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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #379551 > unrolled thread

Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World

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

Contents

  Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 13:02 -0700
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 20:35 +0000
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 14:20 -0700
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:27 -0700
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 00:13 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 00:16 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 09:50 +0100
          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:00 -0700
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 00:55 +0100
              Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:50 -0700
                Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 21:01 -0700
                Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 17:38 +0100
                  Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:43 +0000
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 17:54 +0100
                  Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:59 -0700
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:12 -0700
                      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:23 -0500
                        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
                          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 19:59 +0100
                        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 19:42 -0700
                          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 20:21 -0700
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 08:42 +0100
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 09:26 +0100
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 02:47 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 03:21 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 12:40 +0100
          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 04:54 -0700
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 13:47 +0100
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-20 14:10 +0000
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 04:07 -0700
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-20 11:46 +0000
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-23 06:52 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#379904

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 7:42:08 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:23:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 3/21/2016 9:12 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > Of course, you can't_measure_
> > > the position and momentum, both,
> > > but it has them, the particle.
> > 
> > Of course you can. You just can't do both to infinite precision.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> Right, you've caused an effect, the measurement 
> has interfered with what otherwise would be but 
> a path element in the path integral of the sum-
> of-histories.  That is to say, the measurement's 
> probabilistic, but to sum, the path elements that 
> are un-interrupted are deterministic.  
> 
> Then I'm encouraging you to look into the asymptotic 
> freedom of gluons, SUSY, some of string theory, and 
> QCD (Technicolour), as more-than-less the real 
> "state of the art".
> 
> Then, about a theory of everything, it would 
> have all of mathematics.

(Maybe you're talking about pure mathematics 
that doesn't necessarily have anything to do 
with the real world, I'm talking about any 
mathematical theory of everything, and there 
would just be the one, under interpretation.)

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

#379804

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> It's been said my prose is dense.

Apparently, *you* are a dense.

> If you think my physics is funny,
> I frame it in "A" theory of
> mathematical logic.

What you are posting is neither physics nor a theory, nor has it anything to 
do with logic.  Evidently, you do not even know what those terms mean.
 
> For, after all, any "theory of
> everything" will encompass all
> of mathematics.

Unlikely.  The “everything” in there refers to every fundamental interaction 
instead.
 
> Re: Heisenberg:
> is, or is not,
> the wavelength of light
> continuously variable?

This has nothing to do with Heisenberg.

BTW, you have quoted a scientific joke in a Usenet signature.
 
> This is where
> measurement is effect,

Gibberish.

> Heisenberg uncertainty
> doesn't follow from
> Pauli exclusion.

To which Pauli would have replied: “Not even wrong.”
 
> So, you can take your
> "Multiple Worlds Interpretation"
> and put it all back into one.

It is the _many_-worlds interpretation (of quantum mechanics), and nobody 
was referring to it but you.

Since you are continuing to post full quotes and pseudo-scientific 
gibberish, EOD for me.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#379580

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
>  Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has
>  led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and
>  seem not to have any predictions at all."

This article in that news magazine (far from being a scientific journal) is 
from 2013.  It is 2016 now, and not only has the Planck spacecraft confirmed 
once again the inflation variant of Big Bang cosmology, but also 
gravitational waves have been observed by LIGO exactly as general relativity 
predicted.

Note that Neil Turok is the director of the Perimeter Institute for 
Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, a so-called “independent 
research institute”.  This will become important later.
 
> http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
>  Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we
>  face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out
>  seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

That article is from 2013, too.  Besides, “I am concerned” is not a 
scientific statement.

> http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-ultimate-simplicity-of-everything-1.3490322
>  Neil Turok: "It looks like the founding principles of modern physics -
>  quantum theory and relativity - have played out and they have not given
>  us the answers we need. And so we have to go back and question those
>  founding principles..."

Same source, same year, no reasoning.
 
> Needless to say, Einsteinians have already questioned the founding
> principles. They have discovered that the consequences of Einstein's 1905
> constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd,

Nonsense.

> which means that the postulate is false:

Ex falso quodlibet.
 
> http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
>  "Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein
>  developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent
>  officer in Bern, Switzerland. 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."

The article and quote do not corroborate your claim.

That said, that the speed of light can either only be *locally* constant or 
the referred spacetime must be flat (as in special relativity), has been 
found out by Einstein himself, it his 1915 *general* theory of relativity.

<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22> (§ 2)
 
> 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..."

Again from 2013.  You are three years out of date.

If spacetime “is ready for retirement”, how does Giddings explain the recent 
observation of gravitational waves caused by the merger of two black holes, 
through spacetime strain – *precisely* as Einstein, based on general 
relativity, predicted in 1916?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>  Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "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."

Whereas “almost all of us” refers to the physicists working at the 
*Perimeter Institute* in 2014, when this video was published by the 
*Perimeter Institute*.

> 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."

Lee Smolin, too, is working at the *Perimeter Institute*.  The cited book 
was published in 2003.  This is now 13 years out of date.
 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html
>  "...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the
>  constancy of the speed of light."

You are citing a New York Times article from 2002, 14 years out of date.

Constant speed of light had already been "dropped" *locally* by Einstein in 
1915, and the article continues:

| Most physicists have yet to buy into this presumed revolution. Dr. Edward 
| Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, called recent 
| arguments that some versions of quantum gravity would violate relativity 
| “unimpressive.”

> [tl;dr]

Get a life.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#379582

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:26:13 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> If spacetime "is ready for retirement", how does Giddings explain the recent 
> observation of gravitational waves caused by the merger of two black holes, 
> through spacetime strain - *precisely* as Einstein, based on general 
> relativity, predicted in 1916?

Einstein did not predict anything about gravitational waves but this is another topic. As for Steve Giddings, he hailed the observation of gravitational waves while still rejecting spacetime. But you know Einsteinians are doublethinkers don't you:

https://edge.org/response-detail/26744 
  Steve Giddings (2016): "For the 2014 Edge Question, I wrote that apparently our fundamental concept of spacetime is ready for retirement, and it needs to be replaced by a more basic quantum structure. There are multiple reasons for this."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 
 "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary." 

Pentcho Valev

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

#379583

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 2:47:15 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:26:13 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > 
> > If spacetime "is ready for retirement", how does Giddings explain the recent 
> > observation of gravitational waves caused by the merger of two black holes, 
> > through spacetime strain - *precisely* as Einstein, based on general 
> > relativity, predicted in 1916?
> 
> Einstein did not predict anything about gravitational waves but this is another topic.

False.

> As for Steve Giddings, he hailed the observation of gravitational waves while still rejecting spacetime. 

You keep mixing up different orders of magnitude: yes, one can "reject" Newtonian mechanics
(because of quantum phenomena, say) AND retain it at the same time (for different purpose).
That's why no matter how many times you cut and paste some quotes, relativity will never
go away. Just like other classical theories never went away. It's that simple.

--
Jan

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

#379589

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:26:13 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> If spacetime "is ready for retirement", how does Giddings explain the
>> recent observation of gravitational waves caused by the merger of two
>> black holes, through spacetime strain - *precisely* as Einstein, based on
>> general relativity, predicted in 1916?
> 
> Einstein did not predict anything about gravitational waves […]

Einstein, A (1916-06). „Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der 
Gravitation“ (”Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of 
Gravitation”). In: „Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften Berlin“ (“Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of 
Sciences, Berlin”). part 1: 688–696.
<http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/BGG54UCY/index.meta>

Einstein, A (1918). „Über Gravitationswellen“ (“On Gravitational Waves”). 
In: „Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 
Berlin“. part 1: 154–167. (submitted: 1918-01-31). 
<http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/W7ZU8V1E/index.meta>


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#379591

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:40:55 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > Einstein did not predict anything about gravitational waves [...]
> 
> Einstein, A (1916-06). "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der 
> Gravitation" ("Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of 
> Gravitation"). In: "Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der 
> Wissenschaften Berlin" ("Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of 
> Sciences, Berlin"). part 1: 688-696.
> <http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/BGG54UCY/index.meta>
> 
> Einstein, A (1918). "Über Gravitationswellen" ("On Gravitational Waves"). 
> In: "Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 
> Berlin". part 1: 154-167. (submitted: 1918-01-31). 
> <http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/W7ZU8V1E/index.meta>

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674 
 "Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!" 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/ 
 ""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity." 

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full 
 "Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. (...) Dr Natalia Kiriushcheva, a theoretical and computational physicist at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), Canada, says that while it was Einstein who initiated the gravitational waves theory in a paper in June 1916, it was an addendum to his theory of general relativity and by 1936, he had concluded that such things did not exist. Furthermore - as a paper published by Einstein in the Annals of Mathematics in October, 1939 made clear, he also rejected the possibility of black holes."

Pentcho Valev

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

#379593

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:40:55 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Einstein did not predict anything about gravitational waves [...]
>> 
>> Einstein, A (1916-06). "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen
>> der Gravitation" ("Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of
>> Gravitation"). In: "Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie
>> der Wissenschaften Berlin" ("Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of
>> Sciences, Berlin"). part 1: 688-696.
>> <http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/BGG54UCY/index.meta>
>> 
>> Einstein, A (1918). "Über Gravitationswellen" ("On Gravitational Waves").
>> In: "Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der
>> Wissenschaften Berlin". part 1: 154-167. (submitted: 1918-01-31).
>> <http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/echo/einstein/sitzungsberichte/W7ZU8V1E/index.meta>

First of all, nothing that you cited negates the fact that Einstein 
predicted gravitational waves as observed.  *Read* the papers, for a change.

Whether Einstein later revised that view is irrelevant.  The math matched 
the two observations to 5.1σ, IOW the confidence level is 99.99994 %.
 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674

Not by a physicist and not even peer-reviewed, and you seriously expect me 
to accept it as science fact?
 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/
>  ""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves,
>  traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... "
>  ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves
>  exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are
>  the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about
>  gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of
>  space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915
>  theory of general relativity."

So he was unsure.  So what?  Nobody’s perfect.

Better to be unsure than being so deluded to think you possess the absolute 
truth like you science cranks.
 
> http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide#full
>  "Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black holes. (...)

The article does not cite any sources.  However, it concludes:

| […]
| For Dr Kiriushcheva and her colleagues, perhaps the biggest question mark 
| hanging over the Ligo findings is that for any scientific experiment to 
| have full credibility, its results must be independently repeatable – 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| clearly impossible when only Ligo and its scientists have access to the 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| necessary funding and equipment.

So that is a fallacy by the article’s author, probably due to superficial 
research.  It should be an “if”, not a “when”.  For example, the third LIGO 
detector (formerly the second at Hanford) is planned to be moved to India.  
ESA’s LISA Pathfinder has reached its L₁ orbit earlier this year.  The 
Advanced Virgo detector in Italy (an international collaboration) is going 
online later this year.  Another GW detector, KAGRA (of the gravitational 
wave studies group at the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR) of the 
University of Tokyo), is under construction in the works in the Kamiokande 
mine in Japan, planned to start operation in 2018.  And so on.  

You can even help LIGO and GEO 600 scientists with the detection by 
participating in distributed computing and running Einstein@home.

Wait and see.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Detection>

| Prof Shawhan says that “the results have been replicated in some sense;
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
| although it may look like one result from the outside … we rely on two
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| independent detectors each observing the same event in a consistent way.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
| “We also have found the event using multiple independent data analysis 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| algorithms executed by different people within our collaboration … this
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
| gives us the confidence to claim that we have unambiguously detected a 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| gravitational wave signal."
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 
| The questions raised by Dr Kiriushcheva and her colleagues are all good 
| ones, he says, and “some continued scepticism is fine. But we have 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| presented everything we know about this event and we hope to be able to 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| report on additional events in the future".
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Watch that space.
| 
| In the meantime, regardless of where he stood on the issue of 
| gravitational waves, were he still alive today, “continued scepticism" is 
| something Einstein would doubtless have approved of.
| 
| After all, as he once said: “The important thing is to not stop 
| questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Only that the article’s author got Einstein completely wrong on that.

But it is unsurprising that such a biased article would be published on a 
Web site of a state-owned daily newspaper in a federal hereditary monarchy 
like the UAE.  You really should check your sources sometime.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#379597

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:40:55 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> []
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
>  "Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him
>  that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting
>  result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been
>  assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a
>  mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational
>  waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result
>  that there could be no gravitational waves!"

Please don't talk wiht thomas pointless, he is so stupid.

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

#379587

Paranoia and panic in Einsteiniana (the century-old money-spinner, Einstein's relativity, should be saved at any cost):

http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/the-gravity-wave-hunter 
 "I can tell you about Alan Weinstein’s reaction, and he’s a professor here at Caltech who works on the LIGO experiment. He said when they got the phone calls they were all incredulous because they couldn’t believe that it was real. They’ve been looking for gravitational waves for decades. He said at first he thought that it was a blind injection, that someone had put in a signal and they didn’t know about it and so they thought that they were going to have to go through this whole rigmarole again, to find out that at the end of the day it was a hardware injection. Then they thought that maybe it was double blind because no one seemed to know what was going on. Whoever did the injection didn’t tell anyone, and this is going to be a big secret, and then eventually it’s not going to be a real signal. But then everyone swore that they hadn’t done any injections, and so they were starting to think, “oh my gosh, maybe this is real!” And then Alan thought maybe it was a triple blind experiment, and that just means it’s a malicious hacker who somehow managed to erase all of their steps and get the perfect gravitational wave signal in the mirror, and then will announce that they’ve somehow engineered this in a few months, and embarrass the collaboration. But he also claims that a binary black hole merger is much more likely than someone with that level of computer hacking power who is interested in hacking LIGO." 

The hacker who performed the triple blind experiment was malicious? No, he had already rehearsed this in 2010, then improved the procedure, and on September 14, 2015 was just thinking what he would buy for the Nobel prize:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076754-latest-rumour-of-gravitational-waves-is-probably-true-this-time/ 
 "In 2010, before LIGO had been upgraded to its present sensitivity, a textbook chirp that looked like two black holes colliding came through. The team drafted a paper and sent maps of where the signal may have come from to astronomers, who searched for a counterpart with other telescopes. There was just one problem: the signal was a fake deliberately injected into the data stream to make sure the team would be able to spot a real one. The dramatic opening of a sealed envelope revealed that fact to 300 team members in the room, with 100 more watching via a video link." [Note that in 2010 not only LIGO members were deceived - astronomers all over the world were misled into wasting time and money and looking for the non-existent black hole collision.] 

http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html 
 Luboš Motl: " On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) "

Pentcho Valev

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

#379590

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Paranoia and panic in Einsteiniana (the century-old money-spinner,
> Einstein's relativity, should be saved at any cost):
> 
> http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/the-gravity-wave-hunter
>  "I can tell you about Alan Weinstein’s reaction, and he’s a professor
>  here at Caltech who works on the LIGO experiment. He said when they got
>  the phone calls they were all incredulous because they couldn’t believe
>  that it was real. They’ve been looking for gravitational waves for
>  decades. He said at first he thought that it was a blind injection,
>  that someone had put in a signal and they didn’t know about it and so
>  they thought that they were going to have to go through this whole
>  rigmarole again, to find out that at the end of the day it was a
>  hardware injection. Then they thought that maybe it was double blind
>  because no one seemed to know what was going on. Whoever did the
>  injection didn’t tell anyone, and this is going to be a big secret, and
>  then eventually it’s not going to be a real signal. But then everyone
>  swore that they hadn’t done any injections, and so they were starting
>  to think, “oh my gosh, maybe this is real!” And then Alan thought maybe
>  it was a triple blind experiment, and that just means it’s a malicious
>  hacker who somehow managed to erase all of their steps and get the
>  perfect gravitational wave signal in the mirror, and then will announce
>  that they’ve somehow engineered this in a few months, and embarrass the
>  collaboration. But he also claims that a binary black hole merger is
>  much more likely than someone with that level of computer hacking power
>  who is interested in hacking LIGO."

Excellent post, mister Pentcho, this is the stinking capitalist Modern 
Science at its best. Which one comes first to the cookies. They like 
cookies, good for their skin, makes it soft and smoother. However, they 
can apply something which is much cheaper, ie 

"To make your skin soft and smooth, puree some fresh tomatoes in a blender 
or grinder. Apply the tomato paste to your face. Leave it on for 10 
minutes and then wash it off with water. Daily use can help shrink 
enlarged pores and give you smoother, glowing skin."

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

#379907

Am 20.03.2016 12:46, schrieb cryptoclearance:

> Excellent post, mister Pentcho, this is the stinking capitalist Modern
> Science at its best. Which one comes first to the cookies. They like
> cookies, good for their skin, makes it soft and smoother. However, they
> can apply something which is much cheaper, ie
>
> "To make your skin soft and smooth, puree some fresh tomatoes in a blender
> or grinder. Apply the tomato paste to your face. Leave it on for 10
> minutes and then wash it off with water. Daily use can help shrink
> enlarged pores and give you smoother, glowing skin."

Don't you need to put the tomato paste on the skin first and then the 
cookies?

btw: If your wife does it, this will certainly scare you to death.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web