info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stephen Hawking Wrong. Back to Drawing Board on... Relativity!
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 25, 2017, 11:27:26 AM6/25/17
to
"According to the Sunday Times, Prof. Turok has now published research suggesting that the basic maths behind Hawking's views is incorrect and it is back to drawing board on the origins of the universe." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/steven-hawkings-just-got-dissed-his-basic-maths-wrong-says-scientist-friend-1627731
Not just the math - Stephen Hawking's basic ideas are wrong. So he believes and teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed the constancy of the speed of light:
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Actually in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the variable (dependent on the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and accordingly incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
That is, in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment DISPROVED the constancy of the speed of light so Neil Turok and brothers Einsteinians should go back to drawing board on relativity, not on the origins of the universe.
Pentcho Valev
Not just the math - Stephen Hawking's basic ideas are wrong. So he believes and teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed the constancy of the speed of light:
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Actually in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the variable (dependent on the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and accordingly incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
That is, in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment DISPROVED the constancy of the speed of light so Neil Turok and brothers Einsteinians should go back to drawing board on relativity, not on the origins of the universe.
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Jun 25, 2017, 12:32:28 PM6/25/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 5:27:26 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "According to the Sunday Times, Prof. Turok has now published research suggesting that the basic maths behind Hawking's views is incorrect and it is back to drawing board on the origins of the universe." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/steven-hawkings-just-got-dissed-his-basic-maths-wrong-says-scientist-friend-1627731
Why do you forever make such a big drama out of the standard course of
> "According to the Sunday Times, Prof. Turok has now published research suggesting that the basic maths behind Hawking's views is incorrect and it is back to drawing board on the origins of the universe." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/steven-hawkings-just-got-dissed-his-basic-maths-wrong-says-scientist-friend-1627731
physics evolution?
Answer: because you are obsessed to the point of mania with the person of
Albert Einstein. Nothing to do with physics.
--
Jan
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller
Jun 25, 2017, 12:45:21 PM6/25/17
to
AutoBit Pentcho Valev copypasta-ed
"According to the Sunday Times, Prof. Turok
Look.... I have a news App.
We don't need your reposting of Spam consumer Physics news
Please attempt an original thought before posting
"According to the Sunday Times, Prof. Turok
We don't need your reposting of Spam consumer Physics news
Please attempt an original thought before posting
Pentcho Valev
Jun 26, 2017, 8:04:45 AM6/26/17
to
Needless to say, Stephen Hawking is not the only fraudster who teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light. Actually this is the fundamental fraud in Einstein's schizophrenic world - without it Einstein's relativity would never have existed. So it is universally taught:
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
Paradox: The truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment is widely known (it can even be seen in Wikipedia) and yet Einsteinians brazenly teach the lie. And the world seems to accept this as normal. How is that possible? In Einstein's schizophrenic world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is very popular - everybody finds this principle perfectly reasonable:
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
Paradox: The truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment is widely known (it can even be seen in Wikipedia) and yet Einsteinians brazenly teach the lie. And the world seems to accept this as normal. How is that possible? In Einstein's schizophrenic world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is very popular - everybody finds this principle perfectly reasonable:
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jun 26, 2017, 8:27:59 AM6/26/17
to
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:04:45 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Needless to say, Stephen Hawking is not the only fraudster who teaches that
> the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light.
> Actually this is the fundamental fraud in Einstein's schizophrenic world -
> without it Einstein's relativity would never have existed.
Completely false assertion. There were other observations that led to
>
> Needless to say, Stephen Hawking is not the only fraudster who teaches that
> the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light.
> Actually this is the fundamental fraud in Einstein's schizophrenic world -
> without it Einstein's relativity would never have existed.
relativity, such as measurements of light in flowing water by Fizeau.
That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
invariance of the speed of light.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 26, 2017, 8:35:43 AM6/26/17
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 czerwca 2017 14:27:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> invariance of the speed of light.
A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Measurements
> That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> invariance of the speed of light.
(GPS) show that time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error;
invariance of the speed of light can't survive that.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 26, 2017, 9:44:04 AM6/26/17
to
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:35:43 AM UTC-6, maniacal liar wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu poniedziałek, 26 czerwca 2017 14:27:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> > reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> > invariance of the speed of light.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
Maniacal Liar Wozniak is the liar here. He routinely falsely asserts
>
> W dniu poniedziałek, 26 czerwca 2017 14:27:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> > reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> > invariance of the speed of light.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
bull plop.
> Measurements (GPS) show that time (as defined by your idiot guru
> himself) is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error;
> invariance of the speed of light can't survive that.
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller
Jun 26, 2017, 9:52:12 AM6/26/17
to
Belial = Father of LIES = DEVIL
Gary is Funny LOL !!
Belial (also known as Beliar) is a term occurring in the Hebrew Bible which later became personified as the devil[1] in Jewish and Christian texts.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
http://biblehub.com/john/8-44.htm
Jim Petroff
Jun 26, 2017, 11:45:04 AM6/26/17
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
> That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> invariance of the speed of light.
Actually we got news for you. Ultra-high EM light is travelling a bit
> That Hawking and others are wrong about the MMX does not invalidate the
> reality that measurements confirm that Einstein was right about the
> invariance of the speed of light.
faster than LF.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 26, 2017, 2:15:28 PM6/26/17
to
photon had rest mass, but there is no evidence that it does.
Jim Petroff
Jun 26, 2017, 2:24:01 PM6/26/17
to
collaborate.
Pentcho Valev
Jun 27, 2017, 9:47:45 AM6/27/17
to
The root of all the evil in physics:
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Then, if special relativity is the root of all the evil (which means that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false), why don't Magueijo, Smolin, Turok, Hawking and brothers Einsteinians all over the world just abandon it? Magueijo explains:
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
This means that the following conditional is valid:
If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905).
Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)
is correct.
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Then, if special relativity is the root of all the evil (which means that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false), why don't Magueijo, Smolin, Turok, Hawking and brothers Einsteinians all over the world just abandon it? Magueijo explains:
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
This means that the following conditional is valid:
If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905).
Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)
is correct.
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Jim Petroff
Jun 27, 2017, 9:59:09 AM6/27/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and
> I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in
> January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park
I love paradoxes in Relativity. Because those paradoxes are not paradoxes.
> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and
> I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in
> January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park
All the other paradoxes in the world, are paradoxes. Except in Relativity,
where they are not.
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller
Jun 27, 2017, 10:12:46 AM6/27/17
to
Inflation
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5xQ4ePN79-M/maxresdefault.jpg
https://youtu.be/5xQ4ePN79-M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem
http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/archive/Triply/genus3/PLines/web/600b.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
For centuries, people have puzzled over how our Universe began. But the heat just got turned way up on a debate that's quietly been raging between cosmologists, with 33 of the world's most famous physicists publishing a letter angrily defending one of the leading hypotheses we have for the origin of the Universe.
The letter is in response to a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory - the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang. The article went as far as claiming that the model "cannot be evaluated using the scientific method" - the academic equivalent of saying it isn't even real science.
http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-32-top-physicists-just-signed-a-heated-letter-on-the-origin-of-the-universe
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5xQ4ePN79-M/maxresdefault.jpg
https://youtu.be/5xQ4ePN79-M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem
http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/archive/Triply/genus3/PLines/web/600b.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
For centuries, people have puzzled over how our Universe began. But the heat just got turned way up on a debate that's quietly been raging between cosmologists, with 33 of the world's most famous physicists publishing a letter angrily defending one of the leading hypotheses we have for the origin of the Universe.
The letter is in response to a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory - the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang. The article went as far as claiming that the model "cannot be evaluated using the scientific method" - the academic equivalent of saying it isn't even real science.
http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-32-top-physicists-just-signed-a-heated-letter-on-the-origin-of-the-universe
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller
Jun 27, 2017, 10:36:37 AM6/27/17
to
(375 + (3^0.5)) / 120 = 3.13943375673
c / ((375 + (3^0.5)) / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) = 0.999995388
3e+8 / (2 - ((375 + (3^0.5)) / (120 * pi))) = 299793982.111
375 / 3e+8 = 0.00000125
1 / (((375 / 3e+8) * 8.888888888e-12)^0.5) = 3e+8
c / ((375 + (3^0.5)) / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) = 0.999995388
3e+8 / (2 - ((375 + (3^0.5)) / (120 * pi))) = 299793982.111
375 / 3e+8 = 0.00000125
1 / (((375 / 3e+8) * 8.888888888e-12)^0.5) = 3e+8
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 27, 2017, 5:21:54 PM6/27/17
to
"Jim Petroff" wrote:
> I love paradoxes in Relativity. Because those paradoxes are not paradoxes.
> All the other paradoxes in the world, are paradoxes. Except in Relativity,
> where they are not.
Those problems are called “paradoxes” because they appear paradoxical to
> I love paradoxes in Relativity. Because those paradoxes are not paradoxes.
> All the other paradoxes in the world, are paradoxes. Except in Relativity,
> where they are not.
entities, like ‘nym-shifting trolls as you, who *do not understand*
relativity (yet).
*PLONK*
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Jim Petroff
Jun 29, 2017, 3:44:49 PM6/29/17
to
JanPB wrote:
> Answer: because you are obsessed to the point of mania with the person
> of Albert Einstein. Nothing to do with physics.
Not true, unless that person is alive and well.
> Answer: because you are obsessed to the point of mania with the person
> of Albert Einstein. Nothing to do with physics.
bigal...@gmail.com
Jun 29, 2017, 7:31:14 PM6/29/17
to
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:47:45 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
(cut)
>
(cut)
> Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
>
> Pentcho Valev
If the speed of light was related to the motion of the source, we could see multiple images of each star in a double star system, one when the earlier light was leaving the star while the star was travelling away from us, and the later faster light while the star was traveling torwards which could catch up to , and pass, the slower, earlier light. We never see more than one image of each star, implying that the speed of light is constant.
>
> Pentcho Valev
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Jul 4, 2017, 5:11:32 AM7/4/17
to
To JanPB (off topic)
Do you monitor your fil...@gmail.com email account? I sent a "Reply privately to author" earlier today.
Thanks
Do you monitor your fil...@gmail.com email account? I sent a "Reply privately to author" earlier today.
Thanks
0 new messages