cerhu > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (15/10/2018, 19h22)
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The truly horrible thing about this blog, however, isthat I'm not making fun. String theorists are happily studying universes that don't exist, particle physicists are busy inventing particles that no one ever measures, and theorists mass-produce "solutions" to the black hole information loss problem that no one will ever be able to test. All these people get paid well for their remarkable contributions to human knowledge. If that makes you laugh, it's the absurdity of the situation, not my blog, that's funny. [...] Horrible person that I am, I don't even work in the foundations of physics any more." [..]

John Baez: "Should I be thinking about quantum gravity? One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of theworld will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quitworking on quantum gravity." [..]

[..]

Pentcho Valev
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (16/10/2018, 09h53)
.... However you may not feel outstandingly robust but if you are an average
sized adult you will countain within your modest frame no less than seven
multiply to ten coef. eighteen joules of potential energy enough to explode
with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs you knew how to liberate
it and really to make a point but both girthand fame were far ahead when
fetched up at the Cavendish it was a singularly of Rtherfor arrival Willhelm
Roentgeen discovered Xrays ...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (16/10/2018, 10h11)
.... Eventually out of all this emerged what is called the standard model
which is essentially a sort of parts kits for the subatomic whatsoever the
standard model consist of six quarks six leptons five bosons and postulated
sixth ...

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" kirjoitti
viestissä:_NgxD.8099$9K9.4662...

.... However you may not feel outstandingly robust but if you are an average
sized adult you will countain within your modest frame no less than seven
multiply to ten coef. eighteen joules of potential energy enough to explode
with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs you knew how to liberate
it and really to make a point but both girthand fame were far ahead when
fetched up at the Cavendish it was a singularly of Rtherfor arrival Willhelm
Roentgeen discovered Xrays ...
Pentcho Valev (16/10/2018, 10h14)
Stationary light source; moving receiver: [..]

(Website: [..])

The speed of the light pulses relative to the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

Einstein knew that the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but found it profitable to introduce it. Space and time were vandalized accordingly (to fit the nonsensical constancy) and the post-truth (post-sanity) era in science began:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point ofdespair." [..]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortensin the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." [..]

Michelle Thaller (52:06): "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed"
[..]

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion.But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."
[..]

[..]

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (17/10/2018, 07h45)
Does the speed of light depend on the motion of the light source? Or is it independent? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence directlyconfirmed. Independence, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether theone aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." [..]

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining theresults of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The namemost often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." [..]

Pentcho Valev
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (17/10/2018, 11h15)
.... Howeverafter observers cannot arise until roughly the hydrogen burning
lifetime of a main sequence star has elapsed and it is difficult for for
them to survive after the stars have burst out whether the time scale is is
controlled by the fundamental constants on nature as t(star)equal or
infinite on ((Gm pr squared on hc ) coef. minus one h on mc cube ...
Pentcho Valev (18/10/2018, 13h51)
Joao Magueijo: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." [..]

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:29 here: [..]

Joao Magueijo: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés inSouth Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALLTHE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted fromwell known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2,all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 [..]

Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires
Why Einsteinians Leave the Sinking Ship

EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP

HOW EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP

EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP


Fuseau horaire GMT +2. Il est actuellement 03h02. | Privacy Policy