MADNESS IN EINSTEINIANA
Pentcho Valev
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference."
Both authors suffer the same madness. In the end they subconsciously
reject the obvious truth - that the moving observer finds the speed of
the wave to have increased - and save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by
advancing a blatant lie to the effect that the moving observer finds
the wavelength to have decreased. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Monsieur Turtoni
Get over the light and dig into some black hole stuff and get back to
us if you can!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
> light.
HTHelps.
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."
Still sane scientists do exist in 1924:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3604224
"Of course an emission theory gives the simplest possible explanation
of aberration and of the Michelson-Morley result."
Complete madness nowadays:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Pentcho Valev
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Luminiferous_aether
"Other than its apparently unusual mechanical properties, the
existence of a medium for light should mean that the velocity of light
would be relative to the medium, so that a moving observer would see
an altered velocity of light, but this was not consistent with later
experiments. More concretely, Maxwell's equations required that all
electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c."
THE TRUTH is that, for all etherists including Maxwell:
"a moving observer would see an altered velocity of light".
Note the idiotic "More concretely" above, followed by THE LIE (which
is always one leap ahead of THE TRUTH):
"Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum
propagate at a fixed speed, c".
In this particular case of doublethink John Norton finds THE TRUTH
(that the speed of light is variable for a moving observer, both in
Newton's emission theory of light and in Maxwell's ether theory) too
dangerous so he teaches THE LIE, THE WHOLE LIE AND NOTHING BUT THE
LIE:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_Relativity/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a
little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow
down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says
no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of
the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal
traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his
acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of
electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The
theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years
before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating
in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed
of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."
Pentcho Valev
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Crimestop in Einsteiniana: John Norton stops short, as though by
instinct, at the threshold of two dangerous thoughts: (1) The car can
be much longer than the garage and yet be trapped inside if Einstein's
1905 false light postulate were true; (2) The car is not necessarily
able to break and burst through the closed door. So Norton converts
the absurdity (even idiocy) into an example of the glorious
achievements of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html
John Norton: "Here is how we might try to get a contradiction out of
the relativistic effect of each observer judging the other to have
shrunk. Imagine a car that fits perfectly into a garage. The garage is
a small free standing shed that is just as long as the car. There is a
door at the right and a door at the left of the garage. The car fits
exactly--as long as it is at rest. Now image that we drive the car at
86.6% speed of light through the garage from right to left. The doors
have been opened at the right and the left of the garage to allow
passage of the car. There is a garage attendant, who stands at rest
with respect to the garage. Can the garage attendant close both doors
so that, at least for a few brief moments, the car is fully enclosed
within the garage? According to the garage attendant, there is no
problem achieving this. At 86.6% the speed of light, the car has
shrunk to half of its length at rest. It fits in the garage handily.
The garage attendant can close both doors and trap the car inside.
(...) The car driver and the garage attendant disagree on whether the
car is ever fully enclosed in the garage simply because they disagree
on the time order of two events. (...) Therefore there is no observer
independent fact as to whether the car was ever fully enclosed in the
garage."
Sillier Einsteinians do not see the absurdity (idiocy) and expose it
in all its ugliness. Luckily (for them) the postscientific world does
not give a sh.. about rationality in science:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Doublethink again:
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Luminiferous_aether
"Other than its apparently unusual mechanical properties, the
existence of a medium for light should mean that the velocity of light
would be relative to the medium, so that a moving observer would see
an altered velocity of light, but this was not consistent with later
experiments. More concretely, Maxwell's equations required that all
electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c."
THE TRUTH is that, for all etherists including Maxwell:
"a moving observer would see an altered velocity of light".
Note the idiotic "More concretely" above, followed by THE LIE (which
is always one leap ahead of THE TRUTH):
"Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum
propagate at a fixed speed, c".
In this particular case of doublethink John Norton finds THE TRUTH
(that the speed of light is variable for a moving observer, both in
Newton's emission theory of light and in Maxwell's ether theory) too
dangerous so he teaches THE LIE, THE WHOLE LIE AND NOTHING BUT THE
LIE:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_basics/index.html
Pentcho Valev
http://www.physorg.com/news182671620.html
"...the group velocity of the pulse can increase to a velocity greater
than any of the waves within the pulse, but the energy of the pulse
still travels at the speed of light, which means information is
transmitted in accordance with Einstein's theory. (...) The faster-
than-light pulses do not violate Einstein's theory because technically
the pulse carries no information. The effect has been known in
laboratory experiments, but these observations were the first in an
astrophysical context."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/features/features/671-could-it-be-that-the-large-hadron-collider-is-being-clock-blocked
"The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that
have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected
physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson
particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being
discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created,
or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual
universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the
moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to
sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop
culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future,
when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his
future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The
only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis
seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is
supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels
Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have
postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a
series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we
should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote,
"for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion"."
In Einsteiniana, time is an illusion because Divine Albert said so
(and because this follows from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate).
Yet clever Einsteinians make career and money by teaching that time is
not an illusion:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Jones
spudnik
to take a few pages out of its flip-book --
just rip them right out & shred,
like the Royal Astronomer would try to do to yours, if
you were to question the Reality Bumpersticker.
> rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
> comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
> as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html
"Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding
stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the
universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-
gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to
call this unidentified force "dark energy". However, to this day no
one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from.
Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the
Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending
alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy
at all, and we’re looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that
we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is
accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. (...)
Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the
universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique
relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in
color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of
certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy
of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout
the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory,
our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space
dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by
cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were
accelerating."
http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/01/29/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4b635a6fb7f4a650056500.txt
"Dr. Ronald Mallett, physics professor at the University of
Connecticut and author of the book, "Time Traveler: A Scientist's
Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality," speaks to Penn State
Abington student Andrew Menezes after Mallett's lecture on time travel
Thursday at the Abington campus. (...) "What I teach students is the
importance of realizing that the possibility of time travel rests on
solid physics based on the work of [Albert] Einstein," said Mallett, a
theoretical physics professor at the University of Connecticut, in an
interview before the lecture. "Einstein is the basis of my work, and
that is extremely important. His special theory of relativity is now
about 105 years old. The thing is, right in that theory is the
possibility of time travel into the future." What has become a
lifelong journey to prove the real possibility of time travel actually
started when Mallett was a boy after the devastating and sudden death
of his father, Boyd, at age 33. It was then that he got the idea to
build a time machine so that he could go back, change history by
warning his father to improve his lifestyle and thus prevent the fatal
heart attack. "He was the center of my life. His death completely
turned my life inside out," said Mallett."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Unlimited madness in Einsteiniana:
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
Peter Webb
Where has it *ever* been shown to be wrong ?
John Jones
spudnik
SR and GR are "necessary, but insufficient."
> Where has it *ever* been shown to be wrong ?
thus:
just me, believes the web, and
I am probably lying about that.
thus:
may we call it, the hypostential ur-stuff?... so, if
you are going to create a theory,
what is an experiment that would show any thing,
other than ordinary matter & antimatter would necessitate?
> Mass NEVER displaces ether!! Ether flow through mass is required for
thus:
Brun's constant is the sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes;
is it transcendental?
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
is in fact a consequence of idiotic effects known as length
contraction and time dilation:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "What has been shown is that rods
and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two
postulates [of special relativity] to be true together. But this
hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go
the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do,
in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light
is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."
That is, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is true only if a long
train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn 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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
Einstein
So forces (e.g. a bird born in 2032) constantly "travel back in time
to sabotage the collider", and this gloriously confirms Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. If Divine Albert's Divine Theory were
incorrect, how could forces (e.g. a bird born in 2023) constantly
travel back in time to sabotage the collider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/7411707/Large-Hadron-Collider-to-shut-down-for-a-year.html
"The Large Hadron Collider, the world's biggest atom smasher, will
shut down for a year to repair mistakes that were made in its
construction. (...) But Dr Myers told the BBC that the faults will
delay the machine reaching its full potential of 14TeV for two years.
(...) It is the latest in a series of setbacks for the world's largest
machine, which was first launched in September 2008 amid an
international fanfare. But just nine days later, the £5bn LHC suffered
a spectacular failure from a bad electrical connection. Fifty-three of
1,624 large superconducting magnets - some of them 50 feet long - were
damaged and had to be replaced. Then in November 2009, it emerged that
further problems had been caused by a small piece of baguette dropped
by a passing bird which landed in a piece of equipment on the surface
above the accelerator ring."
Day Brown
either classic or quantum physics. And as for why, thats the Boson.
18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, still at the apex of the Vedic
canon before the Brits took over, said in a hymn to Kali, that
everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of Her mind.
He also said that there are a myriad such worlds, and mine happens to be
one in which he said this, and the Hadron collider has these
inexplicable problems. Your reality may be different in ways I cannot
even imagine.