🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 Maijs, 14:07, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 12:57 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Maijs, 13:49, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 12:47 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 4 Maijs, 11:56, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 4, 10:42 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 4 Maijs, 11:31, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 4, 10:08 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 1, 2:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904304606/energy-and-environment/rava...
> > > > > > > > > "Even the best of science "total stories" are theories still waiting
> > > > > > > > > to be replaced or altered massively, even repudiated: like Newton's
> > > > > > > > > theory of universal gravitation, and Darwin's theory of evolution, and
> > > > > > > > > Einstein's special theory of relativity. Everyone's welcome to try to
> > > > > > > > > kill them - by the strict rules, that is; not by politico-
> > > > > > > > > journalistic, statistical-shake-and-bake gunplay....Scientists modify
> > > > > > > > > existing theories and then destroy parts of them, without reducing the
> > > > > > > > > whole."
>
> > > > > > > > > Clearly not just "everyone" is welcome to try to kill special
> > > > > > > > > relativity: those who do not know how to "modify existing theories and
> > > > > > > > > then destroy parts of them, without reducing the whole", that is,
> > > > > > > > > those who do not know how to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false light
> > > > > > > > > postulate without abandoning time dilation, length contraction,
> > > > > > > > > Minkowski spacetime and similar idiocies, are not welcome at all. For
> > > > > > > > > the moment only Paul Davies, Sir Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, Neil
> > > > > > > > > Turok, Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo are welcome to try to kill special
> > > > > > > > > relativity because only they know how to do so "without reducing the
> > > > > > > > > whole":
>
> > > > > > > > >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. 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....What he, Hawking and others such as
> > > > > > > > > Neil Turok, professor of maths and physics at Cambridge, are now
> > > > > > > > > looking at is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite
> > > > > > > > > number of universes, with different laws of nature operating in each."
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> > > > > > > > > Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
> > > > > > > > > Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
> > > > > > > > > own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
> > > > > > > > > insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
> > > > > > > > > motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
> > > > > > > > > no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
> > > > > > > > > of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
> > > > > > > > > legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
> > > > > > > > > relative, not absolute. 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.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
> > > > > > > > > "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
> > > > > > > > > speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
> > > > > > > > > special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
> > > > > > > > > a constant speed for all observers..."
>
> > > > > > > > >http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751...
> > > > > > > > > "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
> > > > > > > > > clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
> > > > > > > > > particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
> > > > > > > > > same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
> > > > > > > > > of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
> > > > > > > > > consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
> > > > > > > > > all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
> > > > > > > > > up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
> > > > > > > > > using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
> > > > > > > > > for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to
> > > > > > > > > drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
>
> > > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > > > PV, it is all so simple.  Special Relativity (SR) is wrong.  General
> > > > > > > > Relativity (GR) is based on SR.  If SR is wrong, it follows logically
> > > > > > > > that GR is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > What is wrong with SR?  The constancy of the speed of light in ANY
> > > > > > > > reference frame is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > First of all, SR doesn't claim it for ANY frame, only for inertial
> > > > > > > reference frames.
>
> > > > > > Still wrong...
>
> > > > > > > Secondly, prove that it's wrong. It's your claim, back it up.
>
> > > > > Prove that the constancy of speed of light in inertial reference
> > > > > frames is wrong.
>
> > > > Easy.  Constant lightspeed results in time dilation, which is
> > > > mathematically untenable.
>
> > > Prove this is mathematically untenable.
>
> > > > You should know this by now, after years of unsuccessfully resolving
> > > > the twin paradox.
>
> > > What constitutes "success" of resolution, Strich9? What are your
> > > criteria for a successful resolution?
>
> > The twin paradox is a SR problem.
>
> Yes.
>
> >  Resolving it by using a GR solution
> > will not convince anybody.  And there is no SR resolution.

Nope there's none.

>
> Of course there is. It's described in at least a dozen books without
> GR. Do you need a reference? Try Penrose, The Road to Reality. It's
> written for the untrained, even.

Of course, you're welcome to show you're a chronic schizo.  Show us
the twisted evidence :-)

>
> >  Case
> > closed.
>
> You didn't say what constitutes "success" of resolution, Strich9. What
> are your criteria for a successful resolution?

I did.  You are a chronic schizo.  I already said that a resolution
has to work within the framework of the problem.  No outside
solutions.