🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 dec., 23:09, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago I posted on PHILOS-L, a philosophy list with
> 4,853 subscribers, the following quotation:
>
> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0911&L=philos-l&T=0&O=D&P=...
> Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
> 57-78.
> "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology
> not only in the profession of physics but also in the philosophy of
> science."
>
> Philosophers of science remained silent. For the sake of argument, let
> us assume that they possess dignity which prevents them from
> discussing Peter Hayes quoted by Pentcho Valev. The assumption is
> wrong. In 2001 Jos Uffink, an influential philosopher of science,
> published a text equivalent to "The triumph of thermodynamics
> represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of
> physics but also in the philosophy of science":
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
> For eight years no philosopher of science has discussed or even
> referred to this text. Uffink himself seems to have forgotten it
> completely. Another influential philosopher of science, John Norton,
> published texts which, combined with a few other texts, suggests that
> Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has in fact killed theoretical
> physics. Other philosophers of science remained silent:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
> relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
> transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
> Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
> emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
> There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
> classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
> light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
> past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
> and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
> characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
> emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
> emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
> be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
> in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
> ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
> objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
>
> 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."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
> suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
> the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein...
> Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
> expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
> "théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
> répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
> au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
> domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
> petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
> concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
> caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
> prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
> lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
> électromagnétique."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "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."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
>
> Recently John Norton suggested that the conclusion that the separation
> between past, present and future is an illusion, a conclusion directly
> following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, should be
> abandoned. Other philosophers of science remained silent:
>
> http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-2...
> "For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
> present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
> Einstein
>
> http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141...
> 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."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....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."
>
> 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
>
> citiţi mai multe »...

Domnul Pentcho Valev este unul din oameni care nu are nici-o dilema ca
teoria relativitatii este falsa si eu urmaresc articolele lui in mod
permanent. Dar critica lui este bazata numai in incercarea de a arata
ca principiul ca vitezi luminii este constanta relativ cu sistemul de
coordinate din care noi o observam. Dar acest lucru este imposibil sa
fie determinat. Acest procedeu se vede si din urmatoarea intrebare
pusa lui Marilyn.

 What one discovery or event would prove all or most of modern
scientific theory wrong?
Marilyn replies:

Here's one of each. If the speed of light were discovered not to be a
constant, modern scientific theory would be devastated. And if a
divine creation could be proved to have occurred, modern scientists
would be devastated.

Eu sint convins ca raspunsul precis la aceasta intrebare este:
 1) Ca transformata lui Lorentz esta o relatie falsa si ca Einstein a
fost nevoit sa-l accepte pe acest principiu fiindca el rezulta in mod
logic fiind a cosecinta din el, dar el nu spune o vorba despre acest
lucru. In realitate aceasta transformata este o aproximare mica pentru
mishcari mici ale corpurilor materiale si o aproximare grosolana
pentru mishcari apropiate de viteza luminii in comparatie cu
transformata lui Galilei.
 2) A doua gresheala fundamentala este principiul echivalentei a
fortei gravitationale cu forta inertiala.
 Care este realitatea cu acest principiu? Adevarul este ca aceste
force sunt cu totul diferite una de alta  dar ele act asupra ficare
atom al corpurilor materiale si noi nu le putem simti. Eu am numit
acest fenomen ca fiind principiul isensibilitati ca sa fie o
similaritate contrara la principiul ecivalentei dar asta este numai o
formalitate.
 Din cauza aceasta principiul echivalentei lui Einstein nu reprezinta
nimica. Shi mai mult se vede ca acest principiu nu pote inlocui cele
doua relatii al lu Newton care reprezinta legea a doua a mecanici si
legea atractiei universale.
 Cu mare precizie se poate afirma ca fara Transformata lui Loretz
Relativitate Speciala lui Einstein este complet anulata iar fara
Principiul echivalentei Relativitatea Generala este complet anulata,
si ca o urmare se poate spune ca toate concluziile rezultate din ele
despre relativitatea timpului, spatiului, masei si altele sunt
aberatii mari.
 Marturisesc ca eu am format a grupa in grupele Google se numeste
guopa, Galilei-Newton-group sau:
http://groupsgoogle.com/group/galilei-newton-group
Email galilei-newton-group@googlegroups.com
 In groupa mea se pot gasi peste 34 articole care dau exacte
explicatii despre greselile lui Einstein si despre teoria Eterului
deasemenea. Cu respect Stamenin