It seems now that all physicists have been wrong about everything - see here. This is good news, but I think, secretly, they've known for some time that they don't have a clue. In 1992 I took part in a debate in Cambridge that lasted until 3am. At that point, only two of us were left in the room - me and a guy from CERN, the European particle collider. Having attacked me all evening, he suddenly slumped.
"You know you're right," he said, "we ARE making this stuff up as we go along."
I like to think he became a better man as a result of getting that off his chest.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
I think we should run with the Jeffrey Archer Paris Hilton Stuck in a Lift hypothesis. Who knows how many years it'll take to be refuted.
ReplyDeleteLee Smolin is a beautiful writer, and a profound thinker. I unreservedly recommend his 1997 book, 'The Life of the Cosmos', and I'm looking forward to his new book on 'The Trouble with physics'.
ReplyDeleteThere's a nice review by Smolin here
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/34010
of one of Brian Greene's books on string theory, and the exaggerated claims made by the proponents of string theory.
Thanks Gordon. At the risk of making myself look foolish, I was kind of labouring under the impression that these theories like String Theory were linguistic equivalents of what the mathematics were telling us, but it appears genuinely more accurate to describe them as science fiction. I'm reminded for some reason of the Old Man of the Mountain maxim, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
ReplyDeleteTHE ASSUMPTION THAT DESTROYED PHYSICS
ReplyDeleteIn ?Beyond String Theory? in his book ?The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Thory, the Fall of a Science, And What Comes Next? Lee Smolin asks:
?. . . 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??
The answer:
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.?
See also the discussion in
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN'S SYCOPHANTS AND THE NOBEL PRIZE
ReplyDeleteYou would not win the Nobel prize in physics unless you worship Divine Albert in the right way. Here is a list of candidates:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_einstein06/my_einstein06_index.html
Note that the present winner George Smoot had to change his dithyramb in the right way recently (otherwise someone else from the list would have taken the money):
"Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy?seemed a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. MORE RECENTLY, I CAME TO REALIZE that Einstein based special relativity not on pure thought alone but....."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
HOW MANY GENERATIONS OF SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN LOST?
ReplyDeletehttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes."
I think the campaign started much earlier - it is near completion now:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5215
"Next generation of scientists could be lost say key science organisations"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE MONEY-SPINNER OF RUDOLF CLAUSIUS
ReplyDeleteHeat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot. In Clausius' 1850 language this statement would take the form:
X: It is impossible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.
X is a true statement and therefore its negation, not-X, is false:
Not-X: It is possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.
If not-X is a corollary of the statement Y, then Y is false and not-Y is true. So in 1850 Clausius deduced a version of the second law of thermodynamics:
Not-Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. (Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have different efficiencies.)
The problem was (and still is) that not-X is NOT a corollary of Y. Clausius did not deduce anything. He just laid the foundations of the huge edifice of irrationality that crushed science but proved extremely profitable for the builders.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
STEPHEN HAWKING DESTROYS HUMAN RATIONALITY
ReplyDeleteStephen Hawking:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
Einstein never abandoned the principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light, according to relativists (other than Stephen Hawking):
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 / c^2 )
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/Rela...d_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."
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."
Where does the despair come from? 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
TESTING EINSTEIN'S INCONSISTENCY
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21497
"KAMUELA, Hawaii (December 18, 2006) The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded the W. M. Keck Observatory $2 million to improve the sensitivity and resolution of the Keck Interferometer. The improvements will enable the instrument to detect Jupiter-sized planets around other stars and test predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity in the chaotic core of our galaxy."
Einsteinians would like to test both the corollaries of Einstein's principle of INVARIABILITY of speed of light and the corollaries of Einstein's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light. However they find $2 million insufficient. So far Einsteinians have wasted billions and yet even the fact that Einstein's theory is based on two incompatible principles remains somewhat obscure.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
DANGEROUS BUSINESS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
ReplyDeleteClassically, Einstein's criminal cult extracted their billions from miracles deduced from Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. However a few years ago Einsteinians realized in horror that taxpayers were not excited anymore about a twin that sees his brother's clock running slow but then returns and proves younger etc. That was the end of the constant speed of light affair and a natural beginning of the variable speed of light affair.
The new business is dangerous for two reasons: first, variable speed of light could wipe out Einstein's criminal cult altogether; second, variable speed of light per se is unable to produce miracles and therefore excitement among taxpayers is by no means guaranteed. So new business plans involve the following tasks. First, the meaning of "variable" should be confused: the attention should shift from "depending on the speed of the light source" to something different, e.g. "faster in the past, slower now". Second, the variability of the speed of light should be served in fantastically small portions, so fantastically small that excitement is unavoidably restored and, what is even more important, Einstein's theory remains essentially correct:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1
"Testing the Limit of Einstein’s Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLAST’s detector sooner—by about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what they’re up against."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: VIOLATIONS AND AXIOMS
ReplyDeleteAny Einsteinian would tell you violations of the theory entail reconsideration of the axioms: since Einstein's deductions are rigorous, false conclusions would imply false axioms. On the other hand, any breathtaking development of Einstein's relativity can only be triggered by violations and Einsteinians do wish to see that development - the present stalemate is disturbing even for them. The dilemma has an elegant solution: there are numerous violations indeed so the breathtaking development is imminent but those violations are tiny, so tiny that reconsideration of the axioms is not necessary:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/4519.html :
"Alan Kostelecky, Distinguished Professor of Physics at Indiana University Bloomington, has been elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science "for seminal contributions to relativity and spacetime symmetries, and for the development of a profound and comprehensive theoretical framework for relativity violations," according to a statement from AAAS....he realized that tiny violations of Einstein's relativity could be an experimental signal of the long-sought underlying theory unifying all known forces and particles....Kostelecky's theory has inspired many searches for relativity violations around the world, and more are being performed..... "The ongoing search for relativity violations is an impressive interdisciplinary effort," Kostelecky said."
Einsteinians reassure themselves in the following way. Since the violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false and therefore virtually true. The reassurance is quite explicit sometimes:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1
"Testing the Limit of Einstein’s Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLAST’s detector sooner—by about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what they’re up against."
Einsteinians know Einstein would disagree about "little falsehood". Once he said: "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." However the solution Einsteinians have found is both elegant and all-embracing: Violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false, Einstein is just a little wrong.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE FORGOTTEN FACET OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY
ReplyDeleteIn 1964 Einsteinians discovered that Einstein's inconsistency, like any other inconsistency, is based on two incompatible principles: the principle of invariability of the speed of light and the principle of variability of the speed of light. They called the discovery "a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory" and made use of it in the sense of extracting money from it:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp :
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field. He had proposed an observational test to check his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury, and measure the round trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds more than it would if the sun was not present. Later on, using the MIT Haystack radar antenna, the experiment was repeated, matching Shapiro's predicted amount of time delay. The experiments have been repeated many times since, with increasing accuracy. This experiment had for the first time shown that the constants like c and G, assumed constants in Einstein's SR theory suffered local (or regional) in the proximity of massive bodies like the sun. Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, 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..."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
LAYING DOWN THE EINSTEIN'S LAWS
ReplyDeleteAn interesting campaign has been launched by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=laying_down_the_einstein_s_laws
Laying Down the Einstein's Laws
I offered Einstein's 1911 law of VARIABILITY of the speed of light (see comments). Perhaps Einsteinians will offer other laws: for instance, the law of the travelling twin who sees his brother's clock running slow all along but then returns and finds that in fact his brother's clock has been running fast all along.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
HOW EINSTEINIANS EARN THEIR LIVING
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
"In Faster Than the Speed of Light, Magueijo reveals the short, brilliant history of his possibly groundbreaking speculation--VSL, or Variable Light Speed. This notion--that the speed of light changed as the universe expanded after the Big Bang--contradicts no less prominent a figure than Albert Einstein. Because of this, Magueijo has suffered more than a few slings and arrows from hidebound, jealous, or perplexed colleagues. But the young scientist persisted, found a few important allies, and finally managed to shake up the establishment enough to get the attention he merited and craved."
Einstein defined the variability of the speed of light as the dependence of the speed of photons on the speed of the light source. The application of the equivalence principle converts this into the statement that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position", as Einstein himself put it in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" (but did not say that varying with position in a gravitational field is equivalent to depending on the speed of the light source in the absence of a gravitational field).
It is easy to see that Magueijo's Variable Light Speed in fact confirms Einstein's second postulate - the principle of INVARIABILITY of the speed of light. One would be unable to claim that light was faster in the past and is slower now if its speed were not invariable relative to the speed of the light source or in a gravitational field. Then why should Magueijo be presented as the Martyr contradicting Divine Albert and persecuted by jealous colleagues? Money, money, money......
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Inconsistency Queen of Science 1850-2007
ReplyDeleteWhen you introduce a falsehood in physical science you cannot remove the respective truth from your theory. Rather, explicit falsehood and implicit truth form a powerful couple able to produce virtually any result you need. The following quotation is based on formal logic and is an exaggeration with respect to physical theories; nevertheless it is quite instructive:
W. H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation."
As soon as you introduce the magic contradictory couple rationality starts disappearing and you do not need valid arguments anymore. Invalid arguments increase the power of your theory additionally: whether "Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" does or does not really follow from "Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot" is a question brothers scientists would never ask.
The falsehood enables you to demonstrate miracles and become a divinity; the respective truth enables you to predict verifiable results. Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light produces miracles such as time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski's space-time, time travel etc. Einstein's (rather, Newton's) true principle of variability of the speed of light gives correct predictions such as the gravitational redshift factor.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEINIANS AS CONVULSIONISTS
ReplyDeleteThe miraculous corollary of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light - length contraction - allows Einsteinians to see through opaque bodies: see Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Seeing through the opaque stick is exciting but Einsteinians experience something even more exciting. After having moved towards the wall the rear end of the stick starts moving backward from the wall in an attempt to restore the proper length of the stick. Einsteinians do see that backward movement and ask questions: What is its speed? What is its energy? Sometimes Einsteinians believe the energy of the backward movement of the rear end is infinite. If it were not, they argue, some pawl would be able to prevent the stick from restoring its proper length but no, no, nothing can prevent the stick from restoring its proper length. Therefore in its backward movement the rear end of the stick is able to break ANY pawl.
So much excitement makes Einsteinians go into convulsions. Spasms are regularly interrupted by ecstatic singing. "Divine Einstein" fills the space:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
TIME DILATION AND EINSTEIN'S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
ReplyDeleteThe miraculous corollary of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light - time dilation - implies that, if a single clock belonging to the inertial system K consecutively meets clocks belonging to the inertial system K', and if at every meeting the two readings are compared, the single clock in K turns out to run SLOWER than clocks in K'. That is, the difference in reading between clocks in K' and the single clock in K gradually increases with the number of meetings. Yet in Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein says the opposite: the clock in the system at rest K runs FASTER than clocks placed on the periphery of the rotating disc K'. True, the periphery of the rotating disc K' is not an inertial system but does that justify the transition from SLOWER to FASTER? Moreover, by increasing the diameter of the disc and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant one can convert the periphery of the disc into an INERTIAL system: clocks on the periphery would experience no gravitational field while meeting consecutively the single clock from K. For such cases all textbooks say Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light predicts that the difference in reading between clocks in K' and the single clock in K must gradually INCREASE with the number of meetings. Then why does Einstein say the opposite in Chapter 23 in his "Relativity"?
The radical solution to the problem involves abandoning Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. This solution is too dangerous. Einstein once said: "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."
There is also a partial solution: The single clock in the system at rest K runs both SLOWER and FASTER than clocks in the system K' and Einstein was free to choose. He chose FASTER.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND VERY LITTLE FALSEHOOD
ReplyDeleteRelativists have always claimed Divine Albert rigorously deduced his special relativity from two postulates and countless experimental confirmations of the theory are in fact confirmations of the truth of the postulates. Yet lately relativists seem to have discovered countless violations of the theory but somehow forget to relate them to the problem of the truth or falsehood of the postulates. So Nobel prizewinners have found some Lorentz violation and have dared (those that are not Nobel prizewinners would never dare) to challenge Divine Albert and "rewrite the rules of Einstein's special theory of relativity":
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97b1601C
Perhaps in Very Special Relativity Einstein's false second postulate will prove Very Little False. Perhaps not. Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THEORIES BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS
ReplyDeleteELECTROSTATICS. The electrostatic theory is based on the assumption that forces involved in energy changes are CONSERVATIVE. The following quotation makes the assumption clearer: "We must remember that the only physical fact underlying this discussion is Coulomb's law, the remainder of the discussion being mathematical, and therefore we cannot expect to obtain any physical concept regarding the mechanical interaction of charges which will add any physical facts beyond Coulomb's law." (Panofsky, Phillips, CLASSICAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, 1962, p.103.) The problem is that a system in which only Coulomb's law is acting is unable to exchange heat under isothermal conditions (friction is neglected). Yet the electrostatic theory deals with the concept of isothermal heat exchange (not caused by friction) and therefore we do have "physical facts beyond Coulomb's law".
THERMODYNAMICS. In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the conclusion "All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" from the false assumption "While flowing from hot to cold and doing work in the process heat is conserved". Clausius and Kelvin kept the false assumption for some time and extracted a lot of profit from the conclusion. Then they did declare that Carnot's assumption was false but continued to exploit the profitable conclusion: somehow they managed to convince the world that "All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency", although being a corollary of Carnot's false assumption, could also be deduced from the the true assumption "Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot" and therefore was true.
RELATIVITY. Initially Einstein based his theory on the false principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light, deduced miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) and was deified. It was easy to refute the miracles through REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM but unfortunately scientists discovered that theories could only be refuted through experiments (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM did not seem to be an experimental procedure). Being a deity, Einstein introduced the true principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light and obtained correct results, e.g. the gravitational redshift factor. Einsteinians camouflaged the coexistence of the two incompatible principles.
OPTICS. In the third book of Opticks Newton wrote: "Do not the rays of Light which fall upon Bodies and are reflected or refracted, begin to bend before they arrive at the Bodies; and are they not reflected, refracted and inflected by one and the same Principle, acting variously in various circumstances?". Newton's assumption is quite reasonable but the modern theory of optics is implicitly based on its negation e.g. implying that refraction is due to the change of the speed of light AFTER the incidence and not to any bending BEFORE the incidence.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEINIANS AGAINST EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-2-nd/dp/0198539525
"My first remark is that I cannot understand the reason why textbooks in English (as this one) insist in deriving the Lorentz transformation using Einstein's second postulate on the speed of light: as already pointed out by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 44, pp. 271-277, 1976), this second postulate is not only superfluous but also epistemological misleading -- see, e.g., the French textbook by J. Hladik and M. Chrysos (Introduction a la Relativite Restreinte, Dunod, Paris, 2001) which can be bought at Amazon.fr."
Incredible! Absolutely incredible! This Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond should be locked in a dark room with a single picture on the wall:
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
If he can't sing the hymn "Divine Einstein" (many Einsteinians are not programmed for music) he should at least learn by rote this:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divineEinstein.htm
Finally, he should be forced to visit centers for children education where he should shout endlessly, together with the children:
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/TYSaDTW.asp
"Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
BURSTS OF CONSCIENCE IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
ReplyDeletehttp://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf :
"The constancy, or otherwise, of the speed of light" Daniel J. Farrell & J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics,University of Hull,Hull HU6 7RX, England. "Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it has seemed almost tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911 [1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential.....Moreover, photons of low energy travel at ‘c’ while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values, faster than ‘c’, which are proportional to their energy.....For accepted cosmological theories to be valid, it is required that the universe is composed of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy. It seems more realistic to believe in a varying speed of light via the mechanisms discussed above, rather than invent abstract conceptions simply because they happen to balance familiar cosmological equations."
One day conscience in Einstein's criminal cult will be fully restored and Einsteinians will draw all the consequences of Einstein's 1911 discovery that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. They may even find that this is equivalent to c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. For the moment bursts of conscience die down as soon as Einsteinians imagine what money-spinner they are going to lose.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD
ReplyDeletehttp://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But A FAMOUS EXPERIMENT, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, SHOWED THAT LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELLED AT A SPEED OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND MILES A SECOND, no matter where it came from."
In the end the relativity cult announced that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMS the light postulate and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE".
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
In the end the relativity cult announced that that the variable frequency in the presence of a gravitational field is due to whatever you like but BY NO MEANS TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE VARIABLE FREQUENCY IS DUE TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."
In the end the relativity cult announced that, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are AT REST, and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE EXTREMELY SHORT LIFETIME IS DUE TO THE TERRIBLE CRASH.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
ボイストレーニング
ReplyDeleteサンゴ 通販
レストランウェディング 東京
電報
カラコン
新座 不動産
先物取引
格安航空券 国内
ダイエット お茶
債務整理
チャイルドシート
レゴ
チャイルドシート
極め炊き
T-fal インジニオ
T-fal ワンタッチ開閉圧力なべ
Fissler 圧力鍋 ロイヤル
IXYD920IS
PLAYSTATION3
Xbox360
トイレつまり
小田原
トイレつまり
サーモシェイプ
小顔
部分痩せ
ブライダルエステ
永久脱毛
トイレつまり
末期がん
レンタルオフィス
ケータリング
酸素カプセル
ダイエットサプリメント
板橋区 一戸建て
FX取引
映像制作会社 東京
携帯電話レンタル
インプラント 費用
クレジットカード比較
財産コンサルタンツ
アパートローン 元銀行員
福祉長屋コミュニティーハイツ
消費税還付
土地活用
店舗デザイン
婚活
オーストラリア留学
さいたま市 一戸建て
イギリス留学
フランチャイズ 情報
リングピロー
精力増強
インプラント
エコキュート
文具
結婚式
株 情報
外為証拠金
不動産売却 大森
会計監査
事業承継
ノベルティ
外壁塗装
業務用エアコン
papa dont kill me
ReplyDeleteI take it your not a fan of Mr Einstein, Mr Valev.
ReplyDeleteOne question though Bryan.
What were you doing debating with someone who you clearly believed to be wrong at 3 o'clock in the morning? Does that not make you even worse than the other guy?