🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 13, 3:44 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems there is an established tradition in Einsteiniana: at the end
> of their careers (fame guaranteed and money safe in the bank) chief
> marauders inform believers that the situation is desperate (see also
> Martin Rees' and Albert Einstein's confessions below):
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penr...
> "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
> Mechanics."
>
> 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 Einsteins 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. Im now glad that our search for
> understanding will never come to an end."
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einsteiniana's marauders in action:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece
> "SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved
> because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees,
> president of the Royal Society. (...) "Just as a fish may be barely
> aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure
> of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains."
> Rees's thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists,
> especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such
> mysteries. He is well placed to understand the potential limitations
> of science. Besides heading Britain's premier scientific organisation,
> he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is
> one of Britain's most respected astrophysicists. He is currently
> delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures. Rees's warning, in a Sunday
> Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists
> working on the greatest problem of modern physics - to reconcile the
> forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and
> stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and
> particles."
>
> Rees seems to have learned two things. First, "the microstructure of
> empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains" may
> mean that Rees does not believe anymore in big bang, expanding
> universe, dark energy etc. Hubble's redshift is due to slowing down of
> the speed of light somehow caused by "the microstructure of empty
> space":
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
> "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
> not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
> he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
> adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
> with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedo...
> Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
> suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
> issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
> mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
> pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
> Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell
> "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
> support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
> believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
> inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
> founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
> directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
> law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
> spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
> ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
> led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
> distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
> conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
> of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
> decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
> idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
> point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
> idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
> a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
> and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
> space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
> that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
> gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
> observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
> proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
> without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
> acceleration."
>
> Second, Rees now knows that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has
> irreversibly killed physics:
>
> 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.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> 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."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
> suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
> the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!
> (...) The speed of light is c+v."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

motherfucker