EINSTEINIANS : CHILDREN OF THE UNIVERSE

[Pentcho Valev]

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-problem-of-now.html
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Most people get a general feeling of uneasiness when they first realize that the block universe implies all the past and all the future is equally real as the present moment, that even though we experience the present moment as special, it is only subjectively so. But if you can combat your uneasiness for long enough, you might come to see the beauty in eternal mathematical truths that transcend the passage of time. We always have been, and always will be, children of the universe."

The children of the universe know that the future already exists - they can jump, within a minute, sixty million years ahead and see what will happen then on Earth:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Jumping in the future is possible because, on the planet on which the children of the universe live, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true. If Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate were false, the children of the universe would jump again but just up and down, not in the future.

Pentcho Valev

[Osher]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:50:46 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-problem-of-now.html
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "Most people get a general feeling of uneasiness when

Unlike the Twin Paradox, time causation results in Probable Causation and Probable Polyominoes (see my posts for the last few months here) retain a causal structure similar to logical "if-then" or the logical conditional (a-->b) = ~a V b. Einstein's theories yield an incomplete theory of time in which two time regions are supposedly demarcated, an observer's past and an observer's future, which may include the present in either or both, supposedly constrained by regions where light can travel from the past relative to the present - if light could not get somewhere that we can observe from some past "source" or big bang, then it is supposed to belong to a different region relative to the light cone picture, while if it can get there it belongs to another region.

Osher Doctorow

[Pentcho Valev]

Children of the universe's confessions:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/prophets-and-prophecy-independent.html
Lubos Motl: "...Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday... (...) Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar moral credentials in the public, I actually find it plausible today that Einstein himself might have been a representative of the former category as the Einstein and Eddington movie suggested. He might have been an utilitarian, not a monk (which I used to believe to be an accurate label for Einstein 25 years ago)."

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science."

http://www.amazon.com/What-Einstein-Was-Wrong-Questions/dp/1782400451
What If Einstein Was Wrong? Brian Clegg, Jim Al-Khalili: "It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Einstein could get it wrong, because science is not about absolute truth..."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
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/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"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..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
Philip Ball: "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.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://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlycareer/events/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

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.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/129
"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava is challenging this notion... (...) Now Horava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and - in physics terms, at least - sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein's tenet that time is always relative, never absolute. Horava's controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute - an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein's subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity. "Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Horava."

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c5.php
Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The children of the universe are leaving the sinking ship because they now know that Einstein's 1954 forewarning was justified:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

There had been a similar hint as early as in 1909:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."

Clearly, if the field concept is fatal for physics, as Einstein suggests in 1954, the only reasonable alternative is Newton's emission theory of light stating that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the emitter:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, 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."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219431207/Albert-Einstein-On-the-Theory-of-Relativity
Albert Einstein 1921: "The law of the constant velocity of light in empty space, which has been confirmed by the development of electro-dynamics and optics, and the equal legitimacy of all inertial systems (special principle of relativity), which was proved in a particularly incisive manner by Michelson's famous experiment, between them made it necessary, to begin with, that the concept of time should be made relative, each inertial system being given its own special time."

Had "the development of electro-dynamics and optics" confirmed "the law of the constant velocity of light in empty space"? Of course not - Einstein was just lying blatantly. Inertial systems should not be given "special times" - they all obey Newton's universal time.

Pentcho Valev

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/22/2014 11:49 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Had "the development of electro-dynamics and optics" confirmed "the law of the constant velocity of light
> in empty space"?

Yes, pretty sure it did.

> Of course not - Einstein was just lying blatantly.

Don't think so, no.

> Inertial systems should not be given "special times"

They're not special.

> - they all obey Newton's universal time.

You don't get to insist what nature should do.

[benj]

Obviously you have not been following the discussions in this newsgroup!

[Odd Bodkin]

You're right. People can do any foolish thing they feel like doing, and
plenty of them do it in this newsgroup, and nobody is going to stop them.

But doing it is STILL foolish, and persistence in doing foolish things
is the pattern of a fool.