info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein's Science: What Went Wrong?
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 15, 2016, 5:12:09 AM11/15/16
to
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/11/16696/
Edward R. Dougherty: "When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the lunar surface in 1969, it marked the end of perhaps the most productive period of scientific research and application, beginning with the publication of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905. Universities were teeming with mathematically gifted students studying science, mathematics, and engineering, and preparing for exciting futures in the unlimited vistas of science. What went wrong?"
"The most productive period" was actually a period of accumulation of absurdities, metastases of the original tumor - Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. This postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Sounds idiotic, so instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, something that sounded breathtaking - ASYMMETRICAL time dilation. In Einstein's 1905 paper the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, FAST (this means that the moving clock and its owner TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
The magical "travel into the future" cannot be made up without Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and yet it does not follow VALIDLY from the two postulates of 1905. Logically, "travel into the future" is an independent additional tumor producing its own metastases.
Einstein's 1905 revolution:
http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Edward R. Dougherty: "When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the lunar surface in 1969, it marked the end of perhaps the most productive period of scientific research and application, beginning with the publication of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905. Universities were teeming with mathematically gifted students studying science, mathematics, and engineering, and preparing for exciting futures in the unlimited vistas of science. What went wrong?"
"The most productive period" was actually a period of accumulation of absurdities, metastases of the original tumor - Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. This postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Sounds idiotic, so instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, something that sounded breathtaking - ASYMMETRICAL time dilation. In Einstein's 1905 paper the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, FAST (this means that the moving clock and its owner TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
The magical "travel into the future" cannot be made up without Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and yet it does not follow VALIDLY from the two postulates of 1905. Logically, "travel into the future" is an independent additional tumor producing its own metastases.
Einstein's 1905 revolution:
http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Nov 15, 2016, 7:24:42 AM11/15/16
to
Einstein's science as judged by Einsteinians themselves:
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
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.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
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://edge.org/response-detail/25477
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..."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
http://deenoverduniya.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/repentance.jpg
Pentcho Valev
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
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.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
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://edge.org/response-detail/25477
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..."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
http://deenoverduniya.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/repentance.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Nov 15, 2016, 10:38:14 AM11/15/16
to
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies infinite compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
http://i.imgur.com/bLUUUpl.jpg
Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies infinite compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
http://i.imgur.com/bLUUUpl.jpg
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Nov 15, 2016, 5:23:14 PM11/15/16
to
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 2:12:09 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip the usual ad infinitum]
To answer the question in the subject line: Pentcho Valev went wrong.
--
Jan
[snip the usual ad infinitum]
To answer the question in the subject line: Pentcho Valev went wrong.
--
Jan
Kieth Staudt
Nov 16, 2016, 9:36:17 AM11/16/16
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/11/16696/
> Edward R. Dougherty: "When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto
> the lunar surface in 1969, it marked the end of perhaps the most
> productive period of scientific research and application, beginning
> with the publication of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity
> in 1905.
I beg you to reconsider.
> http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/11/16696/
> Edward R. Dougherty: "When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto
> the lunar surface in 1969, it marked the end of perhaps the most
> productive period of scientific research and application, beginning
> with the publication of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity
> in 1905.
> Universities were teeming with mathematically gifted students
> studying science, mathematics, and engineering, and preparing for
> exciting futures in the unlimited vistas of science. What went wrong?"
professors. What we need is as more engineers and professors to start
putting the math on my Divergent Matter.
Paul B. Andersen
Nov 16, 2016, 2:07:39 PM11/16/16
to
On 16.11.2016 15:36, Kieth Staudt wrote:
> []
It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.
One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.
plonk
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
> []
It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.
One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.
plonk
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Edwin Grünner
Nov 17, 2016, 4:53:38 PM11/17/16
to
Edwin Grünner
Nov 17, 2016, 4:53:40 PM11/17/16
to
Paul B. Andersen
Nov 18, 2016, 3:44:55 AM11/18/16
to
On 17.11.2016 22:53, Edwin Grünner wrote:
>
> One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
> a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.
Indeed!
>
> One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
> a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.
And it doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.
plonk
Paul B. Andersen
Nov 18, 2016, 3:51:23 AM11/18/16
to
0 new messages