info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEIN EXPLAINS THE ABSURD IN TERMS OF THE MORE ABSURD
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Oct 15, 2015, 4:15:33 AM10/15/15
to
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm
Peter Galison: "First, he stipulated that all the laws of physics - including electricity and magnetism - were the same in any constantly moving frame of reference. Then he added a seemingly simple (and modest) second assumption: Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast its source is moving. To anyone thinking of ether this was not so strange: Move your hands at any reasonable speed through a room of still air; once you clap your hands the sound waves propagate through the room at the same speed - independent of the original motion of your hands. Maybe light was like that: a lamp moving in the ether simply excited light waves that radiated out at a single speed independent of the motion of the lamp. Yet these two reasonable starting assumptions appeared to contradict one another. Suppose lamps were flying this way and that at various speeds, but that in some frame the light beams from those lamps were all traveling at 186,000 miles per second, just the speed predicted by the equations of electrodynamics. Wouldn't those same beams of light appear to be traveling at different speeds when seen from a different, moving frame of reference? If that was so, then the equations of electrodynamics would only be valid in one frame of reference, violating Einstein's first principle. It was to resolve this apparent contradiction that Einstein made his single most dramatic move: he criticized the very idea of time as it was usually understood. In particular, he relentlessly pursued the meaning of "simultaneity." Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony."
By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer. Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers, which means that Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate is false:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is
(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c
The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is
(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is
3d/t = c,
and relative to the moving receiver is
4d/t = (4/3)c,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm
Peter Galison: "First, he stipulated that all the laws of physics - including electricity and magnetism - were the same in any constantly moving frame of reference. Then he added a seemingly simple (and modest) second assumption: Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast its source is moving. To anyone thinking of ether this was not so strange: Move your hands at any reasonable speed through a room of still air; once you clap your hands the sound waves propagate through the room at the same speed - independent of the original motion of your hands. Maybe light was like that: a lamp moving in the ether simply excited light waves that radiated out at a single speed independent of the motion of the lamp. Yet these two reasonable starting assumptions appeared to contradict one another. Suppose lamps were flying this way and that at various speeds, but that in some frame the light beams from those lamps were all traveling at 186,000 miles per second, just the speed predicted by the equations of electrodynamics. Wouldn't those same beams of light appear to be traveling at different speeds when seen from a different, moving frame of reference? If that was so, then the equations of electrodynamics would only be valid in one frame of reference, violating Einstein's first principle. It was to resolve this apparent contradiction that Einstein made his single most dramatic move: he criticized the very idea of time as it was usually understood. In particular, he relentlessly pursued the meaning of "simultaneity." Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony."
By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer. Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers, which means that Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate is false:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is
(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c
The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is
(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is
3d/t = c,
and relative to the moving receiver is
4d/t = (4/3)c,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Oct 15, 2015, 7:22:52 AM10/15/15
to
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:15:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in
> science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that
> the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the
> speed of the observer.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>
> By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in
> science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that
> the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the
> speed of the observer.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
“If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” -- Naval Ops Manual
> Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer)
> shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving
> observers, which means that Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-
> light) postulate is false:
>
> http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
>
> "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
Pentcho's reference is a non sequitur because it uses SOUND waves, which
> "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
travel in the MEDIUM of AIR. Punchy Pentcho does not believe in a medium
for light, hence his appeal to this reference is hypocritical.
> That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the
> fixed point (observer) is
>
> (ct/λ)(λ/t) = c
>
> The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is
>
> (ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,
>
> in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho uses specious reasoning (if such can even be called "reasoning")
and sophistry to confuse himself. No one else, however, is confused.
> By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that,
> once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the
> receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses
> are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not
> affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves
> towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened.
> In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the
> source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are
> received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
from that of the source in measuring the wavelength.
> If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the
> source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative
> to the source is
>
> 3d/t = c,
>
> and relative to the moving receiver is
>
> 4d/t = (4/3)c,
>
> in violation of Einstein's relativity.
>
> Pentcho Valev
his idiocies all over this group. He eschews MEASUREMENTS for illogical
and feather-brained "conclusions" that don't even prove his thesis.
Gary
mlwo...@wp.pl
Oct 15, 2015, 7:43:41 AM10/15/15
to
W dniu czwartek, 15 października 2015 13:22:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:15:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in
> > science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that
> > the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the
> > speed of the observer.
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>
> http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> “If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” -- Naval Ops Manual
The Shit is stupid and doesn't work.
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:15:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > By disfiguring space and time Einstein actually killed rationality in
> > science but failed to completely camouflage the idiotic conclusion that
> > the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the
> > speed of the observer.
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>
> http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> “If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” -- Naval Ops Manual
I have to admit, that it has exceptionally
successful marketing, however.
Gary Harnagel
Oct 15, 2015, 8:30:13 AM10/15/15
to
but your abysmally-disgusting lies must be addressed at least once. Your
bullshit assertions are completely baseless with absolutely NO evidence to
back them up.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Oct 15, 2015, 8:51:01 AM10/15/15
to
Everyone can observe it at GPS - your
ingenious concept of counting time locally
don't work so obviously, that even morons
like you didn't EVEN TRY to apply it.
Now you sell as crown success of The Shit
prediction of corrections - corrections that
are FORBIDDEN by its standards. A brilliant
marketing, isn't it? The only real
advantage of The Shit.
Gary Harnagel
Oct 15, 2015, 9:02:53 AM10/15/15
to
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> [His regurgitated, unsubstantiated ranting bullshit]
Never anything new or interesting from this prevaricating pukehead]
>
> [His regurgitated, unsubstantiated ranting bullshit]
Never anything new or interesting from this prevaricating pukehead]
mlwo...@wp.pl
Oct 15, 2015, 9:09:44 AM10/15/15
to
moron.
JanPB
Oct 15, 2015, 7:27:23 PM10/15/15
to
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Oct 16, 2015, 2:54:25 AM10/16/15
to
Einsteinians make career and money by rejecting, more or less explicitly, the idiotic consequence, Einstein's spacetime, while worshiping the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
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. But Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for TPs in Waterloo, Canada, has given it a go by tweaking relativity. He argues that we can rewrite physics in a way that includes "now" if we sacrifice some of our objective notions of space."
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was
"Is the Future Already Written? A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein's notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. George Ellis is not afraid to rock the establishment. In his youth in South Africa, his target was a recognizably corrupt and racist government. Now a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, Ellis has set his sights on something more abstract: the flow of time itself. First developed by Albert Einstein early in the 20th century, the orthodox view holds that the passage of time is an illusion. There is no difference between the past and the future - both are set in stone. Yet for Ellis, the philosophical implications of this mainstream theory do not simply run counter to our intuitions; he considers them dangerous..."
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..." x
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.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."
http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...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.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/happy-birthday-einstein-1_b_8219432.html
Sten Odenwald: "It all comes down to one thing: If we don't know what spacetime really is as a physical agency, how can we possibly understand gravity or try to manipulate it artificially to, among other things, create 'warp drive'? Now THAT is a mind-numbing question. When general relativity turns 200, we may well find its answer....or not!"
Pentcho Valev
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. But Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for TPs in Waterloo, Canada, has given it a go by tweaking relativity. He argues that we can rewrite physics in a way that includes "now" if we sacrifice some of our objective notions of space."
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was
"Is the Future Already Written? A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein's notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. George Ellis is not afraid to rock the establishment. In his youth in South Africa, his target was a recognizably corrupt and racist government. Now a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, Ellis has set his sights on something more abstract: the flow of time itself. First developed by Albert Einstein early in the 20th century, the orthodox view holds that the passage of time is an illusion. There is no difference between the past and the future - both are set in stone. Yet for Ellis, the philosophical implications of this mainstream theory do not simply run counter to our intuitions; he considers them dangerous..."
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..." x
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.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."
http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...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.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/happy-birthday-einstein-1_b_8219432.html
Sten Odenwald: "It all comes down to one thing: If we don't know what spacetime really is as a physical agency, how can we possibly understand gravity or try to manipulate it artificially to, among other things, create 'warp drive'? Now THAT is a mind-numbing question. When general relativity turns 200, we may well find its answer....or not!"
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Oct 16, 2015, 7:33:41 AM10/16/15
to
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 12:54:25 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einsteinians make career and money by rejecting, more or less explicitly,
> the idiotic consequence, Einstein's spacetime, while worshiping the
> underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
Ho hum, this is just repetitious regurgitation of Prevaricating Pentcho's
>
> Einsteinians make career and money by rejecting, more or less explicitly,
> the idiotic consequence, Einstein's spacetime, while worshiping the
> underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
false mantra. What is needed to derive the Lorentz transform is
Galileo's Principle of Relativity and the speed of light being independent
of the motion of source or receiver. Puerile Pentcho has not refuted
either one of those, so his rantings are just silliness.
0 new messages