NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-explain-the-universe-physics-needs-a-revolution-live-webcast-wednesday-video/
"To Explain the Universe, Physics Needs a Revolution: Live Webcast Wednesday [Video] Physicist Neil Turok will describe his vision for simpler theories in a public lecture"

As I suggest in my comment on the article, physics should get rid of a false fundamental axiom - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

Suggestion ignored. (Not because it's necessarily wrong, after all relativity
like any other physics theory will likely be augmented, but simply because
such armchair advice with nothing to back it up except its author's bizarre
obsession with the _person_ of Albert Einstein is both common and useless.)

--
Jan

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

Physics needs a resurrection rather than a revolution (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed it):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

Pentcho Valev

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Physics is going straightly to a trash can. Too late
for any patches, imo.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:44:04 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Physics needs a resurrection rather than a revolution (Einstein's 1905
> false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed it):

Well, if it's false, perhaps Puerile Pentcho can tell us why all valid
measurements of the speed of light confirm it, and why we find the correct
positions of the moon and spacecraft when we use it to calculate them,
whereas if we used c+/-v, we get wildly inaccurate numbers. The problem
with Pentcho's poppycock is that it just doesn't agree with reality. That's
why we must consign Prevaricating Pentcho to a rubber room lest his malady
get worse and he harm someone.

Gary

[Natalina Nazvarova]

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> As I suggest in my comment on the article, physics should get rid of a
> false fundamental axiom - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
> postulate.

Does not matter, what would suggest, the double of the speed of light?
Then you'll stuck into the same problem pretty fast.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/8/15 10/8/15 3:25 AM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Physics is going straightly to a trash can. Too late
> for any patches, imo.

<sarcasm> Yeah, just look around and see how little progress has been made in
the last 100 years -- those modern electric lights and telephone will never
catch on. </sarcasm>

You CLEARLY don't have a clue....


Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:25:34 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Physics is going straightly to a trash can. Too late
> for any patches, imo.

It's easier to say that than to learn the subject, isn't it.

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE
The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything - Neil Turok Public Lecture

At 1:27:22 Neil Turok suggests that Einstein's general relativity is wrong. Actually it is not even wrong. Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard

The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined here:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So Einstein's general relativity idiotically predicts that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

[Maciej Woźniak]

What physics needs, is a coffin.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.popsci.com/einsteins-theory-general-relativity-turns-100-and-is-still-full-surprises
"That sensation eluded most of his colleagues back then, and it still does. They study Einstein's greatest insight without fully grasping how he achieved it, or what it meant to him; they typically don't "feel relativity in their bones," in the words of Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape, both literally and figuratively."

Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." x

Pentcho Valev

[Ross A. Finlayson]

It's a very interesting talk and I thought
it was interesting. Turok provides impetus
for change in directions, then for what those
would be, to follow.


One interesting notion will be the new "lattice
atomic clocks" with the re-configuration of the
neat "clock in gravity" experiments.

Other examples would be to bring online a gamut
of simple through modern experiments (eg the
cloud chamber series) to be providing data
sources in intermediates scale of effect so
to supplement and complement the pinnacle
high energy experiments as are online.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 7:11:45 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> http://www.popsci.com/einsteins-theory-general-relativity-turns-100-and-is-still-full-surprises
> "That sensation eluded most of his colleagues back then, and it still does. They study Einstein's greatest insight without fully grasping how he achieved it, or what it meant to him; they typically don't "feel relativity in their bones," in the words of Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape, both literally and figuratively."
>
> Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":

You don't read the articles you post links to.

--
Jan

[Jack Monaco]

JanPB wrote:

> " in the words of Columbia University
>> theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes
>> from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among
>> those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described
>> as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out
>> as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not
>> just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape,
>> both literally and figuratively."
>>
>> Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or
>> "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":
>
> You don't read the articles you post links to.

Did you? The only way to explain Relativity is through use of Divergent
Matter.

[Jack Monaco]

JanPB wrote:

> " in the words of Columbia University
>> theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes
>> from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among
>> those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described
>> as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out
>> as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not
>> just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape,
>> both literally and figuratively."
>>
>> Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or
>> "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":
>
> You don't read the articles you post links to.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Not if you note that various sky
surveys have as basically averaging
out in red- and blue- shift instead
of one survey from the 1970's having
them all scattering, there's no need
for any matter but regular matter (and
anti-matter).

[Carl Heinz Krüger]

JanPB wrote:

>> Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or
>> "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise":
>
> You don't read the articles you post links to.

Better than reading and not understanding.

[JanPB]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 9:07:50 AM UTC-8, Jack Monaco wrote:

Nonsense.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:d1634c5e-c439-4d18...@googlegroups.com...

> Did you? The only way to explain Relativity is through use of Divergent
> Matter.

|Nonsense.

And, somehow, you are not interested in his definitions
of "explain" or "use" this time, right, poor idiot?

[Carl Heinz Krüger]

суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:17:25 +0100 пользователь Maciej Woźniak
написал:

I beleive he is right. General Relativity is just a special case of
Divergent Matter. GR cannot explain the spiralling galaxies. Divergent
Matter can. It is where GR's domain of applicability ends and Divergent
Matter takes over.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Uh, "spiraling" galaxies are "twisting" the other way,
that's just a vortex and pretty reasonably a matter of
accretion about a galactic "nucleus" of sorts.

Why arms instead of rings?

There is no "divergent" matter, that's "missing" matter
and a spectre of experiment, no, all matter (except anti-
matter) is normal matter.

Now, "why arms instead of rings", basically maybe it
is that the stars repel each other more than inert
matter does so then when the center implodes it
pulls them in chains instead of shells, because
they don't have "surface tension" on the shells
(of their orbits) that matter would otherwise have.

So, "why arms instead of rings in orbits in galaxies
instead of solar systems" is because stars need their
space and repel each other in their maintenance of
energetic solar output.