotic fudge factors are introduced and Divine Albert's Divine Theory is saved:

1. The rivet gets longer than itself.

2. The end of the rivet moves at a speed close to the speed of light but a wave moving at the speed of sound chases it, catches up to it and stops it.

Here is how the two fudge factors are introduced:

Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d." http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?" http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.html

This is immeasurably more idiotic than flat-earth myths, and yet no one ever mentions - let alone criticizes - the idiocy. The civilization is just dying, isn't it?

Pentcho Valev
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...