Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407200 > unrolled thread

Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 05:18 -0800
    Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 07:06 -0800
      Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 11:09 +0000
        Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 03:50 -0800
          Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 12:18 +0000
            Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 03:50 +0100
    Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 08:13 -0800
      Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 09:44 -0800
        Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:44 -0800
        Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 20:51 -0800
          Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 11:02 -0800
    Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:38 -0800
      Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 11:09 +0000
        Re: Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:59 -0800

#407200 — Spacetime Confusion in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Einsteinians totally confused:

http://nautil.us/blog/why-theories-of-everything-are-ill_conceived 
 Carlo Rovelli: "We study in school that fixed space is like a table over which things happen and time just passes. We have this quantitative view from Newton. With Einstein we understand that this container is in fact an active thing in the universe. Space and time, as Einstein said, is like a big jellyfish in which we're immersed. This theory has stood up. So we know that all this dynamical stuff is quantum. We need a quantum description of this jellyfish, but a quantum description means that we cannot think of it anymore as something fixed and stable."

My comment in NAUTILUS:

The biggest physics breakthrough of 2016 is the realization that quantum gravity in its present understanding is impossible since it tries to combine two incompatible concepts of time: Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate: 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/ 
 "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum 
 Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf 
 "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. [...] The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames." 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/ 
 "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." 

Soon scientists will have to say goodbye to the more than a century old money-spinner called "Einstein's relativity". 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#407208 — Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:18:37 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einsteinians totally confused:
> 
> http://nautil.us/blog/why-theories-of-everything-are-ill_conceived 
>  Carlo Rovelli: "We study in school that fixed space is like a table over
> which things happen and time just passes. We have this quantitative view
> from Newton. With Einstein we understand that this container is in fact
> an active thing in the universe. Space and time, as Einstein said, is
> like a big jellyfish in which we're immersed. This theory has stood up.
> So we know that all this dynamical stuff is quantum. We need a quantum
> description of this jellyfish, but a quantum description means that we
> cannot think of it anymore as something fixed and stable."
> 
> My comment in NAUTILUS:
> 
> The biggest physics breakthrough of 2016 is the realization that quantum
> gravity in its present understanding is impossible since it tries to
> combine two incompatible concepts of time: Newton's absolute time and
> Einstein's relative time,

Completely and totally wrong.  QED includes special relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

"quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of
electrodynamics.  In essence, it describes how light and matter interact
and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and
special relativity is achieved."

> an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
> postulate

More dishonest baloney from Pentcho's demented brain.  QED is the most
accurate theory we have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407332 — Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
>> postulate
> 
> More dishonest baloney from Pentcho's demented brain.  QED is the most
> accurate theory we have.

Fine, then explain it in a few lines, on how we have to do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407335 — Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 4:09:59 AM UTC-7, Juanita Forney wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Barbecued-brain Pentcho wrote:
> > >
> > > an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
> > > postulate
> > 
> > More dishonest baloney from Pentcho's demented brain.  QED is the most
> > accurate theory we have.
> 
> Fine, then explain it in a few lines, on how we have to do.

You can't seem to put together two cogent sentences in a row, so what makes
you think you'd understand QED?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407337 — Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 4:09:59 AM UTC-7, Juanita Forney wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > Barbecued-brain Pentcho wrote:
>> > >
>> > > an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false
>> > > constant-speed-of-light postulate
>> > 
>> > More dishonest baloney from Pentcho's demented brain.  QED is the
>> > most accurate theory we have.
>> 
>> Fine, then explain it in a few lines, on how we have to do.
> 
> You can't seem to put together two cogent sentences in a row,

Not even correct grammatically. My parser outputs error.

> so what makes you think you'd understand QED?

I want to learn them all.  Where is the time and space located in QED? You 
don't know, do you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407552 — Re: Spacetime Confusion in Pentcho's Schizophrenic Brain

Juanita Forney wrote:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 4:09:59 AM UTC-7, Juanita Forney wrote:
>>> Fine, then explain it in a few lines, on how we have to do.
>> You can't seem to put together two cogent sentences in a row,
> 
> Not even correct grammatically. My parser outputs error.

Your parser is borked[tm].

>> so what makes you think you'd understand QED?
> 
> I want to learn them all.  Where is the time and space located in QED?
> 
> You don't know, do you.

Do you?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407222

Einstein's spacetime (Lorentz transformation equations) entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. This is not even wrong - the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published. Einstein overcame the difficulty (camouflaged the not-even-wrongness) by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
 ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

The asymmetrical time dilation introduced above is false and does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates, but, on the other hand, it does not involve incommensurability and for that reason sounds much more plausible than symmetrical time dilation. 

Nowadays physicists wrestle with the incommensurability involved in symmetrical time dilation and cry in despair, but continue to fool the brainwashed world by teaching the fascinating asymmetrical time dilation (moving clocks run slow, twins age differently, etc.): 

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well 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." 

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 
 Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117878.000-a-special-theory-of-relativity.html 
 John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481 
 Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how TIME WOULD SLOW DOWN FOR YOU if you are set into motion." 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/five-ways-travel-through-time 
 "This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 
 Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly" 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407378

Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate. In logic, when the consequence is wrong, the postulate is false - the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence" is forbidden. Unfortunately logic has no place in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ 
 "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

http://www.thebatt.com/science-technology/leading-princeton-physicist-nima-arkani-hamed-visits-aggieland/article_a661bb68-8395-11e6-97dd-0f73aa345281.html 
 "Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is doomed."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407400

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate.

It took 3 years to get to this "immediate consequence".

> In logic, when the consequence is wrong, the postulate is false

Yeah yeah, sure, if it was that easy the whole thing would have been over
in December 1905. Sorry to burst your bubble. Obviously, the "consequence"
is NOT wrong, you simply never understood how this works and wasted _decades_
of your life on rummaging through garbage.

> - the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence" is forbidden. 

No, it's not, what's apparentl;y forbiddeen is only for you to actually
STUDY physics before posting your obligatory idiocies about it.

> Unfortunately logic has no place in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

It does, but you have to know it first. You don't.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407466

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate. In logic, when the consequence is wrong, the postulate is false - the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence" is forbidden. Unfortunately logic has no place in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> 
> http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
>  "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
> 
> http://www.thebatt.com/science-technology/leading-princeton-physicist-nima-arkani-hamed-visits-aggieland/article_a661bb68-8395-11e6-97dd-0f73aa345281.html
>  "Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is doomed."
> 
> Pentcho Valev



you have to understand how 'scientist' talk...

they like to make up science words using simple talk.

space time

atomb bomb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407504

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > Spacetime is an "immediate consequence" of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate. In logic, when the consequence is wrong, the postulate is false - the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence" is forbidden. Unfortunately logic has no place in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> >
> > http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
> >  "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
> >
> > http://www.thebatt.com/science-technology/leading-princeton-physicist-nima-arkani-hamed-visits-aggieland/article_a661bb68-8395-11e6-97dd-0f73aa345281.html
> >  "Spacetime is any mathematical model used in physics to explain physical phenomenas of the universe by combining space and time in one continuum. [...] Arkani-Hamed said."Because of the existence of gravity and quantum mechanics, we believe that the concept of spacetime is doomed and there are many simple thought experiments that tell us that space time is doomed."
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> 
> you have to understand how 'scientist' talk...
> 
> they like to make up science words using simple talk.
> 
> space time
> 
> atom bomb

The big bang

dark matter


it looks like baby talk...

but..

but...if you ask these people
what is "dark matter'????

they say: "I don't know what it is???" 

https://youtu.be/N4x6N0uAkTQ?t=23

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407258

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:18:37 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einsteinians totally confused:

Nota bene: an ignoramus like you cannot make meaningful comments of the
type you presented above.

> http://nautil.us/blog/why-theories-of-everything-are-ill_conceived 
>  Carlo Rovelli: "We study in school that fixed space is like a table over which things happen and time just passes. We have this quantitative view from Newton. With Einstein we understand that this container is in fact an active thing in the universe. Space and time, as Einstein said, is like a big jellyfish in which we're immersed. This theory has stood up. So we know that all this dynamical stuff is quantum. We need a quantum description of this jellyfish, but a quantum description means that we cannot think of it anymore as something fixed and stable."
> 
> My comment in NAUTILUS:
> 
> The biggest physics breakthrough of 2016 is the realization that quantum gravity in its present understanding is impossible since it tries to combine two incompatible concepts of time: Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate: 

Your comment is _idiotic_. It's infantile to say that the reason for 
difficulties in making QM and GR work together is "it tries to combine two 
incompatible concepts of time: Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative 
time, an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light 
postulate".

If you absolutely must point to a single root cause of the difficulty it would
be the ultimate "linearity" of QM (in a certain sense which you ignore,
probably because you are ignorant of it) and the ultimate "nonlinearity"
of GR (in a certain sense which you ignore, probably because you are ignorant 
of it).

The rest of your post is the usual list of regurgitated links with
your comments which are as idiotic as always.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407331

JanPB wrote:

> If you absolutely must point to a single root cause of the difficulty it
> would be the ultimate "linearity" of QM (in a certain sense which you
> ignore, probably because you are ignorant of it) and the ultimate
> "nonlinearity"
> of GR (in a certain sense which you ignore, probably because you are
> ignorant of it).

Me too. What is it. Probabilities are not affected by the non-linearities 
in Relativity?? But QM doesn't even know that Relativity even exists. 

Or, are you just suggesting that the entanglement is affected by the 
curvature in spacetime or travelling at high speeds??
 
> The rest of your post is the usual list of regurgitated links with your
> comments which are as idiotic as always.

We disagree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407403

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 3:09:29 AM UTC-8, Juanita Forney wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > If you absolutely must point to a single root cause of the difficulty it
> > would be the ultimate "linearity" of QM (in a certain sense which you
> > ignore, probably because you are ignorant of it) and the ultimate
> > "nonlinearity"
> > of GR (in a certain sense which you ignore, probably because you are
> > ignorant of it).
> 
> Me too. What is it. Probabilities are not affected by the non-linearities 
> in Relativity?? But QM doesn't even know that Relativity even exists. 
> 
> Or, are you just suggesting that the entanglement is affected by the 
> curvature in spacetime or travelling at high speeds??

No, it's at a much more fundamental level. QM's very base of operations
is a (rigged) Hilbert space - the entire setup assumes linear space
and Hermitian operators on it, the spectral theorem, the resulting ability
to define things like "total momentum" of a system by simple addition, etc.

Quantum field theories add much more machinery to the "old QM" but that
basic setup more or less remains in place (there are some kludgy attempts
to do QFT in curved spacetimes but AFAIK they don't work in a satisfactorily 
general way (or else we'd have heard of it in newspapers for starters).

The entire machinery of functional analysis listed above goes out the
window in GR. Totally - that's the problem, it's not just some restricted
"obstacle".

That's why people have been talking for decades now (even here we had
discussions about it in the 1990s) of the need to very seriously re-examine
the fundamentals, for example _space_ which currently is not arising from
anything "else" (e.g. there are no "particles of space" or some such),
as currently QM and GR diverge _completely_, both mathematically and 
philosophically.

An analogous situation existed in the late 19th century when there
was an incompatibility between electrodynamics and mechanics. This
was resolved in 1905 by Einstein who re-examined the fundamentals
(i.e. the relation between time and space). But that model (and QM's)
is now in need of a major upgrade.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web