Bravo Philip Ball! I know the original story! The only essential
difference is that, in the original story, "his correspondents" (one
of them was you Philip Ball) fiercely defended the second, not the
first law of thermodynamics. The selfsame second law defined by Jos
Uffink as "red herring":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
It's actually a thermal banana.
Fortunately there are different journalists:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
Fred Hutchison: "Kuhn discovered that late in the life cycle of an
aging model, there invariably comes a time when most of the energies
of the science establishment is spent in defensive puzzle solving. The
model becomes a tangled mass of defenses against anomalies. Instead of
a pretty Potemkin village, the model becomes an unsightly ruin. The
unsightly patches in the holes do not quite work. The added wings and
appendages are ad hoc jerry-built eyesores, or are done in
architectural styles that clash with the original style. The model
becomes aesthetically repulsive and loses its romantic panache. A lot
of work is sunk into these maladroit repairs and additions. For
example, some over-paid and over-educated scientist must have gone
half blind to create the mathematical bridge I studied. An expensive
waste of time to save face for Einstein? A sop to people like me who
demand explanations? Well, it was a good sop. It almost worked....A
successful model can somewhat predict selected natural events because
it is deliberately rigged to mimic the patterns of nature. Rich Little
was able to mimic the idiosyncrasies of public figures to get a laugh,
but that does not mean he understood these personages. We might learn
a thing or two from his impersonations, but must be modest in our
claims about what they explain about the personality and psychology of
the person mimicked....Scientists are searching day and night for the
ghosts of the cosmos. But it is much like the search for the Loch Ness
monster. Every so often, some astronomer will cry out that he has
found dark matter or found a black hole. Sensational headlines. Then
silence. The dark matter evaporates. Nessie the monster has gone back
under water. But I saw Nessie...at least I think I saw him. A
frustrated graduate assistant dares to ask the mighty professor, "Why
don't we just get rid of Einstein and save ourselves all this trouble
and embarrassment?" The annoyed professor blurts, "Listen, punk, one
more crack like that and you are barred from this sacred observatory,
built for exploring Einstein's world of symmetry, harmony, and
beauty."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Einstein's Potemkin villages will remain. Science has died:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030501/Physics-lessons-crisis-teachers-leaving-outstrip-new-recruits-quarter.html
"Physics teaching is under threat because of a growing lack of
qualified staff. Almost a quarter of secondary schools in England no
longer have any specialist physics teachers, with the proportion
rising to half in inner-city areas."
Einstein zombie world:
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
>
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
Thanks for the laughs, Pentcho. Don't get any hemmies over it.
That is the purview of the Einstein Dingleberries...ahahaha...
... ahahahanson
"but Professor Godel would have given him an F in post-doctoral
mathematics."
I've given him an F in schoolboy mathematics.
Even a 15-year-old can figure out that x'/(c+v) does NOT
equal x'/(c-v), and the perversity in undergraduate mathematics
that the function tau() is linear is just ludicrous.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -
Einstein.
In the second place the idiot doesn't know what the fuck "linear" means.
The sad part is the arrogance of the shitheaded bastards
who make a living out of their crap. A janitor's job is to clean
up the shit arseholes like Baez and Carlip spread with a fan
and poor sod doesn't get paid what a professor does.
Phillip Ball would have made much more money by writing a novel about
Bryan Wallace, the martyr who, while dying, still managed to inform
the world about "The Farce of Physics", or Herbert Dingle, the founder
of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science whose
intellectual honesty is incomparable (or only comparable to the
honesty of someone trying to create a new political party in Stalin's
Russia):
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Too many coincidences: Bulgaria + thermodynamics + Einstein +
desperately trying to publish (in Nature) + Phillip Ball is Nature's
editor at that time and mercilessly rejects all my papers. Yes most
probably I am at least part of this Karl Neder. Bravo Phillip Ball!
Some may say it is unethical for you to make money by describing the
plight of your victims but don't believe them: there is nothing
unethical in Einstein zombie world.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Philip Ball the science writer is also a revolutionary but a very
careful one:
http://www.the-funneled-web.com/Old_N_&_V/N&VFeb_04.htm
"Because as Philip Ball points out in his Nature news feature of
February 5th, quoting Indiana theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky,
"The observation of Lorentz violation would be a sensitive signal for
unconventional physics."
The euphemism "unconventional physics" says what crazy Eastern Europe
scientist Karl Neder would express as "Einstein was wrong":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
If Philip Ball as Nature's editor had not fought so successfully
against crazy Eastern Europe anti-relativists, those cranks could have
turned gold into silver and so the very foundation of Western culture
would have been destroyed:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2005/September/einstein.asp
Philip Ball: "The theory of special relativity explained that, when
objects move close to the speed of light, they gain mass (as well as,
from the point of view of an observer at relative rest, becoming
shorter and living longer). It turns out that, in heavy atoms, the
intense electrostatic attraction between electrons in inner orbitals
and the highly charged nucleus induces such high electron speeds that
they begin to experience these relativistic effects: the average
velocity of the electrons in the innermost orbital of a uranium atom
is about two thirds the speed of light. These relativistic electrons
become more massive, which in turn brings them into even tighter orbit
around the nucleus. That increases the extent to which these inner
electrons shield the outer electrons from the tug of the nucleus, and
so in turn the orbits of the outer electrons expand and their energies
are lowered. So relativistic effects retune the energy levels of the
atom. It's not so exotic, nor so rare, as you might imagine. Were it
not for relativistic effects, gold would look like silver; the reddish
tint comes from gold's ability to absorb blue light, owing to a
relativistic shift in the energies of the metal's electronic bands.
This is arguably a more profound manifestation of Einstein's theory
than any amount of cosmic gravitational lensing or slowing of atomic
clocks, for this aspect of gold's appearance accounts for its revered
cultural status over thousands of years and for the symbolism that has
since ancient times linked this precious metal with the sun."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Philip Ball, the Western terminator of crazy Eastern Europe anti-
relativists, writes in his journal Nature in an absolutely non-crazy
way:
http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000720/full/news000720-9.html
Philip Ball: "The theory of relativity stipulates two key
considerations: light's speed must be constant only in a vacuum....,
and no information can be transmitted faster than this.....The
experiments that increase the speed of light above c appear to pose a
more serious challenge to relativity. Einstein's theory implies that
any object moving faster than c will be moving backwards in time. As
this limerick illustrates: There was a young lady named Bright, Whose
speed was faster than light. She went out one day, In a relative way,
And returned the previous night. The objection to this kind of time
travel is based as much on logic as on physics. What if Ms Bright had
returned not on the previous night but 50 years earlier, and had
assassinated one of her grandparents before they had conceived her
mother? Then Ms Bright could never have been born in the first place.
This so-called 'grandfather paradox' demonstrates that faster-than-
light travel is absurd. In short, it would violate causality -- the
principle that all causes must precede their effects....Indeed, the
group velocity of the pulse is not only far greater than c but
negative, meaning that the pulse travels in the opposite direction to
the waves that carry it. Because of this, the pulse seems to leave the
chamber 62 billionths of a second before it enters. Does this conflict
with causality? Only if a signal from the future can affect the past
-- which, in turn, is possible only if information (in the form of the
knowledgeable Ms Bright, say) is sent back in time. Without this, an
effect can't influence its cause. Although the leading edge of the
pulse in the experiment arrives faster than c, any information encoded
in the pulse cannot arrive until later. Cause and effect, in other
words, are not confused."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
The Sun and Moon Corrupted
"Light was no longer a beautiful beam, a wave stretching from here to
infinity. Light was quanta. Light was discrete. Light was particles.
Call them photons. These photons won Einstein a Nobel Prize."
Compare this with Einstein's 1954 confession and the excellent
explanation of Einstein's apostle, Banesh Hoffmann:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." 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."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By 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
pva...@yahoo.com
Philip Ball knows that field theories and Einstein's 1905 light
postulate which is based on them are a failure but still does not know
where else his sycophancy would be profitable:
http://philipball.blogspot.com/
Philip Ball: "Effective field theories are a way of not having to
answer everything at once. But if they simply mount up into an
infinite tower, it will be an ungainly edifice at best. As philosopher
of science Stephan Hartmann at Tilburg University in the Netherlands
has put it, the predictive power of such a composite theory would
steadily diminish “just as the predictive power of the Ptolemaic
system went down when more epicycles were added”. Einstein seemed to
have an intimation of this. He expressed discomfort that his theory of
relativity was based not simply on known facts but on an a priori
postulate about the speed of light. He seemed to sense that this made
it less fundamental. (...) And at this point, we do not even know the
appropriate language to describe what will follow — whether, for
example, it will be rooted in new symmetry principles (such as
supersymmetry, which relates hitherto distinct particles), or extra
dimensions, or something else. So let’s acknowledge and even celebrate
our ignorance, which is after all the springboard of the most creative
science."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com