EINSTEINIANS ARE GOING TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-questions-flu-shot-effectiveness
TOMMY: If time slows down and theoretically stops at the speed of
light, with the neutrinos that go faster than the speed of light,
would time travel not be possible now?
BRIAN GREENE: Well, that's why most of us don't believe the results
about the neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. Because
you're right, if indeed, we take Einstein's idea seriously, and the
data that these recent experiments suggest showing that neutrinos go
faster than the speed of light, there would be a crack in time. In a
sense, we would be able to send signals to the past. So most of us
believe that those experiments are probably not going to stand up to
scrutiny. Even the experimenters themselves put it out as something
that they want the physics community and the rest of the world to try
to poke holes in to see what they did wrong. As yet, nobody has done
that, but you need independent confirmation of such a wild possibility
of going faster than the speed of light. We're going to wait and see
what happens.

Don't wait, Brian Greene. You are a theoretician, this science is
DEDUCTIVE and therefore if-clauses, not future experimental results,
should in the first place prompt your deep thoughts. For instance:

Are time dilation, length contraction and other miracles legitimate
concepts IF the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments have
confirmed, in some insignificant but still valid way, Newton's
emission theory of light (apart from gloriously confirming Divine
Albert's Divine Theory):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with
an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0
Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as
everything else."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité
générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe
comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Brian Greene is Einsteiniana's former showman. The new showman, Brian
Cox, is also waiting after having taught lies during all his career:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/18/einstein-relativity-science-book-review
"Why Does E=mc^2? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw - review (...) By the
end of the 19th century, Maxwell had tied together decades of work on
electricity and magnetism by, among others, Humphrey Davy and Michael
Faraday, to produce his masterful equations on electromagnetism. These
showed that light was a wave in the electromagnetic field, much as
ripples on a pond are waves in water or sound is a wave in the air. He
also showed that these waves of light moved at a constant speed, "c",
through empty space and that speed remained the same no matter who was
watching. Whether you are sitting still or moving at hundreds of miles
an hour towards the source of the light, Maxwell's equations say that
the light you see will only ever move at "c" relative to you."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
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."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the lie:

"Whether you are sitting still or moving at hundreds of miles an hour
towards the source of the light, Maxwell's equations say that the
light you see will only ever move at "c" relative to you."

is an absolute truth, just like the lie "Two and two make five" in Big
Brother's world. Only the "subtlest pactitioners of doublethink" (John
Norton) are entitled to refer to the old truth and even rebuke silly
Einsteinians (Michio Kaku) for lying too clumsily:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory."

Michio Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he
could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he
suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's
equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered
more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams
always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."

Norton again: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student
at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900,
well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet
the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the
ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That
theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of
a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The dodgiest Einsteinians are not waiting - they just abandoned Divine
Albert's Divine Theory some time ago:

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01116836cfab970c-pi

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Subtle ways of leaving the sinking ship:

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing
that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of
mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have
virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to
me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of
science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories
scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales."
I'd concur with that."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher
based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in
physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The
trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with
relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose
geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to
differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to
do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity
seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics
operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But
Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special
relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless
they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is
relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a
proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is
literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of
his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has
become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes
that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real
as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The
notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for
Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate
students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

http://hps.master.univ-paris7.fr/cours_du_temps.doc
Etienne Klein: "Aujourd'hui, L'astrophysicien Thibault Damour
développe à sa manière des idées qui vont dans le même sens. Selon
lui, le temps qui passe (qu'il sagisse d'un fait ou de notre
sentiment) est le produit de notre seule subjectivité, un effet que
nous devrions au caractère irréversible de notre mise en mémoire, de
sorte que la question du cours du temps relèverait non pas de la
physique, mais des sciences cognitives. Il écrit : « De même que la
notion de température n'a aucun sens si l'on considère un système
constitué d'un petit nombre de particules, de même il est probable que
la notion d'écoulement du temps n'a de sens que pour certains systèmes
complexes, qui évoluent hors de l'équilibre thermodynamique, et qui
gèrent d'une certaine façon les informations accumulées dans leur
mémoire. » Le temps ne serait donc qu'une apparence d'ordre
psychologique : « Dans le domaine d'espace-temps que nous observons,
poursuit-il, nous avons l'impression qu'il s'écoule "du bas vers le
haut" de l'espace-temps, alors qu'en réalité ce dernier constitue un
bloc rigide qui n'est nullement orienté a priori : il ne le devient
que pour nous [35]. » L'existence même d'un « cours du temps », ou
d'un « passage du temps », n'est ainsi que simple apparence pour de
nombreux physiciens contemporains. Certains vont même jusqu'à
considérer le passage du temps comme une pure illusion, comme un
produit culturel abusivement dérivé de la métaphore du fleuve. C'est
en effet la conception dite de l'« univers-bloc » qui semble avoir les
faveurs d'une majorité de physiciens. Dans le droit fil de la théorie
de la relativité, celle-ci consiste à invoquer un univers constitué
d'un continuum d'espace-temps à quatre dimensions, privé de tout flux
temporel : tous les événements, qu'ils soient passés, présents et
futurs, ont exactement la même réalité, de la même façon que
différents lieux coexistent, en même temps et avec le même poids
ontologique, dans l'espace. En d'autres termes, les notions de passé
ou de futur ne sont que des notions relatives, comme celles d'Est et
d'Ouest. En un sens, tout ce qui va exister existe déjà et tout ce qui
a existé existe encore. L'espace-temps contient l'ensemble de
l'histoire de la réalité comme la partition contient l'uvre musicale :
la partition existe sous une forme statique, mais ce qu'elle contient,
l'esprit humain l'appréhende généralement sous la forme d'un flux
temporel."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Kurt Bashwitz]

On Oct 29, 8:37 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-questions-flu-shot-e...

this must be right, it just follows its geodesics

>
> http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
> "Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité
> générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe
> comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

good posts, thanks

[Pentcho Valev]

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/neutrino_experiment_affirms_fa.html
NATURE: "It's slightly better than the previous result," says OPERA's
physics coordinator Dario Autiero of the Institut de Physique
Nucleaire de Lyon in France (pictured). He adds that most of the
members of the collaboration who declined to sign the original paper
because they wanted more time to check the result have now come on
board. One of these is Caren Hagner of the University of Hamburg in
Germany. She says not only has the experiment's precision been
improved, the statistical analysis is more robust and has been
replicated by different groups within OPERA not just the original
team. "We gained much more confidence," Hagner says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-more-data-shows-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html
NEW SCIENTIST: More data shows neutrinos still faster than light

Brian Greene,

Are you still waiting? Don't - it's time to leave:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

[james thomas]

On Nov 17, 6:37 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/neutrino_experiment_affirms_fa.html
> NATURE: "It's slightly better than the previous result," says OPERA's
> physics coordinator Dario Autiero of the Institut de Physique
> Nucleaire de Lyon in France (pictured). He adds that most of the
> members of the collaboration who declined to sign the original paper
> because they wanted more time to check the result have now come on
> board. One of these is Caren Hagner of the University of Hamburg in
> Germany. She says not only has the experiment's precision been
> improved, the statistical analysis is more robust and has been
> replicated by different groups within OPERA not just the original
> team. "We gained much more confidence," Hagner says.
>

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-more-data-shows-neutrinos...

> NEW SCIENTIST: More data shows neutrinos still faster than light
>
> Brian Greene,
>
> Are you still waiting? Don't - it's time to leave:
>

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_Z...
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-questions-flu-shot-e...

Observer Created Reality is out.

Mitchell Raemsch