Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Sep 23, 2011, 1:23:50 AM9/23/11
to
Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp.
12-16 in Chapter 11 in:
contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp.
12-16 in Chapter 11 in:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press
So the hysteria around any faster-than-light travel established in
experiment or theory would be a red herring (that is, Einsteiniana
would continue to destroy human rationality) unless the assumption of
independence is refuted. Fortunately the Michelson-Morley and Pound-
Rebka experiments have UNEQUIVOCALLY shown that the variation of the
speed of photons is identical to the variation of the speed of any
material bodies, e.g. cannonballs.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Sep 23, 2011, 9:22:22 AM9/23/11
to
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. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."
Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with
the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:
V' = Vwave + Vo
which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory
of light:
c' = c + v
So if the waves overtake the moving observer "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE",
then whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does
not matter at all - special relativity is wrong anyway. If the rate at
which waves overtake the moving observer does not vary with his speed,
then, somewhat surprisingly, whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel
faster than light does not matter much again - fundamental effects
such as time dilation and length contraction are valid consequences of
the invariability in question.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
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. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."
Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with
the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:
V' = Vwave + Vo
which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory
of light:
c' = c + v
So if the waves overtake the moving observer "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE",
then whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does
not matter at all - special relativity is wrong anyway. If the rate at
which waves overtake the moving observer does not vary with his speed,
then, somewhat surprisingly, whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel
faster than light does not matter much again - fundamental effects
such as time dilation and length contraction are valid consequences of
the invariability in question.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
jim
Sep 23, 2011, 10:24:10 AM9/23/11
to
measuring
properties of inertia. Which still doesn't mean that the people
who
know how light actually works, aren't still working on the modern
Theory of Evolution,
DNA, Topology, Optical Networks, Lasers, Holographics, Artificial
Satellites,
Nanotechnology, LED Technology, Self-Replicating Machines, and
Controlled Nuclear Fusion.
.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Sep 23, 2011, 11:34:58 AM9/23/11
to
Remember the martyr:
http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/sci.physics/index.html
Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the
Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be
demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the
standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present
science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no
extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories
will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate
that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed
object travels!"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate
that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that
holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...)
The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace
wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections
in the text!]
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/sci.physics/index.html
Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the
Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be
demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the
standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present
science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no
extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories
will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate
that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed
object travels!"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate
that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that
holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...)
The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace
wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections
in the text!]
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Sep 23, 2011, 5:29:17 PM9/23/11
to
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light
postulate are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be
ten times greater than the light speed but this would not prevent
light from being "always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body". Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the
neutrinos-faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
Relevant scenarios threatening special relativity are those in which
the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source or the observer is noticeable in some way, e.g. takes the form
of a Doppler shift measured by a moving observer.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light
postulate are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be
ten times greater than the light speed but this would not prevent
light from being "always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body". Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the
neutrinos-faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
Relevant scenarios threatening special relativity are those in which
the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source or the observer is noticeable in some way, e.g. takes the form
of a Doppler shift measured by a moving observer.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Marvin the Martian
Sep 23, 2011, 5:43:30 PM9/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:29:17 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
> are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
> greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
> "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
> fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
> hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
> are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
> greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
> "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
> fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
> hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
universe.
Androcles
Sep 23, 2011, 6:08:43 PM9/23/11
to
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:beednYlz4vIfYOHT...@giganews.com...
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:29:17 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| > Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
| > propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
| > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
| >
| > Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
| > are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
| > greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
| > "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
| > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
| > fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
| > hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
|
| Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
| massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
| universe.
Which is it, then, transverse mass or longitudinal mass?
|
| > Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
| > propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
| > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
| >
| > Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
| > are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
| > greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
| > "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
| > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
| > fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
| > hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
|
| Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
| massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
| universe.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
Not fucking really.
To get an Einstein dingleberry to think requires more brainwashing than
exists in the universe.
jim
Sep 23, 2011, 8:53:06 PM9/23/11
to
On Sep 23, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp.
> 12-16 in Chapter 11 in:
Well, we already know events can travel faster than light,
> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp.
> 12-16 in Chapter 11 in:
but since Physicists have an anal fixation with information theory
and Fortran
that's why the moden Physicists are working on modern numlock
keys,
and the modern engineers are working on USB, Blue Ray Laser Disks,
Flash Memory, Holograms, Artificial Diamonds, and Digital
Photography.
Marvin the Martian
Sep 23, 2011, 9:43:45 PM9/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:53:06 -0700, jim wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
>> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
>> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16
>> in Chapter 11 in:
>
> Well, we already know events can travel faster than light,
I'm pretty sure that while some may believe this, no one knows it. Not
> On Sep 23, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
>> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
>> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16
>> in Chapter 11 in:
>
> Well, we already know events can travel faster than light,
yet, anyway.
> but since
> Physicists have an anal fixation with information theory
> and Fortran
> that's why the moden Physicists are working on modern numlock
> keys,
> and the modern engineers are working on USB, Blue Ray Laser Disks,
> Flash Memory, Holograms, Artificial Diamonds, and Digital
> Photography.
jim
Sep 24, 2011, 12:06:36 AM9/24/11
to
On Sep 23, 11:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Remember the martyr:
>
> http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/sci.physics/index.html
> Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the
> Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be
> demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the
> standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present
> science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no
> extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories
> will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate
> that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
> the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed
> object travels!"
>
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecLetters196...
> Remember the martyr:
>
> http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/sci.physics/index.html
> Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the
> Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be
> demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the
> standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present
> science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no
> extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories
> will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate
> that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
> the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed
> object travels!"
>
collapse
their even more antiquated shaman of Euclid is going to completely
collapse.
So either way, Einstein will be remembered as also being the
discoverer
of Tensors and the Photo-electric effect rather than the Darwin
Wannabee cranks in Quantum Mechanics.
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Sep 24, 2011, 12:55:07 AM9/24/11
to
http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/time-to-revisit-einstein-physics__2011-09-24.html
"Challenging Einstein usually a losing venture, history shows. Betting
against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke.
For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party –
which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors
Against Einstein" – has tried to find cracks in his work. And all have
failed. Some experimental results at first seemed to contradict
relativity, only later to be found to fit neatly with the theory
Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance."
The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance, at
first seemed to contradict the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's light
postulate), only later to be forced by "later writers" to fit neatly
with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance:
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
"Challenging Einstein usually a losing venture, history shows. Betting
against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke.
For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party –
which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors
Against Einstein" – has tried to find cracks in his work. And all have
failed. Some experimental results at first seemed to contradict
relativity, only later to be found to fit neatly with the theory
Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance."
The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance, at
first seemed to contradict the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's light
postulate), only later to be forced by "later writers" to fit neatly
with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance:
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
Androcles
Sep 24, 2011, 1:41:42 AM9/24/11
to
news:Ao-dnQeIQq9MqODT...@giganews.com...
The signal takes 1 hour and 14 minutes to get here, we see Saturn as
it was 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
If the speed of the signal were DOUBLED, we'd see Saturn as it was
37 minutes ago. That's as simple as it gets. I'm absolutely certain you
are off your fucking rocker.
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:53:06 -0700, jim wrote:
|
| > On Sep 23, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
| >> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
| >> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16
| >> in Chapter 11 in:
| >
| > Well, we already know events can travel faster than light,
|
| I'm pretty sure that while some may believe this, no one knows it. Not
| yet, anyway.
Cassini at Saturn sends us images of Saturn, its rings and its moons.
|
| > On Sep 23, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
| >> contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
| >> of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16
| >> in Chapter 11 in:
| >
| > Well, we already know events can travel faster than light,
|
| I'm pretty sure that while some may believe this, no one knows it. Not
| yet, anyway.
The signal takes 1 hour and 14 minutes to get here, we see Saturn as
it was 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
If the speed of the signal were DOUBLED, we'd see Saturn as it was
37 minutes ago. That's as simple as it gets. I'm absolutely certain you
are off your fucking rocker.
G. L. Bradford
Sep 24, 2011, 4:54:17 AM9/24/11
to
news:beednYlz4vIfYOHT...@giganews.com...
Okay, so you are sure you know the velocity of your "massive particle" to
be [a relative] 99.99999% the speed of light. Where, exactly, is the
particle located? What are the exact spatial coordinates of your "massive
particle" at any particular time since, apparently, you would have it so
fixed? You can't really answer because at anything like this [relative]
percentage of the speed of light you couldn't give such coordinates since
your particle would be in many more sets of spatial coordinates -- all at
once in time -- than just one.
GLB
==============================
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:29:17 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>> Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>>
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>
>> Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
>> are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
>> greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
>> "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
>> fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
>> hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
>
> Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
> massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
> universe.
==============================
>
>> Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>>
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>
>> Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate
>> are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times
>> greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being
>> "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the
>> fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light
>> hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
>
> Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
> massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
> universe.
Okay, so you are sure you know the velocity of your "massive particle" to
be [a relative] 99.99999% the speed of light. Where, exactly, is the
particle located? What are the exact spatial coordinates of your "massive
particle" at any particular time since, apparently, you would have it so
fixed? You can't really answer because at anything like this [relative]
percentage of the speed of light you couldn't give such coordinates since
your particle would be in many more sets of spatial coordinates -- all at
once in time -- than just one.
GLB
==============================
Richard Tobin
Sep 24, 2011, 5:18:57 AM9/24/11
to
In article <beednYlz4vIfYOHT...@giganews.com>,
involve "getting a massive particle to light speed"? That is, would
it exist at less than c and then get accelerated?
-- Richard
Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
>massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
>universe.
Would the emission of a neutrino at a speed greater than c necessarily
>Not really. SR says something about massive particles as well. To get any
>massive particle to light speed requires more energy than exists in the
>universe.
involve "getting a massive particle to light speed"? That is, would
it exist at less than c and then get accelerated?
-- Richard
Marvin the Martian
Sep 24, 2011, 9:27:28 AM9/24/11
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:06:36 -0700, jim wrote:
> So either way, Einstein will be remembered as also being the
> discoverer
> of Tensors and the Photo-electric effect rather than the Darwin
> Wannabee cranks in Quantum Mechanics.
>
Einstein didn't discover the Photo-electric effect; that was Hertz.
> So either way, Einstein will be remembered as also being the
> discoverer
> of Tensors and the Photo-electric effect rather than the Darwin
> Wannabee cranks in Quantum Mechanics.
>
Einstein didn't discover the quantum hypothesis; that was Max Planck.
What Einstein did was apply Planck's quantum hypothesis to the
photoelectric effect to explain it. After Planck paved the way with the
solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe thus showing not only that light
came in quanta but also how to apply it mathematically, it was pretty
much a plug and chug to do the same with the photoelectric effect but it
still was certainly worth publication and a foot note in the history of
physics.
Einstein didn't discover tensors...
That was a whole bunch of people: Gauss, Hamilton, Ricci...
Einstein "discovered" the Einstein notation - a lazy and somewhat
ambiguous way to write tensor equations without indicating what index is
being summed over. It's a discovery that is not even worth a footnote,
really.
Marvin the Martian
Sep 24, 2011, 9:33:19 AM9/24/11
to
zero mass. By SR, a non-zero mass means they can't go the speed of light.
A zero mass means they HAVE to go the speed of light.
Are you saying that neutrinos are superluminal particles and that the
four-force doesn't apply to them?
That would be interesting.
Marvin the Martian
Sep 24, 2011, 9:36:34 AM9/24/11
to
going to invoke HUP, but you didn't. What does a selection of coordinate
systems have to do with this?
Pentcho Valev
Sep 24, 2011, 1:22:40 PM9/24/11
to
My claim:
"Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-
faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence."
was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is
somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special
relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to
one observer and does not occur according to the other:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have
proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb
is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode
when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A
deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back
of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the
bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"
A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of
special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox:
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
"Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-
faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence."
somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special
relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to
one observer and does not occur according to the other:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have
proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb
is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode
when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A
deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back
of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the
bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"
A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of
special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox:
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
jim
Sep 24, 2011, 3:46:49 PM9/24/11
to
Maxwell's theory,
and he wasn't all that shy about telling the Newton wannabee
quacks in mathematics
that that's what he discovered. Just like Von Neumann discovered a
type of computer architecture,
and he wasn't all that shy either about telling the Hamilton
wannabee quacks in QM, that that's what he discovered.
Turing claimed to have discovered a new theory of computation, and
he wasn't all that shy about telling
the Shannon wannabee quacks in Information theory, that that's
what he discovered. Other people
claimed to have discovered non-Standard Analysis, and they weren't
all that shy about telling
the Boole wannabee quacks working in Logic, that that's what they
discovered.
shy about telling the Mawee
jim
Sep 24, 2011, 9:52:14 PM9/24/11
to
know about
analysis is Cauchy, you might as well the bimbos, to just file for
a job
painting lightbulbs for IBM.
Marvin the Martian
Sep 24, 2011, 11:31:18 PM9/24/11
to
be the current state of physics?
We'd have Lorentz's theory of special relativity. We'd have Hilbert's
theory of General Relativity. Someone else would have done the plug and
chug of Planck's quantum hypothesis into the photo electric effect, and
someone else would have dug up the mathematics on Brownian motion.
In short, physics would largely be unchanged. It may even be advanced a
bit since there would have been no name calling at the big bang theory
because it was discovered by a Catholic priest, there would have been
less resistance to black holes because Einstein (and the equally pompous
and egotistical Eddington) didn't think little brown people from India
could do physics, no silly "hidden variable theory", no silly arguments
against Quantum mechanics using lame claims like "God does not play dice
with the universe".
Marvin the Martian
Sep 24, 2011, 11:33:01 PM9/24/11
to
*PLONK*
jim
Sep 25, 2011, 12:02:23 AM9/25/11
to
Nobody ever claimed it wouldn't be unchanged.
Since most engineers still tell the Black Hole Types, that as far as
technology is concerned
modern rockets and missiles, DNA, artificial satellites, lasers,
atomic clocks,
nanotech, Wireless Telecomm, Turing Machines, USB, Opitical
Networks, Holographics,
and GPS, will completely overshadow anything discovered in the crank
19th Century,
Pentcho Valev
Sep 25, 2011, 8:55:05 AM9/25/11
to
Einsteinians devise idiotic red herrings in panic and despair:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1059245--the-trouble-with-neutrinos?bn=1
"Damn those neutrinos. (...) "All of our understanding of cosmology
and subatomic matter - everything will have to be revised," says Neil
Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, among the
world's leading centres for research in theoretical physics. "We will
have to work out everything all over again." (...) "If this experiment
is right," says Turok, "from one point of view, the particles would
have gone backward in time." In such a universe - one that permits
chronological movement in reverse - it might also be possible for the
consequences of an action to precede the action itself, and you don't
need a PhD to be troubled by that. "That's kind of at the root of
this," says Turok."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
jim
Sep 25, 2011, 10:12:26 AM9/25/11
to
On Sep 24, 3:46 pm, jim <retnuh2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Engineers
counter-claimed that they are just Issac Asimov wannabees anyway,
and started working on lasers, holograms, nanotechnology,
artificial diamonds,
Integrated Circuits, USB, Miniature Atomic Clocks, GPS, Blue Ray
Disks,
3D Digital TV, Optical Networks, and Programmable 21st Century
Batteries.
Pentcho Valev
Sep 25, 2011, 3:05:00 PM9/25/11
to
The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David
Morin's text:
Morin's text:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the
train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of
the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered
before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you
might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a
paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation
device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It
takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train
from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission
time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the
bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how
fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best
chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this
is the case..."
It can be rigorously proved that, if the deactivation signal's speed
is higher than c (e.g. neutrinos faster than light are used), the
signal does get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the
tunnel. So special relativity predicts that the bomb explodes in the
frame of the train and does not explode in the frame of the tunnel.
Pentcho Valev
Sep 26, 2011, 6:26:46 AM9/26/11
to
The OPERA experiment has been carried out for over three years in
secret. Yet in 2008 John Baez, the Tomas de Torquemada of
Einsteiniana, suddenly declared that theoretical physics is moving in
a schizophrenic direction, decisively abandoned it and is presently an
expert in ecology or anything else that could prove profitable:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
Other priests in Einsteiniana also gave signs that Divine Albert was
not in their hearts any more:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to
differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to
do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity
seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics
operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But
Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special
relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless
they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is
relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a
proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is
literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of
his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has
become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes
that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real
as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The
notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for
Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate
students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher
based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in
physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The
trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with
relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose
geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. 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 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."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."
I am not suggesting that all priests in Einsteiniana knew about the
OPERA experiment. The cleverest among them, John Norton for instance,
are able to deduce the falsehood of special relativity from the
Michelson-Morley experiment alone:
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."
secret. Yet in 2008 John Baez, the Tomas de Torquemada of
Einsteiniana, suddenly declared that theoretical physics is moving in
a schizophrenic direction, decisively abandoned it and is presently an
expert in ecology or anything else that could prove profitable:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
Other priests in Einsteiniana also gave signs that Divine Albert was
not in their hearts any more:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to
differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to
do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity
seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics
operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But
Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special
relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless
they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is
relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a
proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is
literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of
his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has
become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes
that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real
as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The
notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for
Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate
students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher
based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in
physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The
trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with
relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose
geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. 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 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."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."
I am not suggesting that all priests in Einsteiniana knew about the
OPERA experiment. The cleverest among them, John Norton for instance,
are able to deduce the falsehood of special relativity from the
Michelson-Morley experiment alone:
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."
Pentcho Valev
Sep 26, 2011, 2:43:55 PM9/26/11
to
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576588662498620624.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Michio Kaku: "According to relativity, as you approach the speed of
light, time slows down, you get heavier, and you also get flatter (all
of which have been measured in the lab). But if you go faster than
light, then the impossible happens. Time goes backward. You are
lighter than nothing, and you have negative width. Since this is
ridiculous, you cannot go faster than light, said Einstein."
Einsteinians know no limits. Nothing can stop them when it comes to
destroying human rationality.
Michio Kaku: "According to relativity, as you approach the speed of
light, time slows down, you get heavier, and you also get flatter (all
of which have been measured in the lab). But if you go faster than
light, then the impossible happens. Time goes backward. You are
lighter than nothing, and you have negative width. Since this is
ridiculous, you cannot go faster than light, said Einstein."
Einsteinians know no limits. Nothing can stop them when it comes to
destroying human rationality.
0 new messages