﻿ Time to Get Rid of Schizophrenic Science
Discussion:
Time to Get Rid of Schizophrenic Science
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-26 19:03:31 UTC
Raw Message
"I'm Brian Greene, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University and co-founder of the World Science Festival. It's critical that you realize that there are two types of time travel, and they are radically different. Time travel to the future? Definitely possible. We know how to do it because Einstein showed us the way over a hundred years ago. It’s surprising how few people actually really know about this in their bones. He showed that if you go out into space and travel near the speed of light, and you turn around, and you come back, your clock will be ticking off time more slowly. So, when you step off it's going to be the future on planet Earth. You will have time traveled into the future." http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-time-travel-with-wormholes-2017-11

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

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 - shortens in 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." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies." http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-26 22:49:00 UTC
Raw Message
John Baez, once a high priest in Einstein cult, judiciously abandoned the schizophrenic science nine years ago:

John Baez 2008: "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 the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11356

Actually all clever Einsteinians are leaving the sinking ship, more or less explicitly:

"...Weinberg says string theory is still the best hope we have. "I am glad people are working on string theory and trying to explore it, although I notice that the smart guys such as Witten seem to have turned their attention to solid-state physics lately. Maybe that's a sign that they are giving up, but I hope not." http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/70138

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-27 08:25:13 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein mercilessly destroys human rationality:

Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Does w = c - v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious. This lie of Einstein is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.7.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-28 08:30:32 UTC
Raw Message
All consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate are idiotic. Length contraction idiocies:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole - an event obviously impossible in Adam's frame. We have reductio ad absurdum and relativity should be abandoned but ... there is always salvation in Einstein's schizophrenic world. In Adam's frame the train undergoes an absurd bending, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:

We have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Einstein's length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "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. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"If it does not explode..." - can it explode? Yes, the effect deserves to be called "Einstein explosion" - it can only occur in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

That is, Divine Albert's Divine Theory allows a scenario in which the volume of the trapped object is reduced, say, one million times, and then the object explodes and restores its original volume! What kind of explosion is this, Einsteinians? Just an idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? No? The postulate cannot be false? The Einsteinian lunacy should continue to destroy human rationality forever?

See, at 7:12 in the video, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" http://youtu.be/Xrqj88zQZJg

It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-30 08:52:14 UTC
Raw Message
The bug-rivet paradox clearly demonstrates the deep schizophrenia physics has slipped into:

Georgia State University: "The paradox is not resolved." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

"The paradox is not resolved" means that we have reductio ad absurdum. The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Yet we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we? In this world Divine Albert's Divine Theory is immortal. Einsteinians have saved it by advancing two breathtaking (superidiotic) assumptions:

1. The rivet gets longer than itself.

2. The end of the rivet moves at 87% the speed of light but a wave moving at the speed of sound chases it, catches up to it and stops it.

Here is how the breathtaking (superidiotic) assumptions are introduced:

Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d." http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?" http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.html

Pentcho Valev