Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GIANT OF SCIENCE STEVEN WEINBERG

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Mar 21, 2008, 7:37:40 AM3/21/08
to
http://home.att.net/~numericana/fame/giants.htm
Giants of Science: Steven Weinberg, physicist (1933-)

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/01/66393?currentPage=all
Giant of Science Steven Weinberg: "Worst of all would be to be without
Einstein's special theory of relativity; we would have no
understanding of elementary particles and the atomic nucleus."

What would happen if Dwarfs of Science like Jean Eisenstaedt manage to
prove that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source? Would then any "understanding of elementary particles and the
atomic nucleus" disappear?

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Dwarf of Science Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison
theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la
vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ;
plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la
logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte
autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il
n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible
a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute
la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs
astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme
siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 2:49:49 AM3/22/08
to
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2502/stories/20080201504304100.htm
Giant of Science Steven Weinberg's Brother Sheldon Lee Glashow: "Well,
there are no sacred cows in physics. Laws of physics such as
conservation of energy, or whatever, are made to be tested. There is
no guarantee that Lorentz invariance is an exact symmetry of nature.
That special relativity is precisely true. The attributes of special
relativity that have been tested best are the universality of the
speed of light - that is, the speed of light is the same in all
directions and it is the same to all uniformly moving observers - and
that the speed of light coincides with the maximum attainable velocity
of particles. Well, the VSR... the Very Special Relativity (which I
developed with Andrew Cohen) ... makes the hypothesis that is a little
bit weaker than Einstein's hypothesis. The hypothesis that we make is
simply that the velocity of light is the same for all uniformly moving
coordinate systems in all directions. That is not the same as Lorentz
invariance."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Dwarfs of Science 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

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 6:08:12 AM3/22/08
to
Giants of Science have no mercy:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
4. Publication Politics:
"To document the nature of the problem within the US, I would like to
make several quotes from a book on this problem by Ruggero M. Santilli
who is the director of The Institute for Basic Research:
This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme hostility I
have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the conduction,
organization and promotion of quantitative, theoretical, mathematical,
and experimental studies on the apparent insufficiencies of Einstein's
ideas in face of an ever growing scientific knowledge. [23 p.7]
In 1977, I was visiting the Department of Physics at Harvard
University for the purpose of studying precisely non- Galilean
systems. My task was to attempt the generalization of the analytic,
algebraic and geometric methods of the Galilean systems into forms
suitable for the non-Galilean ones.
The studies began under the best possible auspices. In fact, I had a
(signed) contract with one of the world's leading editorial houses in
physics, Springer-Verlag of Heidelberg West Germany, to write a series
of monographs in the field that were later published in ref.s [24] and
[25]. Furthermore, I was the recipient of a research contract with the
U.S. Department of Energy, contract number ER-78-S-02- 4720.A000, for
the conduction of these studies.
Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other senior
physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a point of preventing
my drawing a salary from my own grant for almost one academic year.
This prohibition to draw my salary from my grant was perpetrated with
full awareness of the fact that it would have created hardship on my
children and on my family. In fact, I had communicated to them (in
writing) that I had no other income, and that I had two children in
tender age and my wife (then a graduate student in social work) to
feed and shelter. After almost one academic year of delaying my salary
authorization, when the case was just about to explode in law suits, I
finally received authorization to draw my salary from my own grant as
a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University.
But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and possibly
others had declared to the Department of Mathematics that my studies
"had no physical value." This created predictable problems in the
mathematics department which lead to the subsequent, apparently
intended, impossibility of continuing my research at Harvard.
Even after my leaving Harvard, their claim of "no physical value" of
my studies persisted, affected a number of other scientists, and
finally rendered unavoidable the writing of IL GRANDE GRIDO.*
* S. Glashow and S. Weinberg obtained the Nobel Prize in physics in
1979 on theories, the so-called unified gauge theories, that are
crucially dependent on Einstein's special relativity; subsequently, S.
Weinberg left Harvard for The University of Texas at Austin, while S.
Coleman and S. Glashow are still members of Harvard University to this
writing. [23 p.29]"

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 12:38:24 PM3/22/08
to
On Mar 21, 7:37 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://home.att.net/~numericana/fame/giants.htm
> Giants  of  Science: Steven Weinberg, physicist   (1933-)
>
> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/01/66393?currentPage...

> Giant of Science Steven Weinberg: "Worst of all would be to be without
> Einstein's special theory of relativity; we would have no
> understanding of elementary particles and the atomic nucleus."
>
> What would happen if Dwarfs of Science like Jean Eisenstaedt manage to
> prove that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
> source? Would then any "understanding of elementary particles and the
> atomic nucleus" disappear?
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...

> Dwarf of Science Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison
> theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la
> vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ;
> plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la
> logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte
> autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il
> n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible
> a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute
> la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs
> astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme
> siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
>
> Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
> the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
> the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
> there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
> Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> concerned, differently from a material particle.

And it doesn't. What the cranks in Relaviity still can't seem to
accept, even after 60 years of developing A.I, computers, lasers,
masers robots, DNA-RNA, nuclear snythesis and Satellites for the
idiots,
is that Einstein nased his theory of light on Euclid's Theory Of
Light,
not on observations of light, mattter, history, or logic.

Helmut Wabnig

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 12:50:49 PM3/22/08
to
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT), "zzbu...@netscape.net"
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:


> And it doesn't. What the cranks in Relaviity still can't seem to
> accept, even after 60 years of developing A.I, computers, lasers,
> masers robots, DNA-RNA, nuclear snythesis and Satellites for the
>idiots,
> is that Einstein nased his theory of light on Euclid's Theory Of
>Light,
> not on observations of light, mattter, history, or logic.
>

I am reading sci.physics to learn English,
(physics content here is negligible)
please explain to me


>Einstein nased his theory of light


Is that a typo for "nosed" ? Then please explain
how to "nose" a theory, do you mean "smell" actually?

(BTW, the German word for NOSE is NASE.)
w..

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 2:06:29 PM3/22/08
to
On Mar 22, 12:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:


Or it's even better to call it The Princeton Of Light.
Since the only thing those wanks have ever
been known to have to do with science is The U.N. and Nazis.

>
> Neither is there any
>
>
>
> > reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
> > don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
> > what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
> > end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
>
> > Pentcho Valev

> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 2:25:04 PM3/22/08
to
In sci.physics Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dot .- t> wrote:

> I am reading sci.physics to learn English,
> (physics content here is negligible)
> please explain to me


> >Einstein nased his theory of light


> Is that a typo for "nosed" ? Then please explain
> how to "nose" a theory, do you mean "smell" actually?

> (BTW, the German word for NOSE is NASE.)

He probably meant "hosed"; colloquial english for screwed up, messed up,
broken, etc.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Michael Helland

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 2:29:10 PM3/22/08
to
On Mar 21, 11:49 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2502/stories/20080201504304100.htm
> Giant of Science Steven Weinberg's Brother Sheldon Lee Glashow: "Well,
> there are no sacred cows in physics. Laws of physics such as
> conservation of energy, or whatever, are made to be tested. There is
> no guarantee that Lorentz invariance is an exact symmetry of nature.
> That special relativity is precisely true. The attributes of special
> relativity that have been tested best are the universality of the
> speed of light


Light from far far away galaxies is redshifted.

That means it slows down before it gets here.


To avoid that problem, we assume it doesn't slow down, it just has
more space to go through.

But seriously.

We should just admit it slows down.

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,
Mar 22, 2008, 3:15:28 PM3/22/08
to
On Mar 22, 12:50 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. DOT .- t>
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT), "zzbun...@netscape.net"

>
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >   And it doesn't. What the cranks in Relaviity still can't seem to
> >   accept, even after 60 years of developing A.I, computers, lasers,
> >   masers  robots, DNA-RNA, nuclear snythesis and Satellites for the
> >idiots,
> >   is that Einstein  nased his theory of light on Euclid's Theory Of
> >Light,
> >   not on observations of light,  mattter, history, or logic.
>
> I am reading sci.physics to learn English,
> (physics content here is negligible)
> please explain to me
>
> >Einstein  nased his theory of light

No, it was a type for "base".
It was chosen because the only thing the idiots
in any groups, including sci,maths know
about bases is respooling bases to C++.

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Mar 23, 2008, 2:44:50 AM3/23/08
to

Giant of Science Steven Weinberg knows what Dwarf of Science Jean
Eisenstaedt is talking about:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~vl/notes/weinberg.html
Giant of Science Steven Weinberg: "It is not true that scientists are
unable to "switch back and forth between ways of seeing," and that
after a scientific revolution they become incapable of understanding
the science that went before it. One of the paradigm shifts to which
Kuhn gives much attention in Structure is the replacement at the
beginning of this century of Newtonian mechanics by the relativistic
mechanics of Einstein. But in fact in educating new physicists the
first thing that we teach them is still good old Newtonian mechanics,
and they never forget how to think in Newtonian terms, even after they
learn about Einstein's theory of relativity......Newtonianism reached
its mature form in the early nineteenth century through the work of
Laplace, Lagrange, and others, and it is this mature Newtonianism--
which still predates special relativity by a century--that we teach
our students today. They have no trouble in understanding it, and they
continue to understand it and use it where appropriate after they
learn about Einstein's theory of relativity. Much the same can be said
about our understanding of the electrodynamics of James Clerk Maxwell.
Maxwell's 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism is difficult for
a modern physicist to read, because it is based on the idea that
electric and magnetic fields represent tensions in a physical medium,
the ether, in which we no longer believe. In this respect, Maxwell is
pre-Maxwellian. (Oliver Heaviside, who helped to refine Maxwell's
theory, said of Maxwell that he was only half a Maxwellian.)
Maxwellianism--the theory of magnetism, electricity, and light that is
based on Maxwell's work--reached its mature form (which does not
require reference to an ether) by 1900, and it is this mature
Maxwellianism that we teach our students. Later they take courses on
quantum mechanics in which they learn that light is composed of
particles called photons, and that Maxwell's equations are only
approximate; but this does not prevent them from continuing to
understand and use Maxwellian electrodynamics where appropriate."

Still it is not clear if Giant of Science Steven Weinberg knows
Einstein's 1954 comment on Maxwell's field theory of light:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "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."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

Juan R.

unread,
Mar 23, 2008, 10:22:15 AM3/23/08
to
Michael Helland wrote on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:29:10 -0700:

> On Mar 21, 11:49 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

Poor Weinberg attacked by anti-relativists and relativists at once!!


http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

0 new messages