WHY EINSTEIN STILL RULES
Pentcho Valev
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
"At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
"Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
"Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
Michelson said."
In Big Brother's world:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
RULES,"Michelson said.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Juan R.
because his (and others) theories work withing its field of applicability.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
BURT
> In Einsteiniana:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
I think that Einstein's legacy stuck because of his gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
following hypothesis:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-bumps-no-obstacle-for-light.html
"If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
tiny fluctuations in space-time."
A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my
view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by
no means rejected if this particular observation were the only
evidence.
There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka,
where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental
theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity
but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by
new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of
Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the
following questions:
The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
(A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
(B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation
c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the
speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
(C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis,
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where
v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
(D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field
(E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by
Einstein in 1911
(F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/
c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable
couple.
BURT
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
> against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
> reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
> auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
> theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
> photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
> following hypothesis:
>
Also his work on the comsology of a finite unbounded and closed
universe was significant.
Doubting Einstein is not the way to go about making new science.
Finding the problems in established science is the right way.
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or against
> fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple reason that
> they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit auxiliary
> hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental theory. In
> the case discussed below the observation that high-energy photons arrive
> later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the following hypothesis:
Evidently, Einstein's relativity (more correctly relativity) has experimental
basis.
Evidently both B and E are invalidated by experience. Whereas Einstein
initially proposed (E), he finally corrected and give the factor two
explaining light bending. He corrected his mistakes, you repeat the yours
for years... this is why he "still rules" and you never did :-D
(...)
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
>against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
>reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
>auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
>theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
>photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
>following hypothesis:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-bumps-no-obstacle-for-light.html
>"If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
>than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
>photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
>tiny fluctuations in space-time."
Notice the use of the term 'space-time' when it is SPACE that is being
discussed. This is just a ploy to give the reader the impression that the
writer is intelligent.
In reality, nothing 'moves' in space time.
>A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Pentcho Valev
source of WATER WAVES, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That is, moving observer finds
both the frequency and the speed of the wave to have increased (while
the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT).
Three possible statements about LIGHT:
(A) (Einstein should not rule): "If the observer were to hurry towards
the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That means that, in analogy with
the water wave case, moving observer finds both the frequency and the
speed of light to have increased (while the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - HAS REMAINED CONSTANT)."
(B) (Einstein still rules but things get dangerous since an analogy
frequently used in textbooks - between water waves and light waves -
is explicitly rejected): "If the observer were to hurry towards the
source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more
frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving
observer would find the frequency of light to have increased (but, in
contrast with the water wave case, he would find the speed of light to
have remained constant and the WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
(C) (Einstein is to rule forever; the analogy between water waves and
light waves is only implicitly rejected): John Norton: "Here's a light
wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source
of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently
than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would
find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY
FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE
DECREASED)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Don Stockbauer
Endless debate creates the Global Brain.
Pentcho Valev
honestly analysed, will leave no doubt as to why Einstein still
rules:
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the “Einstein shift” in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams’ 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington’s estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury’s anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddington’s estimate and Adams’
measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by
a factor of four."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un
décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données
fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année
suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère
aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans
une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant
était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable
valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus
petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait
Eddington."
See also:
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non
vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves,
issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas.
Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant
à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées
d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General
Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
<http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
BURT
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
> Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
> DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General
> Relativity
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
> <http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
> <http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativis...>
> Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Einstein helped develop the the law of the speed limit of C through
his SR theory.
This is one of the reason Einstein is such an influence on physics
today. He said that the fastest signal in time was at this limit.
Nigal Calder said he could have deserved a Nobel Prize for that idea
alone.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
depends upon basic statements whose acceptance or rejection, in its
turn, depends upon our decisions. Thus it is decisions which settle
the fate of theories. To this extent my answer to the question, 'how
do we select a theory?' resembles that given by the
conventionalist..."
W.H. Newton-Smith: "For the Popperians are fond of accusing Kuhn of
reducing the acceptance of scientific theories to a 'matter of mob
psychology'. But it is exceedingly hard to see how Popper can resist
this description on his own account of what is involved in theory
choice. Acceptance or rejection of theories for Popper rests on the
ungrounded and ungroundable conventional decisions of the scientific
community. That is exactly to make it a matter of mob psychology."
In 1919 the mob took a momentous decision: Einstein will be our ruler
because he bends light better than Newton:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/17/spaceexploration.comment
"And on 6 November, 1919, at a Royal Society meeting, the astronomer
Sir Arthur Eddington revealed that observations, taken during a solar
eclipse, showed that starlight was being deflected by the sun's
gravitational field in a way that fitted Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. 'Revolution in science. New theory of the Universe.
Newtonian ideas overthrown,' the Times announced the next day on its
front page. Einstein became a global superstar - thanks to the Royal
Society."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."
Today's mob is even more resolute: Einstein will rule forever because
he can bend light while Newton cannot:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
One of the crucial episodes in Einsteiniana's history which, if
honestly analysed, will leave no doubt as to why Einstein still
rules:
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams
Pentcho Valev
Big Brother's world where two and two make five but 2+2=4 is forbidden
(that is, some consistency is sought), in Einstein's world both 2+2=5
and 2+2=4 are taught:
Teaching in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Florida:
http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~jt/teaching/ast1002/notes09/lecture_tan29.pdf
Jonathan C. Tan: "Americans Michelson and Morley (1887) - The speed of
light is the same no matter how fast the observer is moving:
EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.
Teaching in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the
University of Pittsburgh:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Sometimes 2+2=3 is taught as well:
2+2=3: The speed of light does not vary with the gravitational
potential.
2+2=4: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by
Newton's emission theory of light.
2+2=5: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2).
References:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z)
times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z)
L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is
called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational
redshift."
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf).
It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Koobee Wublee
> Endless debate creates the Global Brain.
Did you save that fortune cookie?
Now, back to the question of the thread --- "Why Einstein still
rules"?
I would have to say the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar just tastes so good to self-styled physicists
aka Einstein Dingleberries. Despite Einstein being a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar, both SR and GR credited to him is utterly
garbage. <shrug>
Don Stockbauer
> On Nov 9, 2:11 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> > Endless debate creates the Global Brain.
>
> Did you save that fortune cookie?
Of course. I wrote it.
>
> Now, back to the question of the thread --- "Why Einstein still
> rules"?
>
> I would have to say the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar just tastes so good to self-styled physicists
> aka Einstein Dingleberries. Despite Einstein being a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar, both SR and GR credited to him is utterly
> garbage. <shrug>
God, it must be terrible to hate someone so for no reason, Koobee
Wublee-balls (not his/her real name).
Now - back to your useless, fucking discussion.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> In Einsteiniana:
Why Einstein Rules is because when you set the speed of light = 1,
that gives the AI Loons unilimited Galactic Discourse.
So, that's also the people who understand how actually understand
how real computers work
actually invented Digital Books, Holograms, Post ACME
Screwthreads, mp3, mpeg, PGP,
All-In-One Printers, USB, Post Vax Bit Thrashing, Distributed
Processing Software,
Flash Memory, Bi-Optical Computers, Microwave Cooling, XML, Reverse
Compilers,
Self-Replicating Machines, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, CD+rw, DVD-
rom, Cyber Batteries,
Home Broadband, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Desktop Publishing,
On-Line Publishing,
Blue Ray, HDTV, Rapid Prototyping, UAVs, Post Watt Turbines, Post
GM-nomics,
and The 21st Century,
Rather than idiot Relativity, AI, and Teleprompters to start with.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
Don Stockbauer
wrote:
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, since the only thing Relativity Bozos know about Technology
of any kind is 1905. The people with actual non-shit brains also
work on Drones, Phalanx, and Post Stooge Wright Brothers nomics
also.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don Stockbauer
wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein brought back the aether in his Leiden lectures in the 1920's
and likened it to his curved space-time.
Einstein was the most superior scientist for believing in the concept.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
He brought back the aether to lectures? What? In a paper bag?
>
> Einstein was the most superior scientist for believing in the concept.
So of all the scientists believing in the aether, Einstein was the
most superior?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. They all were on that account but Einstein was the leader.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
They were "on that account"? You mean the aether account?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duh.
Don Stockbauer
> On Nov 14, 4:34 pm, DonStockbauer<don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 4:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 3:15 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Sorry, "Burt", you said "on that account". Did you have any meaning
in mind for that, or were you just typing random words like you
usually do?
Koobee Wublee
> On Nov 14, 1:26 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did you save that fortune cookie?
>
> Of course. I wrote it.
Show it to me then.
> > Now, back to the question of the thread --- "Why Einstein still
> > rules"?
>
> > I would have to say the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar just tastes so good to self-styled physicists
> > aka Einstein Dingleberries. Despite Einstein being a nitwit, a
> > plagiarist, and a liar, both SR and GR credited to him is utterly
> > garbage. <shrug>
>
> God, it must be terrible to hate someone so for no reason, Koobee
> Wublee-balls (not his/her real name).
Who am I hating?
> Now - back to your useless, fucking discussion.
What useless, fvcking discussions?
As a fortune teller, have you even graduated from junior high school?
It looks like you belong with Webb the junior high dropout from down
under.
Devolution among the Einstein Dingleberries continues. Ahahahaha...
Thanks folks for the laughs.
Don Stockbauer
> On Nov 14, 6:09 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 1:26 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Did you save that fortune cookie?
>
> > Of course. I wrote it.
>
> Show it to me then.
"Endless debate creates the Global Brain."
Want to see it again, you mindless fucking Einstein hater?
>
> > > Now, back to the question of the thread --- "Why Einstein still
> > > rules"?
>
> > > I would have to say the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > > plagiarist, and the liar just tastes so good to self-styled physicists
> > > aka Einstein Dingleberries. Despite Einstein being a nitwit, a
> > > plagiarist, and a liar, both SR and GR credited to him is utterly
> > > garbage. <shrug>
>
> > God, it must be terrible to hate someone so for no reason, Koobee
> > Wublee-balls (not his/her real name).
>
> Who am I hating?
You can't even remember, asshole? Einstein. Must be hell to have
Alzheimers.
>
> > Now - back to your useless, fucking discussion.
>
> What useless, fvcking discussions?
The one about how you mindlessly hate Einstein, Wobbly-balls.
And you can't even spell "fucking".
>
> As a fortune teller, have you even graduated from junior high school?
> It looks like you belong with Webb the junior high dropout from down
> under.
>
> Devolution among the Einstein Dingleberries continues. Ahahahaha...
> Thanks folks for the laughs.
Do you think you could actually come up with something new, rather
than this "Einstein Dingleberry" shit. God , you're fucking boring.
Have a nice Sunday, guy.
VERGON
discussed here.
Any comments I would like to make would be too long to place here.
SO-- I have a proposition: I have written two books that I will send
free (they normally sell for $35.00)to any one requesting one or both
of them.
"On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" and "A Diagnosis of Special
Relativity"
Vertner Vergon
vertv...@gmail.com or exeterpu...@yahoo.com
On Nov 6, 9:55 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
> against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
> reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
> auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
> theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
> photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
> following hypothesis:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b...
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
Koobee Wublee
> On Nov 15, 2:35 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Endless debate creates the Global Brain."
>
> Want to see it again, you mindless fucking Einstein hater?
As a fortune teller in this newsgroup, you have offered no technical
insights in these discussions except random fortune-cookie-like
comments. Well, you must be a grade school dropout without any math
capability. I know economy is down. Your fortune telling business
must be suffering too just like the rest of us. There is still no
need to take it out on me. <shrug>
Have you tried to steer you fortune telling towards the truth than
stocking at the lies in the past 100 years or so. Your idol Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is nothing more than just a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
So, what do we have here? A self-claimed professor who knows no basic
principles PD, a college dropout Gisse, a high school dropout Inertial
who fantasized about itself being an honor student of so sort, a
fortune teller who did not even graduate from grade school, and Webb,
Dono, etc. The Einstein Dingleberries are just getting desperate.
So, these turkeys now represent the last hope of the self-styled
physicists in proliferating their lies and ill-understandings. What a
joke!
This is just hilarious. Thanks for the laughs. Ahahahaha...
BURT
Einstein brought the aether back in his Leiden lectures. This in
particular makes him the superior scientist.
Pentcho Valev
NATURE: "Burst of support for relativity. Light from a distant gamma-
ray burst backs up a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity — that photon speed is the same regardless of energy."
1. Observations suggest that high-energy photons travel through space
slower than low-energy photons.
2. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers in this case) advance
theories predicting that that high-energy photons travel slower than
low-energy photons. Career, money etc.
3. A single observation suggests that high-energy photons travel
through space slower than low-energy photons but the difference in
speed is small.
4. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) discover "a key
prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity — that photon
speed is the same regardless of energy".
5. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) make a second
discovery: the single observation confirms the "key prediction of
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity" and therefore there is "burst
of support for relativity" in the world.
6. The journal Nature immediately publishes Lee Smolin and brothers'
discoveries. Career, money etc. for Nature editors, Lee Smolin,
brothers and sycophants.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Einsteiniana:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
BURT
He found the principle behind the LASER. He could have won a nobel
prize for that.
Pentcho Valev
"Einstein's theory of special relativity says that all electromagnetic
radiation travels through a vacuum at the speed of light. This speed
is predicted to be constant, regardless of the energy of the
radiation. Yet in 2005, the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands suggested the speed of light might not be constant
after all. The telescope, which measured the light released by a
galaxy around 500 million light years away, found that higher energy
photons arrived four minutes behind their lower energy counterparts.
(...) Now new observations suggest quantum gravity cannot be
responsible for the time delay observed by MAGIC. The light from a
powerful, 7-billion year old gamma-ray burst detected by NASA's Fermi
Gamma-ray Space Telescope shows no evidence of a lag between photons
of a range of energies. "We have fewer stomach aches now," says
Amelino-Camelia. "The Fermi data has pushed the limit where it's now
proven the MAGIC data cannot be interpreted in that way."
The MAGIC data cannot be interpreted in that way? That is, "quantum
gravity cannot be responsible for the time delay observed by MAGIC"?
Then what is the only reasonable conclusion? Three possible versions:
BURST OF SUPPORT FOR RELATIVITY
EINSTEIN STILL RULES
EINSTEINIANA IS AN ETERNAL MONEY-SPINNER
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462291a.html
NATURE: "Burst of support for relativity. Light from a distant gamma-
ray burst backs up a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity - that photon speed is the same regardless of energy."
1. Observations suggest that high-energy photons travel through space
slower than low-energy photons.
2. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers in this case) advance
theories predicting that that high-energy photons travel slower than
low-energy photons. Career, money etc.
3. A single observation suggests that high-energy photons travel
through space slower than low-energy photons but the difference in
speed is small.
4. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) discover "a key
prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity - that photon
speed is the same regardless of energy".
5. Einsteinians (Lee Smolin and brothers again) make a second
discovery: the single observation confirms the "key prediction of
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity" and therefore there is "burst
of support for relativity" in the world.
6. The journal Nature immediately publishes Lee Smolin and brothers'
discoveries. Career, money etc. for Nature editors, Lee Smolin,
brothers and sycophants.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
BURT
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b...
Einstein's space curve is round.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
(fraud) is superimposed and so on indefinitely. In the end the history
of Einsteiniana turns out to be a succession of triumphs, that is,
Einstein rules forever:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/11/27/climategate-the-skeptical-scientists-view/
Frank J. Tipler: "My own field of general relativity, which is
Einstein's theory of gravity, was initially "confirmed" by "fudged" -
I would say "fraudulent" - data. Einstein had predicted that stars
near the Sun would appear displaced in their positions due to the
Sun's gravity, and the English astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington, a
fervent believer in Einstein, set out to confirm Einstein's theory.
And confirm Einstein he did, although Eddington's equipment was too
inaccurate to confirm or reject Einstein. Eddington "showed" that
Einstein was right by appropriate weighing of data points, and by
throwing out observations inconsistent with Einstein's prediction. In
1919, Eddington announced his "confirmation" at a media circus that
made Einstein a world celebrity. Eddington's experiment could only be
conducted during a total eclipse of the Sun, a rare event, and so
Eddington's claim could not be checked for years. But no experienced
scientist at the time believed in Eddington's "confirmation." Rather,
what convinced most real scientists - including Einstein - that
general relativity was correct was another prediction: The planet
Mercury would deviate from its path as predicted by Newton's theory.
This deviation had been observed before Einstein was born, and agreed
exactly with Einstein. Since general relativity was a theory with no
adjustable constants, the observation had to be a true confirmation.
Since the astronomers who observed Mercury's deviation were dead
before Einstein proposed his theory, there was no chance that they had
fudged their observations to agree with Einstein. (...) Frank J.
Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique "
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."
Pentcho Valev
absurdities. Absurdities repel students and, accordingly, physics
departments close. Where there are no physics departments, Einstein
rules forever:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/01/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant
"Regarding higher education, a third of Britain's university physics
departments have closed in the last few years."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."
A somewhat outdated account of the situation. Relativists are no
longer relativists (they have all left the sinking ship recently) and,
accordingly, do not have to admit anything. Antirelativists reclaiming
old Newtonian physics are marginalised automatically, without any
quarrel - the world of Postscientism simply does not hear their wails.
Imagine a musician reclaiming this kind of music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqgHCksUQok (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1OS0bSsI_k (Part 2)
(Anne-Sophie Mutter plays Giuseppe Tartini "The Devil's Trill")
This musician would likewise be marginalised automatically in the
world of rap music.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com