🚀 go-pugleaf

On 14 Oct, 08:24, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Six years ago the Royal Society solemnly informed the world that some
> new Einstein in the Royal Society (perhaps Sir Stephen Hawking, why
> not Sir Martin Rees) was going to rewrite relativity because the speed
> of light may not always be the same and because "smoothness" of
> radiation is a puzzle:
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> Physics looks for new Einstein as nature rewrites laws of universe
> Times Newspapers Ltd., September 9 2001
> "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.....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. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
> Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
> they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
> than 30 leading cosmologists.....Another puzzle is the so-called
> "smoothness" of our universe, by which astronomers mean the
> distribution of matter and radiation."
>
> The Royal Society were sure that, although "light moved much faster
> during the early stages of our universe", Einstein's light postulate -
> the source of so many miracles - would remain intact. At least Sir
> Stephen Hawking was sure since he had made an important discovery:
>
> 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.
> How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
>
> However an extremely dangerous hypnotist called John Norton discovered
> something that contradicted the discovery of Sir Stephen Hawking:
>
> http://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."
>
> Then something even more awful happened. Another extremely dangerous
> hypnotist called John Stachel published a confession of Einstein that
> convinced the Royal Society that "smoothness" of radiation should
> never be called "puzzle":
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> Albert Einstein: "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."
>
> Sir Martin Rees was so excited that he personally wrote a slogan and
> put it over the front door of the Royal Society:
>
> DISCONTINUITY NEVER! SMOOTHNESS FOREVER IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY!
>
> So the Royal Society cannot rewrite relativity. Perhaps only the
> French Academie des Sciences can. The new Einstein may emerge there.
> Who knows.

Twelve years ago, when hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult still knew
no limits and the zombie world was entirely under hypnosis, the Royal
Society had found "two possible ways around Einstein's theory":

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~roff/factorfiction.html
[From "The Sunday Times" (UK) 13th August 1995]
ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL
"It is boldly going where no reputable scientific body has gone
before. Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal
Astronomical Society is about to publish a report predicting that
mankind will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. The
breakthrough means that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar
civilisations and voyages powered by warp drive are now no longer the
exclusive domain of science fiction writers....Crawford argues that
modern physics may allow two possible ways around Einstein's
theory....The first is to pass through "wormholes"....Crawford says
that such fields may allow the traveller to enter a wormhole from one
point and then to leave it at another, possibly thousands of light
years away.....Should wormholes fail, however, Crawford proposes a
second possible route to the stars. He draws on a recent paper by
Miguel Alcubierre, of the University of Wales, in the journal
Classical and Quantum Gravity to suggest the possibility of propulsion
systems which distort space by compressing it in front of a spaceship
while expanding it behind."

Now nobody is going "around Einstein's theory", nobody is rewriting
it, nobody is defending it, even bellicose zombies are getting silent.
Soon the 100 years old money-spinner called "theory of relativity"
will become, like its predecessor thermodynamics (both are based on
two principles, one true and one false), an obsolete "relic from a
bygone era":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "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."

Pentcho Valev