🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:54 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> > Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
> > concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
> > that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
> > top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
> > on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
> > you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
> > will show more time elapsed."
>
> > Two points:
>
> > 1. The insignificant difference in field strength is irrelevant for
> > the effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation).
> > That is, the two watches can be regarded as placed in EXACTLY THE SAME
> > physical conditions and yet one of them proves slower than the other.
> > Effect without cause.
>
> > 2. The effect predicted by Einsteinians (gravitational time dilation)
> > implicitly presupposes that the speed of light is CONSTANT in a
> > gravitational field. Yet all clever Einsteinians, even Divine Albert,
> > teach that the speed of light is VARIABLE in a gravitational field.
> > The scientific world is unable to see any contradiction.
>
> > It should also be noted that the scientific world sees as entirely
> > rational consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to
> > which the long train is short (if trapped inside a short tunnel), the
> > 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long barn and
> > Einsteinians have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
> > quickly"), the bug is both dead and alive etc:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> > the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> > instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> > contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
>
> Philosopher John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian) trying to
> resurrect dead rationalism. Note that the reference to Newton-Leibniz
> debate is more or less a red herring in this case - Norton's main
> concern is the rationality devastation caused by Einstein's "theory":
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
> "Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space
> and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share
> Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things
> and the relationships between them. 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."

Philosopher John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, is leaving the
sinking ship in the most subtle way. Unfortunately he and his brothers
Einsteinians have been destroyng human rationality so fiercely and so
long that his present hints, even if they were explicit declarations,
would reach nobody. Rationalism is dead not because science is
irrational but because nobody cares about science being irrational:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "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
centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems
like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our
best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important
properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less
worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented
believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that
we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time
gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now
consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the
known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know
of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in
our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our
physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of
time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage
as an illusion."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com