🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 11, 10:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einsteinians are not allowed to explicitly reject Einstein's 1905
> false light postulate (their whole world would collapse) but they can
> safely reject one of its idiotic consequences stating that the passage
> of time is an illusion (see also John Norton's confessions below):
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
> From the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine: "We have a deep
> intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that
> the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past,
> immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This
> structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we
> live our lives hangs on it. Yet as natural as this way of thinking is,
> you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do
> not tell us which events are occurring right now - they are like a map
> without the "you are here" symbol. The present moment does not exist
> in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally,
> Albert Einstein's theories of relativity suggest not only that there
> is no single special present but also that all moments are equally
> real [see "That Mysterious Flow," by Paul Davies; Scientific American,
> September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the
> past."
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> High priests in Einsteiniana have always known that Einstein's 1905
> light postulate is false, that its antithesis given by Newton's
> emission theory of light is true and that Einstein's 1954 confession
> announcing the death of physics was quite reasonable:
>
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
> laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
> Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
> 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
> John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
> of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
> light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."
>
> http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
> intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
> within two years of publishing it."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la
> théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
> oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
> découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines
> historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel,
> Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les
> principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
> questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
> l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
> est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que
> le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."
>
> Also, high priests in Einsteiniana have always known that marauding
> dead science is without risk: once you are allowed to teach that the
> greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, the statement "The
> length of the crocodile exceeds its greenness" is the maximum
> opposition you can meet with. So up until recently Divine Albert's
> Divine Theory was a huge money-spinner and Einsteinians were free to
> maraud without restrictions.
>
> What happened? The opposition based on scientific reasoning is as
> impossible as ever but the world no longer cares about Divine Albert's
> miracles, just as it no longer cares about Stephen King's horrors (it
> still cares about Harry Potter's miracles). In other words, Divine
> Albert's Divine Theory is no longer a money-spinner. Accordingly,
> Einsteinians are now making their living independently of and even in
> opposition to Divine Albert's Divine Theory but occasionally teach
> that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, just in case:
>
> 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."
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
> John Baez, April 5, 2010: "Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies
> and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is
> expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is
> speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down,
> since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can
> possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity
> says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have
> pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times
> its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's
> gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the
> expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure
> makes the expansion tend to speed up."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
> the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
> idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
> best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
> passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
> are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
> illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
> more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
> time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
> and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
> motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
> reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
> spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
> spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
> a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
> found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
> can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
> everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
> stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
> to our consciousness, all
>
> read more »...

xxein:  What is your solution to understand the all of the physic?
All you do is complain without a solution.

Learn something about critical thinking and offer a solution that
works.

It's not that any prior theories are right, but what is better?

If you cannot produce one, you are wasting bytes and your sanity.