SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS AND TRUE BELIEVERS

[Pentcho Valev]

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41222
Michio Kaku: "Now, they have done the experiment again, with a beam
spread out over 3 billionths of a second and they still find the
neutrino beam outracing the light beam. If you aren't aware already --
This is extremely bad news for relativity. According to Einstein,
nothing can go faster than light, so a neutrino beam cannot possibly
outrace a light beam! If this is the case - All hell breaks loose,
time goes backwards and all of modern physics has to essentially be
redone. But there is still hope for true believers (like me)."

There is no hope for Einsteiniana's true believers, Michio Kaku, even
if the OPERA result is wrong. Did the Maxwell's theory predict a
constant speed of light independent of the speed of the observer? You
believe yes, John Norton believes you are misstating the physics:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Michio Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he
could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he
suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's
equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered
more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams
always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
John Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a
student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in
1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity.
Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the
ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That
theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of
a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Gabrielle Bonnet and Stephen Hawking also believe what the Maxwell's
theory predicted a variable speed of light (that is, they are not true
believers):

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

However 99% of Einsteinians are true believers, like you, Michio Kaku.
By definition, a true believer believes that BOTH the Maxwell's theory
and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirm Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink", would explicitly declare that the Michelson-Morley
experiment in fact confirmed Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

True believers Jeffrey Forshaw and Gavin Smith have discovered the
source of all of the schizophrenic and wonderful physics they teach:

http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Relativity-Manchester-Physics-Jeffrey/dp/0470014601
Dynamics and Relativity, Jeffrey Forshaw, Gavin Smith
pp. 113-114: "Just a few years earlier, Maxwell had written down the
equations which define the classical theory of electromagnetism. The
equations are beautiful and encode the idea that light is an
electromagnetic wave. However the equations taken at face value seem
to predict that light travels at a speed c=(...) independently of the
motion of either the source which produced it or the observer who
measures it. This circumstance seems absurd: for a wave travelling
through a medium the speed is indeed independent of the motion of the
source but it certainly depends upon the motion of the observer. (...)
2nd postulate: The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all
inertial frames. This statement (...) explains in a trivial manner the
null result of Michelson-Morley. (...) It constitutes a clean break
with classical thinking and it is the source of all of the weird and
wonderful physics we shall soon be encountering."

Gabrielle Bonnet and Stephen Hawking also believe that the Maxwell's

and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed Divine

[Pentcho Valev]

True believers mutilate children's minds in France:

http://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9orie_de_la_relativit%C3%A9
« Théorie de la relativité » expliqué aux enfants par Vikidia,
l'encyclopédie junior: "C'est à présent la nuit. Vous êtes toujours
dans votre train (le voyage est vraiment long), mais vous ne dormez
pas : vous êtes occupé à une expérience bien plus passionnante. Par
votre fenêtre, vous voyez l'avant d'un autre train qui avance dans la
même direction et à la même vitesse que vous. Ses phares sont
allumés ; nous allons considérer la lumière de ces phares comme un
flot de photons qui se précipitent à environ 300 000 km/s droit
devant. Sachant que les deux trains (le vôtre et celui d'à côté) se
déplacent à 200 km/s (soit 720 000 km/h - ce sont des trains
révolutionnaires !), à quelle vitesse voyez vous avancer le rayon
lumineux ? Facile : 300 000 km/s ; puisque vous avancez à la même
vitesse que le train voisin, la vitesse de ce dernier ne s'ajoute pas
à celle du rayon lumineux (c'est comme si les deux trains étaient
immobiles, de votre point de vue). Et maintenant, à quelle vitesse la
vache sur le bord des rails voit-elle avancer le rayon lumineux ?
Cette fois-ci, de son point de vue, le train ET le rayon sont en
mouvement, à une vitesse différente ; donc, selon la loi d'addition
des vitesses, le rayon fonce à... (300 000 + 200) 300 200 km/s ? Pour
en être sûrs, faisons un petit saut dans le temps. En 1887,
exactement. À cette époque, le monde scientifique était persuadé que
la lumière se déplaçait dans une substance mystérieuse, l'éther (rien
à voir avec celui des médecins et des drogués) ; cet éther serait un
fluide invisible et intouchable qui imprégnerait toute chose, qui
serait même assez fin pour se glisser dans une cloche à vide (« sinon,
comment expliquer que la lumière traverse du vide ? », argumentaient
les physiciens de l'époque). Pour ces physiciens, c'était évident :
tout comme le son, qui se déplace de molécule en molécule sous forme
d'onde, la lumière DEVAIT avoir un fluide vecteur. En 1887, donc, deux
physiciens américains du nom d'Albert Michelson et d'Edward Morley
firent une expérience qui devait prouver l'existence de l'éther ;
ironie du sort, ce fut l'expérience qui prouva l'inexistence de cet
éther ! L'expérience était simple : puisque TOUT baigne dans l'éther,
alors les planètes aussi. Mais leur déplacement autour du Soleil
devrait engendrer un « vent d'éther », semblable au « vent de la
vitesse » que ressent un motard : en clair, un courant d'éther qui
irait dans le sens contraire de la marche de la Terre, et qui à la
fois ralentirait la lumière qui irait contre lui et accélérerait (du
point de vue de la planète) celle qui irait dans le même sens que lui.
Le résultat de l'expérience fut pour eux incompréhensible : quelle que
soit la direction de la lumière (contre et avec le vent d'éther),
celle-ci conservait toujours la même vitesse : 299 792 km/s. Ce
résultat, au passage, propulsait les équations de l'électromagnétisme
de Maxwell au faîte de la gloire, puisqu'elles prédisaient qu'un rayon
lumineux va toujours à 300 000 km/s ; mais surtout, il invalidait les
lois d'addition des vitesses de Galilée. C'est pourquoi, pour revenir
à notre train, la vache ne voit pas passer le rayon émis par les
phares à 300 200 km/s. Il passe, et ce pour la vache, le conducteur du
train ou n'importe qui d'autre, à 300 000 km/s, un point c'est tout."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.uvm.edu/~mfuris/INTRO_PHYSLETS/contents/oscillations_waves/sound/illustration18_4.html
"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves
emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not
change as observed from the moving observer. He/she just comes across
more/less wave fronts per time (...) when moving toward/away from the
source, and consequently sees a change in frequency."

Animation 2 acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it,
true believers get petrified for a long time. The thought that the
same holds true for light waves (that is, relative to the moving
observer, the frequency and the speed of the waves change while the
wavelength remains constant) is unbearable so crimestop and
petrification come as a salvation:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
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."

Only the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana would
explicitly declare that the wavelength somehow varies with the speed
of the observer so that true believers can safely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
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)."

Of course, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, there are sane
people who see no reason why the moving observer should be able to
change the wavelength of light while remaining totally unable to
change the wavelength of sound:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

True believer Brian Greene (by definition, a true believer believes

that BOTH the Maxwell's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment

gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity):

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375412883
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality,
Brian Greene
pp. 43-45: "For example, if you swim through water toward an oncoming
water wave, the wave approaches you more quickly; if you swim away
from the wave, it approaches you more slowly. Similarly, if you move
through the supposed aether toward or away from an oncoming light
wave, the light wave's approach should, by the same reasoning, be
faster or slower than 670 million miles per hour. But in 1887, when
Albert Michelson and Edward Morley measured the speed of light, time
and time again they found exactly the same speed of 670 million miles
per hour regardless of their motion or that of the light's source.
(...) There has been much debate regarding the intellectual roots of
Einstein's discovery, but there is no doubt that his unshakable belief
in simplicity played a critical role. Einstein was aware of at least
some experiments that had failed to detect evidence for the existence
of the aether. So why dance around trying to find fault with the
experiments? Instead, Einstein declared, take the simple approach: The
experiments were failing to find the aether because there is no
aether. And since Maxwell's equations describing the motion of light -
the motion of electromagnetic waves - do not invoke any such medium,
both experiment and theory would converge on the same conclusion:
light, unlike any other kind of wave ever encountered, does not need a
medium to carry it along. Light is a lone traveler. Light can travel
through empty space. But what, then, are we to make of Maxwell's
equation giving light a speed of 670 million miles per hour? If there
is no aether to provide the standard of rest, what is the what with
respect to which this speed is to be interpreted? Again, Einstein
bucked convention and answered with ultimate simplicity. If Maxwell's
theory does not invoke any particular standard of rest, the most
direct interpretation is that we don't need one. The speed of light,
Einstein declared, is 670 million miles per hour relative to anything
and everything."

Brian Greene's sisyphean effort to cope with the aftermath of his true
belief:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-thought-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly
at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted
the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with
"painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era
have only widened the disparity between common experience and
scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by
compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and
then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've
struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my
everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power,
however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I
often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step,
I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Unfortunately Brian Greene does not mutilate his own mind only - he
and another true believer, Brian Cox, are the most efficient
mutilators of young minds in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

True believer Brian Cox frantically repeats a silly lie: Faster than
light neutrinos threaten cause, effect, future, past, our whole world
- only Divine Albert's Divine Theory and especially its sacrosanct,
the unworldly speed of light - could save us:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/cox_neutrinos/
"As long as you travel slower than the speed of light, cause and
effect are protected. But if you travel faster than the speed of
light, future and past are not protected... do that and you can cause
all kinds of trouble," Cox said. "That's why in Einstein's theory
speed of light is sacrosanct. That's why physicists care a lot about
the speed of light." If Einstein is wrong and speed of light is slower
than something else, in this case neutrinos: "It would mean you just
have to modify a new structure of time to protect cause and effect."

The lie may be silly but, having been repeated countless times for the
last two months, it is now an absolute truth (Goebbels' principle).
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is well protected for the moment.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

True believer Brian Greene explains how space and time obey Divine
Albert's orders:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.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."

The king from The Little Prince is just as powerful as Divine Albert
but, unlike Divine Albert, he always gives reasonable orders:

http://www.winglin.net/fanfic/littleprince/chapter_10.shtml
"Sire--over what do you rule?"
"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.
"Over everything?"
The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets,
and all the stars.
"Over all that?" asked the little prince.
"Over all that," the king answered.
For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.
....................................
"I should like to see a sunset...Do me that kindness...Order the sun
to set..."
"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a
butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea
bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had
received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded.
"The general, or myself?"
"You," said the little prince firmly.
"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can
perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on
reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the
sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require
obedience because my orders are reasonable."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com