🚀 go-pugleaf

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com