🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 Oct, 18:39, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> On 23 Oct, 15:27, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Singing "Divine
> > Einstein" and shouting "Einstein! Einstein!  He's our man! If he can't
> > solve it, no one can!" converts youngest Einsteins into "Budding Young
> > Einsteins" that then undergo somewhat different procedures:
>
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/News/In_The_Media/100_Budding_Young_Einsteins/
> > "100 Budding Young Einsteins....100 of the brightest young minds from
> > over 30 countries across the world (see list below), have earned
> > positions at the prestigious International Summer School for Young
> > Physicists (ISSYP) at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
> > Physics (PI). The 16 and 17 year old students will be challenged by
> > some of the most fascinating ideas in science involving how the
> > universe works - from the weird quantum world of atoms, to black
> > holes, warped spacetime and the expanding universe. They will interact
> > with world-leading scientists, go on lab tours, enjoy social events
> > and other activities."
>
> > So "Budding Young Einsteins" are converted into "Flourishing Young
> > Einsteins" that will then fight common sense until the end of their
> > lives:
>
> > http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
> > Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
> > and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
> > an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
> > into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
> > that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
> > happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
> > still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
> > wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
> > wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
> > in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
> > it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
> > juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
> > times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
>
> > Compare this with:
>
> >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?"
>
> Of course, Brian Greene is still young and for that reason it is so
> difficult for him to accept the truth, 2+2=5, while his feelings tell
> him 2+2=4. His older brothers in Einstein criminal cult have overcome
> this internal struggle. They have discovered that, even if "light in
> vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
> transform", Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected":
>
> http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
> Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
> to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
> foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
> these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
> of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
> as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
> arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
> the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
> the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all
> its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
> velocity."
>
> http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
> Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
> l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
> nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
> faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
> pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
> nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
> une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
> plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
> la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse
> limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le
> "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-
> meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais,
> pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus
> solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier
> postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond."
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
> Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
> nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
> speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
> Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
> of applicability would be reduced)."
>
> http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
> Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
> question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
> without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
> only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
> discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
> relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
> and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg

The very distant future. Nobody sings "Divine Einstein" anymore. The
song is nice but sad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8T3IxGOHHY
Where once was light now darkness falls
where once was love love is no more....

Pentcho Valev