Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: daveshorts on 15/04/2006 20:03:32
-
Pencho seems to post new topics all the time, so for the sake of tidyness I am grouping them all here.
-
Pentcho Valev
New Member
7 Posts
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 12:40:20
Imagine a theoretician (e.g. Albert the Juggler) who has obtained the result Y and is deified for that. He also claims he has deduced Y from the premise X (and possibly other premises) which is some assertion about physical reality (e.g. the speed of light is constant, independent of the speed of the light source or observer). How should fellows theoreticians react? If they are realists (in the philosophical sense), they should try to find out if X is true or false - if it is false, Y should be abandoned. If they are rationalists, they should check the deductive path leading from X to Y - if the deduction is invalid, Y should be abandoned.
Needless to say, the critical attitude described above presupposes some courage (especially if Albert the Juggler has already become Divine Albert). Unfortunately, theoreticians and philosophers of science (e.g. Karl the Sycophant) are not courageous in this way. They believe in the pessimistic induction - since theories in the past have been rejected as false, all theories, both past and future, are false, including the one harboring the deduction of Y from X. They also believe in the thesis of increasing verisimilitude - in the historically generated sequence the theories are increasing in verisimilitude; that is, in the degree to which they are approximately true. Accordingly, since the theory harboring the deduction of Y from X is the last in a sequence, it is relatively the truest one. Then why should theoreticians and philosophers of science bother about details such as the truth or falsehood of X or the validity of the deductive path leading from X to Y? Isn't it much more profitable to sing dithyrambs and worship at the portrait of the author of the truest theory (that is, Divine Albert)?
In so far as logic undoubtedly belongs to the heart of theoretical science, the established tradition based on the abuse or neglect of logic can be named "Postscientism". This tradition was born in 1850 when Clausius INVALIDLY deduced "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" from "Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold". But why have logicians failed to rectify or even notice the deviations of scientific logic?
In formal logic conditionals (inferences, derivations) are tautologies. This implies that the consequent can only be a NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION (one which does not participate in the formula of the antecedent) if the antecedent is an inconsistency. Examples:
[p,(p->q)]->q ; the consequent q is NOT A NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION
(p,not-p)->q ; the consequent q is a new atomic proposition but THE ANTECEDENT IS AN INCONSISTENCY
In scientific logic as applied in deductive theories (e.g. the theory of relativity, thermodynamics) ALL CONSEQUENTS ARE NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITIONS. That is, all conditionals are of the type (p,q)->r. Therefore there can be no overlapping between the set of conditionals in formal logic and the set of conditionals in scientific logic.
Conclusion: Mathematical logic cannot be used for the logical verification of scientific theories and jugglers (Clausius, Kelvin, Einstein, Prigogine) were free to deduce anything from anything.
Pentcho Valev
daveshorts
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 13:20:32
Mathmatical logic can be used but is not sufficient to verify scientific theories eg:
What maths can do is tell you the consequences of your theory, eg if your hypothesis is that the speed of light is constant, the order of events is preserved etc. the maths will tell you that a consquence of this is that object's masses will increase when their speed does. You can then test this prediction to give evedience for or against your theory.
Of course maths isn't sufficient who the hell said it was? All maths does is tell you the consequences of your initial assumptions, this is both increadibly useful and tells you nothing definite about the real world, you get that from experiment.
What are you complaining about clausius for doing?
Go to Top of Page
-
The Unambiguity of Einstein's Relativity
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 13:01:07
In 1919 Karl Popper found it suitable to start worshipping at the portrait of Albert Einstein because, unlike Marxism and psychoanalysis, the theory of relativity produced unambiguous results that could be tested experimentally. I suspect Popper was particularly impressed by Chapter 23 in Einstein's "Relativity" where Einstein offers a few confusions to the reader but the final result is unambiguous indeed: the observer at rest measures the periphery of the rotating disc to be LONGER than the periphery of a non-rotating disc. This result contradicts the unambiguous concept of length contraction according to which the observer at rest should measure the moving length to be SHORTER than the length at rest. In other words, both discoveries of Einstein - that the moving length is longer (LENGTH DILATION) and that the moving length is shorter (LENGTH CONTRACTION) - are unambiguous and can be tested experimentally. Popper went into convulsions any time he remembered this particular unambiguity of Einstein's theory.
Other relativists have considerably contributed to the unambiguity. So Ehrenfest discovered that the rotating periphery is SHORTER, in accordance with the unambiguous concept of length contraction. That is, Ehrenfest rejected the unambiguous concept of length dilation introduced by Einstein. A third group of relativists unambiguously say that the length of the rotating periphery is EQUAL to the length of the non-rotating periphery and so reject the unambiguous concepts of Einstein and Ehrenfest. Clearly, Popper's conclusion that relativity is science and Marxism and psychoanalysis are pseudo-sciences is justified.
Pentcho Valev
daveshorts
Moderator
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 15:37:09
Urrr a rotating disk is accelerating, so it isn't an inertial reference frame. This means that special relativity will not work, you need the more generally applicable... general relativity. I have not done the maths but I don't see why this shouldn't predict that the edge of a rotating disc shouldn't be shorter than it should be.
What you appear to be saying is the equivalent of saying that Gallileo predicts that things fall in one direction in england, however Newton's theory says that they fall in the opposite direction in australia, so their predictions must be wrong.
Ophiolite
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 18:33:15
I think, Pentcho, that we can sometimes learn as much about the validity of a concept from the way it is presented as from the content of its presentation. Marshall McLuhan, perhaps, had a point. Would you agree?
I note that you characterise Popper's response to that of Einstein as one of 'worshipping'. It is arguably dismissive and derisory to characterise one of the foremost philosophers of the scientific method in such religious terms. The suggestion that he did not even worship Einstein himself, but merely his portrait adds insult to injury.
There is more than a hint of the patronising in the reference to a specific Chapter in "Relativity", as though your are parading your superior, detailed knowledge for all to see. [An edition and page reference would have been helpful. That is how these things are normally done.]
The extensive employment of sarcasm in your second and final paragraph would be more at home in a bitchy exchange between society ladies than on a science forum.
The combination of these stylistic peculiarities is diagnostic of a provisional salvo against conventional physics by a supporter of alternative physics by one improperly versed in either.
If I may phrase it more cogently and more robustly: I think you are talking crap.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.
-
Contradiction in Einstein's Cult
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 06:07:27
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of Einstein's cult:
The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, Oh Albert, Oh Giant of Science,
Oh Creature Divine with an infinite power.
Of course both zombies and hypnotists know the formula F=V/L, where F is the frequency, V is the speed and L is the wavelength. This is the most horrible formula in the world: on seeing it, both zombies and hypnotists look for sand, bury their heads, expose other extremities and remain so until the danger is over. Why the horror? Pound and Rebka found that the receiver on the ground will receive the light with frequency F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo where Fo is the original frequency. The application of the horrible formula F=V/L unequivocally leads to the result
V = c + v
where V is the speed of light as measured by the receiver and v>0 is the speed of the receiver (or the light source) in an equivalent setup where the tower is replaced by an accelerated rocket. So after taking their heads out of the sand both zombies and hypnotists perform a special voodoo ritual designed to disconnect the two formulas, F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo and F=V/L, in the mind of any possible human being. So far the ritual has proved extremely efficient.
Yet from time to time a human being combines the two formulas and then a contradiction between zombies and hypnotists becomes evident. Hypnotists know that the truth of Newton's c+v principle and the falsehood of Einstein's c principle are the only reasonable conclusions:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Zombies know nothing, look desperately at the two formulas and postulate in the end: If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly but the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light is constant. Constant is the speed of light. The speed of light does not vary. Velocity may vary (Divine Albert said so in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity") but the speed never etc.
However hypnotists are not happy. They know how silly this "If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly" is.
Pentcho Valev
daveshorts
Moderator
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 11:12:07
Urr if you look into general relativity you will discover that it predicts frequency shifts in a gravitational field so this experiment isn't evidence against relativity.
If newtonian mechanics predicts some of the same results as relativity that is what you would expect as relativity has to explain all the evidence that lead to newtonian mechanics, so relativity will approximate to the newtonian stuff in most circumstances.
Out of interest what is it about relativity that you have such a problem with?
Dr B
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 17:02:34
Before anyone gets too involved with trying to discuss things with Pentcho Valev, please google his name. See for example
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
Dr B
Istanbul
-
Relativity without Einstein's Second Postulate
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 06:14:40
There is a growing panic in Einstein's criminal cult. Einstein's second postulate is false: the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source or observer. Of course relativity hypnotists knew it all along but the huge army of bellicose zombies did not. Now the situation has changed: zombies are demoralized and do not destroy heretics efficiently. Hypnotists try to make some more money by creating a relativity without Einstein's second postulate:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLReview1.html
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.35 ("Relativity without c")
Yet the panic remains. Everybody remembers Einstein's confession:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Soon hypnotists will verify Einstein's words by removing the principle of constancy of the speed of light and introducing the principle of variability of the speed of light in Einstein's original 1905 paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
For instance, in the equations at the beginning of
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
hypnotists will replace c+v and c-v (remnants of the old constant-speed-of-light period) with c (the revolutionary variable-speed-of-light contribution) and so will obtain
tau = t, instead of the equation tau = a(t - (v/(c^2 - v^2))x')
This will be the new revolutionary theory of relativity where Einstein's false second postulate is absent. Some may say this is a return to Newton but hypnotists will say it isn't. Nobel prizes will follow.
Pentcho Valev
daveshorts
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 10:44:50
Urrr this is how science works someone comes up with a theory that explains a load of results, after a while someone comes up with some data which doesn't quite work with the present theory, so if the data looks to be right, we have to come up with an improved or new theory. Repeat...
There is nothing particularly special about einstein's theories except that relativity has been very successful at predicting things, some of his theories have been thrown away long ago - his designs for wings for example didn't work at all. Just most of the wacky predictions in at least special relativity have been confirmed experimentally so any new theory will probably have to be more rather than less wierd.
ps The site is a lot neater if you keep discussion of one topic in one topic, cheers.
Dr B
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 17:01:49
Before anyone gets too involved with trying to discuss things with Pentcho Valev, please google his name. See for example
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
Dr B
Istanbul
daveshorts
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 18:31:29
Cheers
Hadrian
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 18:57:20
Famous in ones own lunch time with the chance of travelling back to eat it hey!
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
Testing Times for Einstein's Theory
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 13 Apr 2006 : 10:09:42
After 100 years of fierce worshipping the journal Nature changed its attitude:
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
However the tests offered by Einstein's hypnotists create the impression that only small details could be wrong whereas Einstein's theory as a whole is correct. This cannot be true: Einstein's theory is based on the false postulate of constancy of the speed of light and, since the theory is DEDUCTIVE, it is ENTIRELY false. Einstein was quite clear about that - see Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of Physics":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
Albert Einstein :
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Here is perhaps the easiest test that disproves relativity. When the top of the tower emits light, the receiver on the ground receives this light with a frequency
(1+phi/c^2)Fo = (c+v)/KLo
where Fo and Lo are the initial frequency and wavelength respectively and c+v is the speed of the light as measured by the receiver (c=300000km/s). The couple
(1) v > 0 ; K = 1
acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it Einsteinians get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. The couple
(2) v = 0 ; K = 1/(1+phi/c^2)
also acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: even Einstein's zombies feel that this value of K is too idiotic.
Clearly (1) is the correct answer: it disproves relativity.
Pentcho Valev
-
Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong?
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 14 Apr 2006 : 13:07:29
Now that the journal Nature has proclaimed "Testing times for Einstein's theory"
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis: Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically insignificant, degree. The slogan of the new movement is:
"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little pregnant"
The newest education given by Einstein's hypnotists is here:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
Pentcho Valev
-
Superluminal Signals in Einstein's Zombie World
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 15 Apr 2006 : 16:00:21
There are textbook problems leading to the conclusion that, if a signal can move faster than 300000 km/s, the theory of relativity is wrong. So is Problem 6 ("Train in a tunnel"), p. 47 (solution on p. 53), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
In a normal world, in the presence of such problems, the discovery of superluminal signals
http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
would trigger a major turbulence. In Einstein's zombie world no turbulence is possible. Information like
"Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department....Four billion km/h...."
disturbs nobody. Rather, everybody finds statements like
"While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."
totally reassuring. Disappearing physics students would not even notice the problem while learning by rote. Einstein's hypnotists are working hard on various types of camouflage whereas zombies are going to start worshipping at the resurrected Einstein:
Absolute serenity and harmony in Einstein's zombie world.
Pentcho Valev
another_someone
Posted - 15 Apr 2006 : 16:26:51
There are several experiments that have demonstrated, one way or another, that things can travel faster than light. What has not been demonstrated (and this is what most people regard as the key issue to breaking relativity) is that information can travel faster than the nominal speed of light in a vaccum.
-
HOLLYWOOD: THE LAST REFUGE OF EINSTEIN'S CULT
http://www.empiremovies.com/index.php?id=11709
"Steven Spielberg will direct an untitled sci-fi film that delves into physicist Kip Thorne's theories of gravity fields."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/290/5496/1488
"KIP THORNE: The Shaman of Space and Time"
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck: I support the argument that since there is no significant difference between science and religion, science should be considered a religion! I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological differences between science and the other religions. The other dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving observational and experimental evidence.
The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to three times more right to be called scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."
Pentcho Valev
-
TWIN PARADOX AND EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM ABSURDITY
Relativity hypnotists continue to confuse the zombie world by claiming, on the one hand, that gravitation is the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/27/4/019
http://minilien.com/?qofySmJbHF
and, on the other, that gravitation is not the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
That is Einstein's principle of maximum absurdity in action: Never advance an absurdity without superimposing another absurdity that negates the first.
Pentcho Valev
-
quote:
Originally posted by Pentcho Valev
TWIN PARADOX AND EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM ABSURDITY
Relativity hypnotists continue to confuse the zombie world by claiming, on the one hand, that gravitation is the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/27/4/019
http://minilien.com/?qofySmJbHF
and, on the other, that gravitation is not the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
That is Einstein's principle of maximum absurdity in action: Never advance an absurdity without superimposing another absurdity that negates the first.
Pentcho Valev
THERMODYNAMICS AND RELATIVITY: OBSOLETE BUT MONEY STILL COME
Clausius' idiocies are no longer fashionable in physics:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ :
"In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of this law in the kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics."
Banished from physics, thermodynamics zombies have become professors of physical chemistry. Their task is to change irreversibly the rationality of chemistry students by making them learn by rote and repeat phrases like: the entropy always increases, it never decreases, if it decreases this means that the chemical reaction is impossible, chemical reactions occur because the Gibbs energy decreases, if it increases they would not occur etc.
Relativity zombies may become professors of physical chemistry as well. Such professors could teach: chemical reactions in the traveller's body are slow by a factor of 1/gamma although scientists have discovered that things are not so simple http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm , chemical reactions are slow by a factor of 1/gamma in the body of the twin at rest as well and yet if the traveller returns the twin at rest is older but things are not so simple http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htm etc.
I suggest the following curriculum for all universities in Europe and elsewhere: 1st year: chemical thermodynamics; 2nd year: chemical relativity. A 3rd year would not be necessary.
Pentcho Valev
-
EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT TOWARDS A NEW BUSINESS
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1
"If you are an academic in a physics department, you are probably used to receiving letters from people who claim to have rewritten the laws of physics. Editors of science magazines are also familiar with such individuals, many of whom take gravity for their victim. Although we should not automatically dismiss these ideas - after all, Einstein was an unknown patent clerk when he rocked the world of physics in 1905 - most fall down because their proponents fail to put them in context with existing knowledge.
The same cannot be said of a growing number of professional physicists who think Einstein's general theory of relativity is ripe for revision."
Bravo! Divine Albert can only be revised by hypnotists in Einstein's criminal cult. Society should pay for the revision of course.
Pentcho Valev
-
EXPERIMENTS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
When relativity hypnotists test Divine Albert's theory they prefer single experiments: in Einstein's zombie world experiments that are not repeated are extremely reliable. So in 1971 Hafele and Keating successfully confirmed time dilation and this guaranteed the triumph of the theory for the next 30-40 years. Yet even in Einstein's zombie world single experiments are criticized sometimes:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm
Recently relativity hypnotists devised a single experiment immune to any criticism:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1117229.ece
The unavoidable success of the experiment will guarantee the triumph of Divine Albert's theory for at least 50 years.
Pentcho Valev
-
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WISH TO KNOW IF EINSTEIN WAS WRONG
35 years ago Hafele and Keating proved unequivocally that Einstein was right and so guaranteed salaries in Einstein's criminal cult for a few decades:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm
Now relativity hypnotists feel the question "Was Einstein wrong?" should be asked and in this way salaries will be guaranteed for a few more decades:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html
The experiment will be similar to that performed by Hafele and Keating; the difference is that at present the death of science education is irreversible, Einstein's zombie world is much more confused than 35 years ago and the obscurity relativity hypnotists introduce in their explanations is unlimited:
"The International Space Station will have ultra-sensitive clocks on board, and it is a good place to test the theory," said Alan Kostelecky, professor of physics at Indiana University in Bloomington. "By comparing extremely precise clocks that can operate under zero gravity, minuscule changes in the ticking rate might be found as the spacecraft moves around Earth." This would violate Einstein's theory, which says there should be no change if different clocks in the same gravity environment are compared.
"Finding such changes would cause an upheaval in the science community and revolutionize our thinking about the fundamental structure of space and time," Kostelecky said. "It would lead to insight about how our universe formed and how nature operates."
Pentcho Valev
-
EXPERIMENTS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
When relativity hypnotists test Divine Albert's theory they prefer single experiments: in Einstein's zombie world experiments that are not repeated are extremely reliable. So in 1971 Hafele and Keating successfully confirmed time dilation and this guaranteed the triumph of the theory for the next 30-40 years. Yet even in Einstein's zombie world single experiments are criticized sometimes:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm
Recently relativity hypnotists devised a single experiment immune to any criticism:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1117229.ece
The unavoidable success of the experiment will guarantee the triumph of Divine Albert's theory for at least 50 years.
Pentcho Valev
-
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WISH TO KNOW IF EINSTEIN WAS WRONG
35 years ago Hafele and Keating proved unequivocally that Einstein was right and so guaranteed salaries in Einstein's criminal cult for a few decades:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm
Now relativity hypnotists feel the question "Was Einstein wrong?" should be asked and in this way salaries will be guaranteed for a few more decades:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html
The experiment will be similar to that performed by Hafele and Keating; the difference is that at present the death of science education is irreversible, Einstein's zombie world is much more confused than 35 years ago and the obscurity relativity hypnotists introduce in their explanations is unlimited:
"The International Space Station will have ultra-sensitive clocks on board, and it is a good place to test the theory," said Alan Kostelecky, professor of physics at Indiana University in Bloomington. "By comparing extremely precise clocks that can operate under zero gravity, minuscule changes in the ticking rate might be found as the spacecraft moves around Earth." This would violate Einstein's theory, which says there should be no change if different clocks in the same gravity environment are compared.
"Finding such changes would cause an upheaval in the science community and revolutionize our thinking about the fundamental structure of space and time," Kostelecky said. "It would lead to insight about how our universe formed and how nature operates."
Pentcho Valev
-
ANYONE CAN BECOME A RELATIVITY HYPNOTIST
http://www.physorg.com/news71421491.html :
"In a "faking it" style test, a social scientist has fooled a panel of physicist judges into believing he was an experienced gravitational wave physicist.
An interview appearing in the journal Nature this week details how Collins -- who has spent more than 30 years studying the community of physicists who work on gravity waves -- answered seven questions about gravity waves set by an expert in the subject. His replies, together with those from a gravitational physicist, were sent to nine researchers in the field.
Asked to spot the real physicist, seven were unsure and two chose Collins.
"The results show that outsiders can develop a kind of expertise in a scientific field," says Collins."
Pentcho Valev
-
ZOMBIES REALLY LOVE EINSTEIN
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527405747.html
"Albert Einstein - Chief Engineer of the Universe"
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divineEinstein.htm
Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith 3-16-05
(To the tune of "I'm Lookin' Over a Four-leaf Clover")
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
Pentcho Valev
-
Pentcho Valev FAQ
quote:
Is it possible to convince Mr Valev with rational arguments?
I doubt it. After he had himself raised the question of whether he was sound in mind (a question that may have occurred to others who were too delicate to raise it publicly), I tried to summarize the course of a dialogue with Mr Valev, which went like this:
Pentcho proposes a paradox that appears to undermine two centuries of thermodynamics. Nothing necessarily wrong with that — received opinion has been wrong about things for a lot more than two centuries before, and will doubtless be so again.
Someone offers some arguments as to why Pentcho is wrong and thermodynamics is OK after all.
Pentcho either repeats his original point or raises another quite different one. In neither case does he give any indication that he has tried to understand what is said by anyone else.
The respondent tries to explain what was said before.
Pentcho either repeats his original point or raises another quite different one.
After a few cycles of this it becomes clear that arguing with Pentcho is like arguing with creationists about evolution; it’s just a waste of time.
If Pentcho wants people to take his arguments seriously he needs to show some good faith by indicating that he is willing to take theirs seriously. He might also make a serious effort to fix his mail program so that it sends his return address properly. Saying he can’t do it and leaving it at that is too much like his response to everything else to be very convincing.
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm#soundmind
Michael
-
THE FATAL WRONG ASSUMPTION IN PHYSICS
drelliot@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> In a chapter called Beyond String Theory in his book The Trouble With
> Physics: The Rise Of String Thory, The Fall of Science, And What Comes
> Next, Lee Smolin writes:
>
> ". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some
> wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to
> isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What
> could this wrong assumption be?"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
See also:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
-
Please post an observation of the speed of light being dependant on the speed of the source and the journal in which it was published. If it is dependant, then tens of thousands of careful measurements are outright wrong,and every modern physicist is wasting his/her time.
-
SUBTLETY AND BEAUTY IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."
Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come from:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
THE FIELD, THE PARTICLES AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS
At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death of physics:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are eloquent quotations:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0486406768-0 :
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet! Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes, simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Clearly, the particle model of light finds its support in the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is also consistent with the third equation of Maxwell (Faraday's induction law) as implied at the beginning of Einstein's 1905 paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(The "customary view" Einstein refers to is the ether model of Maxwell that Maxwell himself abandoned in the end; the fact that the particle model of light naturally contradicts the ether model by no means implies that the particle model is inconsistent with the Faraday's induction law, although the mythology says otherwise.)
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT AND MAXWELL'S THIRD EQUATION
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas THE CUSTOMARY VIEW draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion."
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0486406768-0 :
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 111:
"Dans la premiere partie de son article Einstein analysait l'induction d'un courant dans une boucle par un aimant. Il soulignait que l'intensite du courant depend du mouvement relatif de la boucle et de l'aimant et non pas de leur mouvement absolu a travers l'ether. Or, confirmait Einstein, SELON LES EQUATIONS DE MAXWELL, les phenomenes physiques seront differents selon que la boucle est immobile dans l'ether et l'aimant mobile, ou l'inverse."
Einstein's criminals have replaced "the customary view" (that is, Maxwell's ether model) with "Maxwell's equations". Presumably one can look at the respective Maxwell's equation (the third one which is in fact Faraday's induction law) and see that, according to this equation, it is just the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet that matters. However the lie (the equation draws a sharp distinction between the two cases) has been repeated so many times that, as they look at the equation, people see the opposite of what it really shows. Ignatius of Loyola:
"That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
DID MATHER AND SMOOT CONTRIBUTE TO GENERAL RELATIVITY?
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn10216&feedId=online-news_rss20
"The 2006 Nobel prize for physics has been awarded to John Mather and George Smoot for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe."
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1516
Professor Stephen Hawking FRS - Big Bang and Infinity
"This discovery was part of Stephen's collaboration with Roger Penrose through which they used General Relativity to show that space and real time began with a Big Bang, and how they would end in black holes."
It seems a contribution to the big bang theory is at the same time a contribution to general relativity as well. Then why is this latter contribution not mentioned by the Nobel committee? Could this have something to do with the following confessions of Einstein's:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
WHY EINSTEIN'S CULT IS CRIMINAL
Consider the introduction of gravitational time dilation by Einstein's hypnotists:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation. Also, the speed of the light pulses is VARIABLE in the absence of a gravitational field as well and obeys the formula c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of the pulses relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the receiver (observer).
However Einstein's hypnotists do not discuss the variability of the speed of light when the discussion is dangerous. They discuss the variability when the discussion is not dangerous:
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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."
Finally, Einstein's hypnotists have destroyed the rationality of generations of scientists so that, in Einstein's zombie world, the idea of combining dangerous and non-dangerous discussions can never emerge. Zombies just learn by rote contradictory texts and then go fighting heretics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
I think Pentcho Valev is actually nothing else than a computer program who sends posts (almost) randomly, maybe depending on key words in the others posts.
What do you think?
-
I once thought the same as the same things are posted on many many sites. However i recently saw and read some answers he had given to people who were challanging him on a web site which could only have been written if he had read the questions.
-
Maybe he let his program run continuously and, once in a while, he answers by person, just to make people believe every post was made from him personally? In any case, it seems to me that his only purpose is to spread his "truths" around the world.
-
quote:
Originally posted by lightarrow
Maybe he let his program run continuously and, once in a while, he answers by person, just to make people believe every post was made from him personally? In any case, it seems to me that his only purpose is to spread his "truths" around the world.
Not just my "truths" - rather, other people's falsities.
EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIES WRITE TEXTBOOKS
Sometimes relativity textbooks are written by Einstein's zombies, not by Einstein's hypnotists, and in such cases one can find unforgettable texts. For instance, Einstein's hypnotists often confuse the reader by introducing a light source that emits flashes at time intervals T and then calling the quantity 1/T "frequency", in the hope that the reader will confuse this frequency with the wave frequency (in Einstein's zombie world the reader always confuses the two frequencies). However hypnotists never go so far as to call the distance between the flashes "wavelength" - see, for instance:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
Zombies' reasoning is bolder - they somehow know that there can be no frequency without wavelength:
Murat Boratav, Ryszard Kerner
Professeurs a l'Universite Pierre-et-Marie Curie, Paris VI
"RELATIVITE", 1991, p. 74:
"La source O emet deux signaux successifs separes dans l'espace par une distance lambda_0 et dans le temps par un temps T_0, qu'on peut appeler "longueur d'onde propre" ou "periode propre" en ce sens que ces grandeurs sont caracteristiques du referentiel ou la source emettrice est au repos."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
If we explain gravitation in terms of a curved space-time, as in GR, then, in the absence of other forces, all bodies and light too follow a geodesic line, which is the analogue to the straight line in an euclidean (flat) geometry.
One of the problems there are in GR is that it's not possible to define the velocity vector univocally: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html
quote:
"In general relativity, we cannot even talk about relative velocities, except for two particles at the same point of spacetime -- that is, at the same place at the same instant. The reason is that in general relativity, we take very seriously the notion that a vector is a little arrow sitting at a particular point in spacetime. To compare vectors at different points of spacetime, we must carry one over to the other. The process of carrying a vector along a path without turning or stretching it is called `parallel transport'. When spacetime is curved, the result of parallel transport from one point to another depends on the path taken! In fact, this is the very definition of what it means for spacetime to be curved. Thus it is ambiguous to ask whether two particles have the same velocity vector unless they are at the same point of spacetime."
-
EINSTEIN MAKES FUN OF THE ZOMBIE WORLD
Einstein knew all along that the speed of light in a gravitational field is variable and obeys the formula c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of this variability. However Einstein was looking for fun and performed an experiment. He offered two questions and two answers to the zombie world:
Question 1: Is there any relation between the variable speed of light c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2)?
Question 2: The gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of what?
Answer 1: Who cares.
Answer 2: Gravitational time dilation.
The zombie world had to find an answer for either question. It did it successfully and Einstein had a lot of fun.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
FATAL MISTAKE OF EINSTEINIANS
Einstein's criminal cult, like any similar organization, obeys strict rules imposed by the founder. Violation of these rules would be fatal. Here is one of them:
The zombie world should constantly be forced to deal with reciprocal time dilation and its immediate negation (I measure your clock to be SLOWER than mine and you measure mine to be SLOWER than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be FASTER than yours) until any remnants of human rationality disappear. However the expression "The clock at rest runs slow by a factor 1/gamma" is forbidden: any calculations based on this phrase would expose the idiocy of relativity and destroy the cult in the end.
For almost 100 years the rule has been obeyed but recently a careless hypnotist did produce the fatal phrase: see the solution to Problem 3 "Circular motion", (b), p. 19, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf
Nothing can save Einstein's criminal cult now. Yet panic should be avoided: the zombie world is inert and relativity activists will have enough time to start another criminal business.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
-
quote:
Originally posted by Pentcho Valev
FATAL MISTAKE OF EINSTEINIANS
Einstein's criminal cult, like any similar organization, obeys strict rules imposed by the founder. Violation of these rules would be fatal. Here is one of them:
The zombie world should constantly be forced to deal with reciprocal time dilation and its immediate negation (I measure your clock to be SLOWER than mine and you measure mine to be SLOWER than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be FASTER than yours) until any remnants of human rationality disappear. However the expression "The clock at rest runs slow by a factor 1/gamma" is forbidden: any calculations based on this phrase would expose the idiocy of relativity and destroy the cult in the end.
For almost 100 years the rule has been obeyed but recently a careless hypnotist did produce the fatal phrase: see the solution to Problem 3 "Circular motion", (b), p. 19, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf
Nothing can save Einstein's criminal cult now. Yet panic should be avoided: the zombie world is inert and relativity activists will have enough time to start another criminal business.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
In that problem, the approximation v<<c is necessary, otherwise it's not possible to write a = v^2/r and
1 + ar/c^2 = 1 + v^2/c^2. This because that equation is valid only on an Euclidean space-time (that is, FLAT) and this is not the case of a curved space-time.
This because a = v^2/r comes from v = omega*r which comes from arc = angle*r which is true only on an Euclidean geometry. Think about a circumference drawn on a spherical surface, for example.
See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
quote:
1910: Theodor Kaluza points out that there is nothing inherently paradoxical about the static and disk-riding observers obtaining different results for the circumference. This does however imply, he argues, that "the geometry of the rotating disk" is non-euclidean. He asserts without proof that this geometry is in fact essentially just the geometry of the hyperbolic plane.
Resolution of the paradox
The modern resolution of the "paradox" can be briefly summarized as follows:
1.Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed