Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Most Insane Einsteinians: String Theorists
123 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jul 4, 2017, 2:34:28 PM7/4/17
to
String theorists reject Einstein's spacetime but do not question the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate ("true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden in logic but not in Einstein's schizophrenic world):
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
So spacetime doesn't exist but ripples in spacetime do exist (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we) and string theorists study them enthusiastically:
"Scientists from Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam have found credible theoretical evidence that hidden dimensions - as predicted by string theory - could influence gravitational waves. In a recently published study, they delve into the possible consequences of extra dimensions on the ripples in space-time, and assess whether or not these effects could be detected." https://www.mobipicker.com/gravitational-waves-key-hidden-dimensions-predicted-string-theory/
Pentcho Valev
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
So spacetime doesn't exist but ripples in spacetime do exist (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we) and string theorists study them enthusiastically:
"Scientists from Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam have found credible theoretical evidence that hidden dimensions - as predicted by string theory - could influence gravitational waves. In a recently published study, they delve into the possible consequences of extra dimensions on the ripples in space-time, and assess whether or not these effects could be detected." https://www.mobipicker.com/gravitational-waves-key-hidden-dimensions-predicted-string-theory/
Pentcho Valev
kenseto
Jul 5, 2017, 7:08:54 AM7/5/17
to
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:34:28 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> String theorists reject Einstein's spacetime but do not question the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate ("true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden in logic but not in Einstein's schizophrenic world):
>
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
In my book page 32 “Spacetime” is replaced by a stationary, structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix can be deformed by the motions of material objects and interacting objects are confined to follow these deformations as they travel in the E-Matrix. This is the basis of all interactions between material objects.
> String theorists reject Einstein's spacetime but do not question the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate ("true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden in logic but not in Einstein's schizophrenic world):
>
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Pentcho Valev
Jul 5, 2017, 11:44:26 AM7/5/17
to
String theorist Petr Horava apparently repudiates Einstein's relativity:
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. It was a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/
"Splitting Time from Space - New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime. Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots. Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity. [...] But now Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he understands the problem. It's all, he says, a matter of time. More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity. Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute - steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don't gel."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/
"Splitting time from space" presupposes declaring that the underlying premise that ties time to space, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. But, of course, neither Horava nor any other string theorist cares about whether Einstein's spacetime is true or not. They are all degenerate scavengers that feed on the remnants of the dead physics. If repudiating Einstein's relativity will provide them with more carrion, they will repudiate it. If not, not.
Pentcho Valev
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. It was a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/
"Splitting Time from Space - New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime. Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots. Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity. [...] But now Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he understands the problem. It's all, he says, a matter of time. More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity. Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute - steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don't gel."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/
"Splitting time from space" presupposes declaring that the underlying premise that ties time to space, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. But, of course, neither Horava nor any other string theorist cares about whether Einstein's spacetime is true or not. They are all degenerate scavengers that feed on the remnants of the dead physics. If repudiating Einstein's relativity will provide them with more carrion, they will repudiate it. If not, not.
Pentcho Valev
Michael Moroney
Jul 5, 2017, 1:31:46 PM7/5/17
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>In my book page 32 'Spacetime' is replaced by a stationary,
>structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix.
Just one reason of dozens why your book is a complete, total failure.
>In my book page 32 'Spacetime' is replaced by a stationary,
>structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix.
Odd Bodkin
Jul 5, 2017, 1:53:41 PM7/5/17
to
On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> In my book page 32 “Spacetime” is replaced by a stationary, structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix can be deformed by the motions of material objects and interacting objects are confined to follow these deformations as they travel in the E-Matrix. This is the basis of all interactions between material objects.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Congratulations Ken on coming to the realization after TWO DECADES that
> In my book page 32 “Spacetime” is replaced by a stationary, structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix can be deformed by the motions of material objects and interacting objects are confined to follow these deformations as they travel in the E-Matrix. This is the basis of all interactions between material objects.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
you're never going to make a dime on your book and you might as well
just make it openly available in the off chance that someone will pay
some attention to it.
As someone said in an overheard bar conversation recently, "Who PAYS for
pornography anymore?"
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Pentcho Valev
Jul 6, 2017, 4:19:53 AM7/6/17
to
Insane Einsteinians often teach that Einstein's 1905 second postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is a consequence of the first, the principle of relativity (Einstein suggested the idiocy here http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html):
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html
Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4
Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4
Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/
Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html
Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second."
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers."
However it takes an extremely insane and silly Einsteinian, a string theorist, to discover that Einstein's second postulate MORALLY follows from the first one:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
Lubos Motl, the Tomas de Torquemada of the string cult: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics."
Pentcho Valev
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html
Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4
Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4
Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/
Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html
Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second."
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers."
However it takes an extremely insane and silly Einsteinian, a string theorist, to discover that Einstein's second postulate MORALLY follows from the first one:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
Lubos Motl, the Tomas de Torquemada of the string cult: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics."
Pentcho Valev
Oveho Trofyzikovu
Jul 6, 2017, 9:29:51 AM7/6/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is
> convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's
> replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
JUst another excellent catch by Dr. Pentcho. There is no need to replace
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is
> convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's
> replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
anything, which doesn't even exists in the first place. What you can say
is, that you have degrees of freedom, DOFs. There is no Space, hence you
can't have anything resembling, an even more fictive, 'spacetime'. Fully
in concordance with my Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies theory.
Oveho Trofyzikovu
Jul 6, 2017, 9:32:12 AM7/6/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4
> Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle
> of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value
> in two uniformly moving frames of reference."
Yes, buy changing the numbers of crests (freq) and then their allocated
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4
> Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle
> of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value
> in two uniformly moving frames of reference."
speed. Strange but true, according to the mainstream community.
Pentcho Valev
Jul 7, 2017, 5:06:46 PM7/7/17
to
You never know whether a string theorist is extremely insane or extremely stupid or both. Here is Edward Witten, the genius of the string cult, who teaches, at 1:17, that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light posited by the ether theory, and disproved the variable (dependent on the speed of the source) speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnzLpyDsn3M
Edward Witten on modern physics
Of course, ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians teach the same blatant lie but I suspect that many of them are just liars while Ed Witten is simply unable to understand the Michelson-Morley experiment, no matter how hard he tries.
Pentcho Valev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnzLpyDsn3M
Edward Witten on modern physics
Of course, ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians teach the same blatant lie but I suspect that many of them are just liars while Ed Witten is simply unable to understand the Michelson-Morley experiment, no matter how hard he tries.
Pentcho Valev
Nicolaas Vroom
Jul 8, 2017, 8:02:10 AM7/8/17
to
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 20:34:28 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> String theorists reject Einstein's spacetime but do not question the
> underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate
> ("true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden in logic but not in
> Einstein's schizophrenic world):
>
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is
> convinced ...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's
> String theorists reject Einstein's spacetime but do not question the
> underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate
> ("true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden in logic but not in
> Einstein's schizophrenic world):
>
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is
> replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
This last sentence comes from a larger paragraph which reads:
The breakdown splashed front and center in string theory. Nobel Laureate
David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that
spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields
medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.”
Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said,
"I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are
primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."
The problem which this paragraph, and with the whole article, is that it
gives not enough detail. It is an overview of opinions.
The first issue to understand is what means spacetime, space and time.
On purpose I do not write: what is etc.
To describe space we use a coordinate system. In principle space is empty.
The point x,y,z describe a point at a distance x,y,z from the origin 0,0,0
The time t is the duration t (or clicks) after we start a timer.
To describe spacetime we use complex numbers x,ict
We define a complex line segment s = x + ict.
The length s^2 = l^2 - ct^2 or better s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - ct^2
The problem? is that the line segment s nor that spacetime exists.
Spacetime is a mathematical construction. Space exist and time is
something what humans experience.
String theory is something (as far as I understand) more fundamental
than the standard model. It describes the building blocks of the quarcks?
The problem is that all of this has nothing(?) to do with space and time.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom
Pentcho Valev
Jul 8, 2017, 8:27:49 AM7/8/17
to
All string theorists are imbeciles but still there is a champion. He is so disgustingly stupid that brothers Einsteinians sometimes forget the rules of the brotherhood and expose his stupidity in public:
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." JOHN 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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
As far as cretinism is concerned, Michio Kaku is the champion of the champions in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance." http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
Pentcho Valev
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." JOHN 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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
As far as cretinism is concerned, Michio Kaku is the champion of the champions in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance." http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
Pentcho Valev
kenseto
Jul 8, 2017, 9:04:13 AM7/8/17
to
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > In my book page 32 “Spacetime” is replaced by a stationary, structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix can be deformed by the motions of material objects and interacting objects are confined to follow these deformations as they travel in the E-Matrix. This is the basis of all interactions between material objects.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> Congratulations Ken on coming to the realization after TWO DECADES that
> you're never going to make a dime on your book and you might as well
> just make it openly available in the off chance that someone will pay
> some attention to it.
Hey moron.....what is your problem whether I make any money to not?
> On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > In my book page 32 “Spacetime” is replaced by a stationary, structured and elastic substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix can be deformed by the motions of material objects and interacting objects are confined to follow these deformations as they travel in the E-Matrix. This is the basis of all interactions between material objects.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> Congratulations Ken on coming to the realization after TWO DECADES that
> you're never going to make a dime on your book and you might as well
> just make it openly available in the off chance that someone will pay
> some attention to it.
Alan Folmsbee
Jul 8, 2017, 11:46:29 AM7/8/17
to
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:04:13 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> "... time”...
> > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
Dear Mr. Seto, time grow radially out of protons and neutrons.
Time grows as a homogenized, omnidirectional dimension,
with no 1/R^2 diminution.
Time grows in a way that makes it inevitable that states will change.
Time goes at the speed c, away from you and me.
kenseto
Jul 8, 2017, 1:43:56 PM7/8/17
to
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:04:13 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> > > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > "... time”...
>
> Dear Mr. Seto, time grow radially out of protons and neutrons.
How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:04:13 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> > > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > "... time”...
>
> Dear Mr. Seto, time grow radially out of protons and neutrons.
In my theory the only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
Ursler Zilberschlag
Jul 8, 2017, 1:51:23 PM7/8/17
to
kenseto wrote:
> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage
> of absolute time is insensitive to motion.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
We agree with a small addition. Time not grow, but matter diverging.
> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage
> of absolute time is insensitive to motion.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
Gary Harnagel
Jul 8, 2017, 8:39:35 PM7/8/17
to
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:04:13 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > "... time”...
> >
> > Dear Mr. Seto, time grow radially out of protons and neutrons.
>
> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:46:29 AM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:04:13 AM UTC-10, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/17 6:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > "... time”...
> >
> > Dear Mr. Seto, time grow radially out of protons and neutrons.
>
> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
Ursler Zilberschlag
Jul 9, 2017, 6:03:51 AM7/9/17
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
>> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
>
> There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
Then how you explain all clocks ticks regularly the same locally,
>> How does time grow out of protons and neutrons?
>> In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
>
> There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
disregard where put them in this universe? You can't explain anything.
kenseto
Jul 9, 2017, 9:20:06 AM7/9/17
to
Ursler Zilberschlag
Jul 9, 2017, 9:38:36 AM7/9/17
to
kenseto wrote:
>> There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument. The GPS uses absolute time to synch
> the GPS with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have
> 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second.
> This is designed to make the redefined GPS second contains the same
> amount of absolute time as the standard ground clock second and thus
> making the GPS and the ground clock are in synch in terms of absolute
> time.
Powerful observation. However none of them really exists. Space is nothing
>> There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument. The GPS uses absolute time to synch
> the GPS with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have
> 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second.
> This is designed to make the redefined GPS second contains the same
> amount of absolute time as the standard ground clock second and thus
> making the GPS and the ground clock are in synch in terms of absolute
> time.
else than Degrees of Freedom. To constitute that, it implies a fictive
parameter, named Time. Hence all you have are three (3) Degrees of
Freedom, DoF. Everything else are .. Peripheral, fictive.
Hence, you perhaps should modify your E-Matrix equations in IRT and Model
Mechanics of the Moving Bodies equations.
Gary Harnagel
Jul 9, 2017, 9:55:47 AM7/9/17
to
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> >
> > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument.
Neither are YOUR assertions.
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> >
> > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument.
> The GPS uses absolute time
> [Remaining false regurgitation deleted to maintain mental sanity]
kenseto
Jul 10, 2017, 7:15:22 AM7/10/17
to
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:55:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> > >
> > > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
> >
> > Assertion is not a valid argument.
>
> Neither are YOUR assertions.
>
> > The GPS uses absolute time
>
> No, it does not.
Moron.....the GPS does use absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock.....that’s why they redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> > >
> > > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
> >
> > Assertion is not a valid argument.
>
> Neither are YOUR assertions.
>
> > The GPS uses absolute time
>
> No, it does not.
Gary Harnagel
Jul 10, 2017, 8:45:43 AM7/10/17
to
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:15:22 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:55:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> > > >
> > > > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
> > >
> > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> >
> > Neither are YOUR assertions.
> >
> > > The GPS uses absolute time
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> Moron.....
You certainly are if you stupidly believe that
>
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:55:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:39:35 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In my theory the only time exists is absolute time.
> > > >
> > > > There is no "absolute time"; therefore, your speculation is hopeless.
> > >
> > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> >
> > Neither are YOUR assertions.
> >
> > > The GPS uses absolute time
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> Moron.....
> the GPS does use absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground
> clock.....
0 new messages