🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 4:25 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A century of worshipping, singing "Divine Einstein", persecuting
> > > heretics, trapping long trains inside short tunnels, travelling into
> > > both the future and the past (without killing the grandmother),
> > > squeezing themselves through Kip Thorne's wormholes etc. Einsteinians
> > > did the job perfectly but now they feel humiliation and hatred:
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-...
> > > Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
> > > Contemporary Philosophy)
> > > Humiliated Einsteinians: "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory,
> > > however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen
> > > to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."
>
> > Humiliated Einsteinians are leaving the sinking ship (but hope to make
> > even more money as reborn):
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5683551.ece
> > "Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest....PROFESSOR
> > Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting
> > Albert Einstein’s lifelong search for a “theory of everything” was
> > probably a mistake....One of his previous books, A Brief History of
> > Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also
> > expected to sell well. Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on
> > his website,www.hawking.org. uk: "Some people will be very
> > disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to
> > that camp, but I have changed my mind. I’m now glad that our search
> > for understanding will never come to an end."
>
> >http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
> > John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
> > explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
> > into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
> > tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
> > account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
> > until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
> > our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
> > didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
> > heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
> > work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
> > track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
> > I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
>
> Humiliated Einsteinians are trying to forget Einstein's 1905 false
> light postulate, in the same way in which humiliated physicists have
> forgotten "classical" versions of the so-called second law of
> thermodynamics. The two falsehoods killed theoretical science and
> converted scientists into worshippers and convulsionaries:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-w...
> "Why Einstein was wrong about relativity.....IMAGINE you are on a
> bicycle, pedalling across the cosmos. A beam of light - perhaps sent
> off by a distant collapsing star - zings past you. How fast are you
> and the light approaching each other? You are travelling at hardly any
> speed, so the answer will be more or less exactly light's speed
> through the interstellar vacuum, around 300 million metres a second.
> Now imagine you abandon pedal power for the day. Bowling along in your
> spaceship at half light speed, you meet another light pulse head-on.
> What is your speed of approach now? Surely it is just your speed plus
> that of the light: in total, one and a half times light speed. Wrong.
> Your speed of approach will be the speed of light, no more - and
> that's true however fast you are travelling. Welcome to the weird
> world of Einstein's special relativity, where as things move faster
> they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that even talking about
> events being simultaneous is pointless. That all follows, as Albert
> Einstein showed, from the fact that light always travels at the same
> speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell Feigenbaum, a
> physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York, begs to differ.
> He's the latest and most prominent in a line of researchers insisting
> that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with light - whatever history
> and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it not necessary," he says,
> "but there's absolutely no room in the theory for it."
>
> 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."

    Well, that would have be the case. Since all the laws of
thermodynamics
    was based on an errononeous theory of heat. Which is even why
Digital
    fiber optics, holograms, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing,
GPS.  USB,
    Pv Cells, and  Post Ford Batteries work.








>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -