CLIMATE-GATE, RELATIVITY-GATE, ENTROPY-GATE
Pentcho Valev
"Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud. The Climategate e-
mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it's curious so few
scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their
feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the
same sentence lately - and, frankly, it's about time. After all,
what's astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is
myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific
fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very
long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just
shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of
man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As
French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind
does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right
questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask
the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers."
http://exilestreet.com/?p=1337
"In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the
Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced
to recant his lifes work. The fact that the earth revolves around the
sun threatened the church establishment's doctrine. Galileo was worse
than right - he was inconvenient. Since his trial, scientists have
mythologized him as their secular saint. How times have changed: With
the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of
inquisitors - suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting
researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming
clergy."
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"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."
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This
incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour
guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and
claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker.
The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the
sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily
deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science
establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein.
Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are
prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Hortator
Pentcho Valev
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
Pentcho Valev
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17641
"A science mafia? In November somebody illegally hacked into the
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK,
subsequently publishing 1079 emails and 72 documents on the Internet.
However reprehensible an act of cyber-pilfering, the contents of the
authenticated emails were both decidedly in the 'public interest', and
carried within them the seeds of a major science scandal; a scandal
Andrew Bolt rightly sees as the "greatest in modern science". What
was particularly explosive was the unheralded insight it gave us into
the scientific 'mafia' world of some of the leading promoters of man-
made Global Warming (GW) theory. A theory that is about to divert
massive global economic resources into a science 'consensus' black
hole. Reading the emails is a chilling experience when one realizes
that some of these same individuals gave the UN IPCC 'the spine' to
declare the climate science 'settled'. The UK Daily Telegraph's James
Delingpole sums up the contents: "Conspiracy, collusion in
exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of
embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure,
manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public
claims and much more." (...) Britain's Viscount Monckton, a leading
climate sceptic, has denounced the CRU and its partners as "not merely
bad scientists - they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated
their crimes at the expense of British and US taxpayers."
How Einstein procrusteanized his equations into conformity with the
Mercury precession anomaly (RELATIVITY-GATE):
http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
COSMOLOGY-GATE:
http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a BILLION DOLLARS, are at the design concept stage."
http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
"Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or
a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two
years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an
illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view.
Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even
further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he
now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-
expanding one."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
http://www.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autres/dp/2360120026
"Le big bang n'est pas une théorie comme les autres. Ce n'est
d'ailleurs pas une théorie physique au sens propre du terme, mais un
scénario cosmologique issu des équations de la relativité générale. Il
est le modèle qui s'ajuste le mieux aux observations actuelles, mais à
quel prix ? Il nous livre un Univers composé à 96 % de matière et
d'énergie noires inconnues. C'est donc un euphémisme que de dire que
le big bang semble poser autant - sinon plus - de questions qu'il n'en
résout. En ce sens, le big bang apparaît davantage comme une
paramétrisation de notre ignorance plutôt que comme une modélisation
d'un phénomène. Pourtant, le succès du big bang et l'adhésion qu'il
suscite, tant dans la sphère scientifique que dans la sphère
médiatique, ne se démentent pas. Surmédiatisé, son statut dépasse
celui de modèle théorique, et la simple évocation de son nom suffit
pour justifier des opérations de marketing scientifique ou rejeter des
cosmologies alternatives. Pour éclaircir les problématiques -
scientifiques, médiatiques, économiques ou politiques - liées à la
cosmologie d'aujourd'hui, il est nécessaire de multiplier les angles
de vue et de distinguer, selon leur registre, les différents enjeux.
C'est le but que se sont fixés les auteurs de cet ouvrage. Pour chaque
point soulevé, leurs regards croisés contribuent à favoriser
l'émergence citoyenne d'un esprit éclairé et critique."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
Suppression of Science Within Science
by Henry Bauer
"I wasn't as surprised as many others were, when it was revealed that
climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private e-mails how to
keep important data from public view lest it shake public belief in
the dogma that human activities are contributing significantly to
global warming. (...) Take cosmology and the Big-Bang theory of the
origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected, senior American
observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs of quasars that
are physically close together nevertheless have very different
redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are not Doppler
effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative motion away from
us. That means the universe-expansion calculations have to be revised.
It may not have started as a Big Bang! That's just the sort of major
potential discovery that scientists are always hoping for, isn't it?
Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more telescope time to
continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp emigrated to Germany
to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. But
Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior astronomers from 10
countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann Bondi, Thomas
Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a letter to Nature
pointing out that Big Bang theory:
*relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . . things . . . never
observed;
*that alternative theories can also explain all the basic phenomena of
the cosmos
*and yet virtually all financial and experimental resources in
cosmology go to Big-Bang studies.
Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science all the time,
arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that Nature refused
to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet, and by now
hundreds of additional signatures have been added... (...) Then
there's that most abstract of fundamental sciences, theoretical
physics. The problem has long been, How to unify relativity and
quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the world as made up of
discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as governed by
continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the mid-1970s, there has been
no real progress. Everyone has been working on so-called "string
theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions and remains a
hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless, theoretical
physicists who want to look at other approaches can't find jobs, can't
get grants, can't get published. (...) You begin to wonder, don't you,
how many other cases there could be in science, where a single theory
has somehow captured all the resources? And where competent scientists
who want to try something different are not only blocked but
personally insulted?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
For a closed system doing reversible work of expansion the first law
of thermodynamics takes the form
dU = dQ - PdV /1/
where dU is the internal energy change, dQ is the heat absorbed, P is
pressure and V is volume. Since the system is CLOSED and undergoes
reversible changes the entropy change is, by definition, dS=dQ/T and /
1/ becomes:
dU = TdS - PdV /2/
J. Gibbs managed to convince the world that, if the system is OPEN
(substances are added to it), /2/ should be replaced by
dU = TdS - PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /3/
where mu_i is the chemical potential and n_i is the amount of the ith
component. However Gibbs failed to explain the meaning of the entropy
change, dS, for an OPEN system. Was dS again equal to dQ/T, as it is
for a closed system, or was dS equal to something else when substances
were added to the system?
The fact that dS was not defined for open systems made the equation /
3/ so fashionable (scientists adore equations with undefined terms)
that in the end /3/ was called "the fundamental equation of
thermodynamics":
L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic Press, London (1979),
pp. 72-73: "For an infinitesimal change in the state of a phase alpha
we write
dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B (1)
We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the fundamental
equation for a change of the state of a phase alpha. It is one half of
the second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where it comes from.
Indeed we do not admit the existence of any more fundamental relations
from which it might have been derived. Nor shall we here enquire into
the history of its formulation, though that is a subject of great
interest to the historian of science. It is a starting point ; it must
be learnt by heart."
Yet scientists somehow felt that a new explicit definition of dS could
bring even more career and money. The quickest among them, Ilya
Prigogine, simply combined /1/ and /3/ and obtained
dS = dQ/T - (1/T)SUM mu_i dn_i /4/
That was a new incredible definition of the entropy change (the
scientific community had never seen anything like this) so the Nobel
Committee immediately gave Prigogine the Nobel Prize.
Pentcho Valev
Joseph Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the
truth".
Nowadays Einsteinians believe that, as they start moving against
waves, the wavelength decreases and the speed of the wave remains
constant relative to them (so that they can safely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity"):
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
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)."
A lie that has become the truth CAN be challenged in Einsteiniana but
in the end it should be replaced by another lie (the genuine truth
should remain buried forever):
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of the West Indies
St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies
Email: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu
"Light speed variation relative to a moving observer occurring
according to classical velocity composition is demonstrated using
Doppler Shift. This directly contradicts the light speed invariance
postulate of special relativity and confirms ether drift."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
1981, p. 3: "For vewed sub specie eternitatis scientists (even
physical scientists) are a fickle lot. The history of science is a
tale of multifarious shiftings of allegiance from theory to theory."
Scientists that are "a fickle lot" kill science much more efficiently
than orthodox gatekeepers in science. Nowadays they appropriate and in
the end fatally distort any sound heretical idea:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article7018438.ece
Lord John Krebs, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford: "An Oxford
colleague, one of the world's top climate scientists, made the same
point last week when he said to me: "It's odd that people talk about
'climate sceptics' as though they are a special category. All of us in
the climate science community are climate sceptics."
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/13/quantum-challenge-usd-professor/
"Clean-cut and middle-aged, a tenured professor at a conservative
Catholic university, Sheehan is hardly a rebel. Yet for years, he and
a few other physicists have been pressing peers to re-examine the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most celebrated and cherished
tenets of physics. (...) But Sheehan suggests big things are possible
if even the tiniest of violations can be proven, and ultimately
exploited in an economically feasible way. For example, it might
become possible to convert ambient heat into an infinite energy
source, he said."
Petcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/wiggles-on-the-dark-side-20100205-nh2d.html
"The wavelength of light from a galaxy that is accelerating away from
our Milky Way is "stretched" so the light is seen as "shifted" towards
the red part of the spectrum."
The above fraud is a relatively new version of a classical fraud
designed to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate: in order for the speed of light to appear constant, the
wavelength should change in an idiotic way (it is granted that the
scientific community invariably sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
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)."
Hortator
> "The wavelength of light from a galaxy that is accelerating away from
> our Milky Way is "stretched" so the light is seen as "shifted" towards
> the red part of the spectrum."
>
> The above fraud is a relatively new version of a classical fraud
> designed to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate: in order for the speed of light to appear constant, the
> wavelength should change in an idiotic way (it is granted that the
> scientific community invariably sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
> all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):
>
> http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
> this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
> are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
> appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
> constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
>
> 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 wrote:
>
> COSMOLOGY-GATE:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
> "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
> under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
> of a BILLION DOLLARS, are at the design concept stage."
>
> http://cosmologystatement.org/
> An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
> (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
> "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
> entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
> and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
> would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
> astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
> field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
> objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
> observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
> validity of the underlying theory."
>
>
> plus de détails »
Le chiote gate...
Y.B.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "We can now return to the red shift that figures in the
Hubble expansion and give a more precise account of its origin. It is
not a traditional Doppler shift, but something more subtle. A distant
galaxy emits light towards us. The light waves with their crests are
carried by space towards us. For a distant galaxy, it can take a very
long time for the light to reach us. During that time, the cosmic
expansion of space proceeds. The effect is that the waves of the light
signal get stretched with space. So the wavelength of the light
increases and its frequency decreases. It becomes red shifted."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."
The scientific community sees nothing idiotic in any
procrusteanization of the wavelength allowing the speed of light to
appear constant. The reason:
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
(No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-
ohr!)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The essence of COSMOLOGY-GATE:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/wiggles-on-the-dark-side-20100205-nh2d.html
"The wavelength of light from a galaxy that is accelerating away from
our Milky Way is "stretched" so the light is seen as "shifted" towards
the red part of the spectrum."
The above fraud is a relatively new version of a classical fraud
designed to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate: in order for the speed of light to appear constant, the
wavelength should change in an idiotic way (it is granted that the
scientific community invariably sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
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
Pentcho Valev
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud:
"By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let's get right
to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the
discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising
insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was
that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As
the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on
correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an
IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering."
Relativitygate's John Norton Confesses to Relativity Fraud:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
Entropygate's Jos Uffink Confesses to Entropy Fraud:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
Cosmologygate's Leonard Susskind Confesses to Cosmology Fraud:
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Michael Helland
It's another thing to offer something in its place.
What would it take for you to gain your recommendation of my
alternative?
Androcles
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:065c2827-f3ed-4645...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho hasn't claimed emission theory is wrong.
What would it take for you to stop falsely insinuating he has,
now that you've just proven you are not logically trustworthy?
Pentcho Valev
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m2d18-UN-climate-chief-resigns-amid-Climategate-scandal
"As the Climategate scandal continues to broaden and as more
information is disclosed pointing to a stunning consortium of fraud,
false information, and shoddy science, it is becoming clear that laws
have been broken and that many nations around the world have lost
billions of dollars as a result."
How about the billions lost as a result of the centennial RELATIVITY-
GATE? The latest relativity fraud:
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/19/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/
"This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General
Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part-
in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though
this work was done while he was at the University of California
Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt
University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift
test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of
the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The
equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the
same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the
downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an
upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent
upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the
lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to
tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the
lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and
acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field;
in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a
clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will
tick."
The formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon. On seeing it, clever
Einsteinians get petrified and stop claiming that clocks "tick more
slowly" for a while. The reason is that, according to this formula,
the experimentally confirmed frequency shift f'=f(1+V/c^2), where V is
the gravitational potential, is consistent with a variation of the
speed of light obeying the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911.
Clever Einsteinians know that, if the speed of light is variable in a
gravitational field, clocks simply cannot "tick more slowly".
Clever Einsteinians also know that, if clocks are to "tick more
slowly", the speed of light should be constant in a gravitational
field and, according to the petrifying formula, the wavelength L
should vary with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the
equation L'=L/(1+V/c^2) - an equation that is idiotic, not just
physically absurd.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."
Note that the two watches are placed at different gravitational
potentials (the alleged "gravitational time dilation" is a function of
the potential difference) but experience virtually the same
gravitational field. This means that, in Einsteiniana's wonderland,
identical clocks placed in identical physical surroundings run at
different rates, that is, there is an effect without cause.
Exceptionally clever Einsteinians such as Banesh Hoffmann have moments
of aberration in which they hit Einsteiniana even harder than the
worst antirelativists ever do. Below Banesh Hoffmann teaches that
gravitational time dilation simply does not exist; rather, something
"befalls light signals [their speed changes] as they traverse space
and time in the presence of gravitation":
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.trinitynews.ie/index.php/features/features/671-could-it-be-that-the-large-hadron-collider-is-being-clock-blocked
"The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that
have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected
physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson
particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being
discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created,
or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual
universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the
moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to
sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop
culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future,
when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his
future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The
only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis
seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is
supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels
Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have
postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a
series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we
should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote,
"for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion"."
http://consideronline.org/2010/03/10/the-large-hadron-collider-is-still-a-fantastic-waste-of-money/
"The Large Hadron Collider Is Still a Fantastic Waste of Money...."The
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a
year to address design issues, according to an LHC director. Dr Steve
Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its
full potential for two years." Basically, the LHC is still probably an
egregiously bad investment. Dr. Myers does caution that the LHC is
"its own prototype," and while its shutdowns get huge press coverage,
"you don't hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other
areas that have gone incredibly well." Fair enough. But these
shutdowns are still hugely expensive, and they push any benefits the
LHC may yield to humankind back into an increasingly distant future.
The scientists at CERN have yet to convince me that the LHC is a good
idea."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
Pentcho Valev
"Scientists have made a major discovery using the Large Hadron
Collider, the world's largest atom-smasher, a $5 billion feat of
engineering built to re-create conditions in the universe just after
the big bang:
That it needs to be shut down for repairs."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
COLLIDER-GATE:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
BURT
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/10/2010-03-10_cerns_lar...
> "Scientists have made a major discovery using the Large Hadron
> Collider, the world's largest atom-smasher, a $5 billion feat of
> engineering built to re-create conditions in the universe just after
> the big bang:
>
> That it needs to be shut down for repairs."
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> COLLIDER-GATE:
>
> "The alternative explanation for the series of unfortunate events that
> have befallen the LHC is hardly less bizarre. Two otherwise respected
> physicists are now claiming that the much hypothesized Higgs Boson
> particle might have a "backward causation" effect to stop itself being
> discovered. In other words, the particle does not wish to be created,
> or its creation would have such cataclysmic results that the actual
> universe itself does not wish for it to be created. Thus, at the
> moment that it is created in the future, forces travel back in time to
> sabotage the collider before it gets the chance to be made. In pop
> culture terms, this is basically what happens in Back to the Future,
> when Marty McFly travels back in time and accidentally erases his
> future self by stopping his parents from falling in love. (...) The
> only problem is that the future has cursed the project. The hypothesis
> seems so bizarre as to be laughable, but for the fact that it is
> supported by two leading physicists, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels
> Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa
> Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan. They have
> postulated this idea over the last two years, publishing it in a
> series of scientific papers with titles such as "Test of Effect From
> Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal". (...) But perhaps we
> should not mock these theories. After all, Einstein himself wrote,
> "for those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
> present and future is only an illusion"."
>
> "The Large Hadron Collider Is Still a Fantastic Waste of Money...."The
> Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a
> year to address design issues, according to an LHC director. Dr Steve
> Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its
> full potential for two years." Basically, the LHC is still probably an
> egregiously bad investment. Dr. Myers does caution that the LHC is
> "its own prototype," and while its shutdowns get huge press coverage,
> "you don't hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other
> areas that have gone incredibly well." Fair enough. But these
> shutdowns are still hugely expensive, and they push any benefits the
> LHC may yield to humankind back into an increasingly distant future.
> The scientists at CERN have yet to convince me that the LHC is a good
> idea."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
There is wave particle, wave atom and light wave. Waves are round and
Sin in nature.
Space, time and energy flow.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
"As the 2006 recipient of the American Society of Engineering Award
for Computer Engineering and author of 10 books dealing mostly with
computer simulation, I feel qualified to challenge the hypothesis of
the authors of the article on global warming that appeared in the
Chronicle. Let me also point out that I have never received a penny of
federal funds to shill cap and trade, or government subsidies to
promote global warming scenarios. The scientists try to justify that
the global climate is changing and that this is the result of human
activities that produce heat-trapping gases. They base these
conclusions on computer models that are highly speculative and
incomplete, including some that are notoriously inaccurate and should
not be put to the use of linking greenhouse gases and temperature
change. Most scientists support this hypothesis. Astrophysicists are
unable to predict the movement of celestial bodies using Newtonian
physics even with relativistic corrections. In the science of
cosmology, only 30 percent of celestial masses can be accounted for,
and it requires a mass correction of 70 percent to calculate planetary
trajectories. YOU CAN GET ANY ANSWER YOU WANT BY MANIPULATING
CONSTANTS."
ERNEST J. HENLEY
professor emeritus, University of Houston
Pentcho Valev wrote:
More CLIMATE-GATE:
COSMOLOGY-GATE:
http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a BILLION DOLLARS, are at the design concept stage."
http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
"Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or
a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two
years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an
illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view.
Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even
further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he
now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-
expanding one."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
http://www.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autres/dp/2360120026
Pentcho Valev
"Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations,
climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are
the predictions about global warming and its consequences? (...) On
balance, the entire profession has been seriously harmed by the
scandal. "We are currently suffering a massive erosion of trust,"
concludes German climatologist Hans von Storch. "Climate research has
been corrupted by politicization, just as nuclear physics was in the
pre-Chernobyl days, when we were led to believe that nuclear power
plants were completely safe." (...) An Entire Branch of Science in
Crisis (...) No other branch of science is as politically charged. A
religious war is raging between alarmists and skeptics, and it
threatens to consume levelheaded climatologists. But it is a critical
conflict, because it revolves around something as massive as the total
restructuring of industrial society, a venture that will cost
trillions of euros. Powerful economic interests and unshakeable
fundamental beliefs come into play."
Compare with this:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that
repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it
contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held
extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to
discredit their technical objections to relativity as being
scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative
possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of
Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an
ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how
relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it
scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make
the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument
are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of
the philosophy of science. (...) 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. (...) If relativity
theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory power enhances
the real power and authority of theoretical physicists. Precisely
because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on
contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent
explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage
in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an
ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the
language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal
content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the
status of the group, giving them power over others through the
enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct
research and to exclude and marginalise dissent. (...) The argument
that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific
revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution
that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory,
very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an
ideology also helps to account for Popper's doubts over whether
special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum
mechanics and Einstein's questionable approach to defining
simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of
the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try
and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist.
According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special
and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one
side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called
upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the
triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in
the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com