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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403588 > unrolled thread

The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016

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

Contents

  The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 02:24 -0800
    Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 06:07 +1100
    The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 11:34 -0800
      Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-01 21:11 +0100
        Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 14:04 -0800
          Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 09:48 +1100
            Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-02 01:18 +0000
          Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 12:23 +1100
            Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-02 19:28 +0100
              Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 12:08 -0800
                Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 20:29 +0000
            Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-02 22:17 +0100
              Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-03 14:47 +1100
        Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 08:30 +0100
          Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-02 19:40 +0100
            Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-03 12:10 +0100
          Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2017-01-02 19:06 +0000
        Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 03:52 -0800
          Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-01-02 19:35 +0100
            Re: The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 05:42 -0800
      The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 03:10 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#403588 — The Biggest Physics Breakthrough of 2016

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, the 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." 

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]

#403716

On 31/12/16 21:24, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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, the 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."
>
> Soon scientists will have to say goodbye to the more than a century
> old money-spinner called "Einstein's relativity".

That is correct.

....But my discoveries and concepts have already assured the death of
Einstein's theories. 'ADoppler, Time Compression, Sagnac, The 'light 
frequency' myth, The 'Mercury precession' joke, absolute simultaneity, 
Variable star c+v proof...and many more....

> Pentcho Valev
>


-- 

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

#403718

Einsteinans against climatologists:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html 
 Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science. Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."

How about small changes in the text:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html 
 "Just like we often say that communism cannot be reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the theoretical physics community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of the people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid or politically obsessed to repeat Einstein's and similar junk about time travel, spacetime, etc. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix them and make most of the theoretical physicists honest, it would be morally nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science. Science just doesn't need this many theoretical physicists."

Pentcho Valev

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

#403723

Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
> Einsteinans against climatologists:
>
> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
>  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
> reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
> climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
> the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
> or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
> climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
> can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
> them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
> nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
> Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."

What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.

Dirk Vdm

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

#403738

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.

All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ 
 Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument." 

Pentcho Valev

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

#403742

On 02/01/17 09:04, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>>
>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>
> All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
>
>
Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it 
cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear 
that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. 
Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a 
given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented 
differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the 
light ray onto the measuring instrument."
>
> Pentcho Valev

Roberts has trained his pet monkey to randomly join a few obscure 
scientific terms together and then post them off to sci.physics.relativity.



-- 

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

#403751

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>Roberts has trained his pet monkey to randomly join a few obscure 
>scientific terms together and then post them off to sci.physics.relativity.

You're Roberts' trained pet monkey, Ralph? I didn't know that!

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

#403752

On 2/01/2017 9:04 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>>
>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>
> All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
>
>
My God! Valev replied to someone else's post.

Dirk, you must tell me your secret.

Sylvia.

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

#403792

Op 02-jan-2017 om 02:23 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 2/01/2017 9:04 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>>
>> All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
>>
>>
>>
> My God! Valev replied to someone else's post.
>
> Dirk, you must tell me your secret.
>
> Sylvia.

Maybe I said something interesting--to him.
But he called me clever, so I have my doubts.

Anyway, happy 2017!

Dirk Vdm

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

#403805

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:28:45 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
> Maybe I said something interesting--to him.
> But he called me clever, so I have my doubts.

Once you were interestingly cynical, clever Moortel, so I am always inclined to pay you some more attention (good old days, you know). As for "clever", that used to be irony but now it is just a matter of habit.

Pentcho Valev 

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

#403812

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:28:45 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe I said something interesting--to him. But he called me clever, so
>> I have my doubts.
> 
> Once you were interestingly cynical, clever Moortel, so I am always
> inclined to pay you some more attention (good old days, you know). As
> for "clever", that used to be irony but now it is just a matter of
> habit. Pentcho Valev

I disagree. He is clever, but NOT in my Divergent Matter. He knows nothing 
about the Divergent Matter Model. In Tensors, yes, he is clever. However 
not sufficient in DMM.

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

#403820

Op 02-jan-2017 om 02:23 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 2/01/2017 9:04 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>>
>> All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
>>
>>
>>
> My God! Valev replied to someone else's post.
>
> Dirk, you must tell me your secret.
>
> Sylvia.
>

Gasp -- he did it AGAIN!

Dirk Vdm

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

#403839

On 3/01/2017 8:17 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 02-jan-2017 om 02:23 schreef Sylvia Else:
>> On 2/01/2017 9:04 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:11:46 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>>>
>>> All Einsteinians sound like idiots, clever Moortel:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My God! Valev replied to someone else's post.
>>
>> Dirk, you must tell me your secret.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
> Gasp -- he did it AGAIN!
>
> Dirk Vdm

Clearly you know how to get him to engage, even if you don't know what 
it is that you know.

A research project is indicated.

Sylvia.

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

#403758

Dne 01/01/2017 v 21:11 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
> Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
>> Einsteinans against climatologists:
>>
>> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
>>
>>  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
>> reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
>> climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
>> the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
>> or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
>> climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
>> can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
>> them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
>> nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
>> Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."
> 
> What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
> This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

He is a well known czech physicist.

But making statements out of region of expertise
is not always a good idea.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#403794

Op 02-jan-2017 om 08:30 schreef Poutnik:
> Dne 01/01/2017 v 21:11 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
>> Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
>>> Einsteinans against climatologists:
>>>
>>> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
>>>
>>>  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
>>> reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
>>> climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
>>> the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
>>> or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
>>> climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
>>> can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
>>> them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
>>> nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
>>> Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."
>>
>> What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
>> This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> He is a well known czech physicist.
>
> But making statements out of region of expertise
> is not always a good idea.
>

Sometimes it is, but obviously not here.
Happy 2017 :-)

Dirk Vdm

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

#403859

Le 02/01/2017 à 19:40, Dirk Van de moortel a écrit :
> Op 02-jan-2017 om 08:30 schreef Poutnik:
>> Dne 01/01/2017 v 21:11 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
>>> Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
>>>> Einsteinans against climatologists:
>>>>
>>>> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
>>>> reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
>>>> climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
>>>> the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
>>>> or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
>>>> climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
>>>> can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
>>>> them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
>>>> nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
>>>> Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."
>>>
>>> What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
>>> This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
>>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>> He is a well known czech physicist.
>>
>> But making statements out of region of expertise
>> is not always a good idea.
>>
>
> Sometimes it is, but obviously not here.
> Happy 2017 :-)

He was once a supporter of the (in)famous Bogdanov Brothers, this
says a lot...

Happy 2017 too.

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

#403796

Poutnik wrote:

>>> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-
to.html
>>>  Lubos Motl: 
>>
>> What science needs is irrelevant in this context. This many
>> climatologists are needed by the PLANET. Never heard of this Motl, but
>> he sounds like an idiot. Dirk Vdm
> 
> He is a well known czech physicist. But making statements out of region
> of expertise is not always a good idea. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der
> Wanderer )

Czech?? No wonder he is so stupid. Actually his name sounds merely 
hungarian, who gives a shit. He knows nothing about Divergent Matter.

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

#403772

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:11:46 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
> > Einsteinans against climatologists:
> >
> > http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
> >  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
> > reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
> > climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
> > the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
> > or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
> > climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
> > can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
> > them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
> > nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
> > Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."
> 
> What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
> This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.

Motl provides a good demonstration of the principle that brilliance in one field
does not guarantee against crackpottery in another. He is a brilliant Czech 
theoretical physicist who first achieved recognition while still an 
undergraduate. He is also a global warming denier, his political views are
"idiosyncratic", and he is well known for savagely attacking researchers who 
express doubts about string theory, using as armament unfair debating tactics
such as ad hominem attacks, selective snipping, deliberate misquoting, etc.

Despite his many faults, his blog is well worth reading:
http://motls.blogspot.com/

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

#403793

Op 02-jan-2017 om 12:52 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:11:46 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 01-jan-2017 om 20:34 schreef Pentcho Valev:
>>> Einsteinans against climatologists:
>>>
>>> http://motls.blogspot.fr/2017/01/lindzen-me-us-climate-science-needs-to.html
>>>  Lubos Motl: "Just like we often say that communism cannot be
>>> reformed, the same is true for the real-world composition of the
>>> climate science community today. It just cannot be reformed. Most of
>>> the new people were selected on the basis that they're either stupid
>>> or politically obsessed to repeat Al Gore's and similar junk about
>>> climate catastrophes. They're just bad material, rotten apples. You
>>> can't "fix" them. And I think that even if you could miraculously fix
>>> them and make most of the climatologists honest, it would be morally
>>> nice but still pretty much worthless from the viewpoint of science.
>>> Science just doesn't need this many climatologists."
>>
>> What science needs is irrelevant in this context.
>> This many climatologists are needed by the PLANET.
>> Never heard of this Motl, but he sounds like an idiot.
>
> Motl provides a good demonstration of the principle that brilliance in one field
> does not guarantee against crackpottery in another. He is a brilliant Czech
> theoretical physicist who first achieved recognition while still an
> undergraduate. He is also a global warming denier, his political views are
> "idiosyncratic", and he is well known for savagely attacking researchers who
> express doubts about string theory, using as armament unfair debating tactics
> such as ad hominem attacks, selective snipping, deliberate misquoting, etc.
>
> Despite his many faults, his blog is well worth reading:
> http://motls.blogspot.com/
>

Had a quick look.
"Savagely attacking researchers who express doubts about
string theory"... That sounds like I won't bother having
a closer look at that blog. I don't like blogs anyway.

Cheers and a cool 2017!

Dirk Vdm

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

#403862

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Had a quick look.
> "Savagely attacking researchers who express doubts about
> string theory"... That sounds like I won't bother having
> a closer look at that blog. I don't like blogs anyway.
> 
> Cheers and a cool 2017!

Baez once wrote, "Sometimes it takes  work to ignore Motl, but it always pays 
off."

:-)

Happy New Year to you, too!

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web