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

Groups > sci.physics > #568009 > unrolled thread

Mourning Einsteinians

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Mourning Einsteinians Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 01:09 -0700
    Re: Mourning Einsteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:28 -0500
    Re: Mourning Einsteinians Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 11:00 -0700
      Re: Mourning Einsteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:46 -0500
        Re: Mourning Einsteinians "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-05 13:47 -0700
          Re: Mourning Einsteinians Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-05 15:03 -0700
            Re: Mourning Einsteinians "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-05 15:44 -0700

#568009 — Mourning Einsteinians

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8392 
 Peter Woit: "Instead of prominent theorists frankly admitting "we don't know", there will be an attempt to sell the story to the public that theorists have a wonderful, successful theory which describes everything, which sadly has the unfortunate feature of not making any falsifiable predictions. The string landscape/multiverse scenario now is being very aggressively sold as exactly this kind of endpoint to physics, to a large degree by people unwilling to admit the failure of string theory-based unification. There's a very real danger that this will enter the textbooks, and that we will in our lifetimes see the end of fundamental physics as a human endeavor."

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html 
 Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

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."

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." 

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html 
 "Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue >>, tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

Don't cry, Einsteinians:

https://ceportugues.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/lagrimas-de-crocodilo.jpg

You know where the root of all evil lies, don't you:

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://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.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#568051

Six weighty facts about gravity
 > http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/six-weighty-facts-about-gravity


 > Gravity: we barely ever think about it, at least until we slip on ice
 > or stumble on the stairs. To many ancient thinkers, gravity wasn’t
 > even a force—it was just the natural tendency of objects to sink
 > toward the center of Earth, while planets were subject to other,
 > unrelated laws.
 >
 > Of course, we now know that gravity does far more than make things
 > fall down. It governs the motion of planets around the Sun, holds
 > galaxies together and determines the structure of the universe
 > itself. We also recognize that gravity is one of the four fundamental
 > forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, the weak force and the
 > strong force.
 >
 > The modern theory of gravity—Einstein’s general theory of
 > relativity—is one of the most successful theories we have. At the
 > same time, we still don’t know everything about gravity, including
 > the exact way it fits in with the other fundamental forces. But here
 > are six weighty facts we do know about gravity.

1. Gravity is by far the weakest force we know.

2. Gravity and weight are not the same thing.

3. Gravity makes waves that move at light speed.

4. Explaining the microscopic behavior of gravity has thrown researchers 
for a loop.

5. Gravity might be carried by massless particles called gravitons.

6. Quantum gravity appears at the smallest length anything can be.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#568063

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
 "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

Yes, safely leaving the sinking ship is a daunting task indeed:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png 

Pentcho Valev

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

#568080

On 4/5/16 1:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It [special relativity] revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity.

   Duh. Relativity of Simultaneity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

> In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
> distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur
> at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's
> reference frame.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#568110

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> It [special relativity] revealed that there's no such thing as objective
>> simultaneity.
>
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
>   Duh. Relativity of Simultaneity
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
>
>> In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
>> distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur
>> at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's
>> reference frame.
>
hanson wrote:
"not absolute, but" Duh!... ahahahaha... So Sam, you admit then
that all this Hooplah over your proselytizing for Einstein's relativity
is iffy... that it is essentially a Theo-physic, a Faith endeaver that
is just like any the 3 cults of Abrahamic religions which require
Belief too... Duh!.... ahahahaha...
>
So Sam, whenever you proselytized for SR/GR do include that
single post of yours which shows that there is still some glimmer
of rationality left in your ever dimming albeo, which was when you
posted  <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>

> -- 
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
>

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

#568122

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 1:48:22 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> It [special relativity] revealed that there's no such thing as objective
> >> simultaneity.
> >
> "Sam Wormley" wrote:
> >   Duh. Relativity of Simultaneity
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
> >
> >> In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
> >> distant simultaneity - whether two spatially separated events occur
> >> at the same time - is not absolute, but depends on the observer's
> >> reference frame.
> >
> hanson wrote:
> "not absolute, but" Duh!... ahahahaha... So Sam, you admit then
> that all this Hooplah over your proselytizing for Einstein's relativity
> is iffy... that it is essentially a Theo-physic, a Faith endeaver that
> is just like any the 3 cults of Abrahamic religions which require
> Belief too... Duh!.... ahahahaha...
> >
> So Sam, whenever you proselytized for SR/GR do include that
> single post of yours which shows that there is still some glimmer
> of rationality left in your ever dimming albeo, which was when you
> posted  <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
> 
> > -- 
> >
> > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > community, and physics-related social issues.
> >


Just Jewish physics, eh hanson?

Double-A

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

#568137

"Double-A" <double-a3@hush.com> the "Alcoholic Addict"
aka/or/& "Anon E. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> are
submissives who are presenting  themselves under
their idol Glazier in their Yiddisher street corner act
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
after which they wrote:
>
 hanson wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> >> It [special relativity] revealed that there's no such thing as 
>> >> objective
>> >> simultaneity.
>> >
>> "Sam Wormley" wrote:
>> >   Duh. Relativity of Simultaneity
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
>> >
>> >> In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
>> >> distant simultaneity - whether two spatially separated events occur
>> >> at the same time - is not absolute, but depends on the observer's
>> >> reference frame.
>> >
>> hanson wrote:
>> "not absolute, but" Duh!... ahahahaha... So Sam, you admit then
>> that all this Hooplah over your proselytizing for Einstein's relativity
>> is iffy... that it is essentially a Theo-physic, a Faith endeaver that
>> is just like any the 3 cults of Abrahamic religions which require
>> Belief too... Duh!.... ahahahaha...
>> >
>> So Sam, whenever you proselytized for SR/GR do include that
>> single post of yours which shows that there is still some glimmer
>> of rationality left in your ever dimming albeo, which was when you
>> posted  <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>>
the "Alcoholic Addict" wrote:
> Just Jewish physics, eh hanson?
>
hanson wrote:
Duh!... of course, you are right for a change. That sad chapter in
the history of physics is over now, and only still supported by
the vestiges of geriatric kikes who have whored down Physics
and the US at large.
Many luminaries, including rational US Jews spoke out against
it like:
>
||| Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who says:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwiayZ3sH7U >
||| "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about..."
||| "...or he was lying, or both".
>
||| Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
||| "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
|||characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
||| or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
||| Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
||| associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
||| or John Beckman, an astronomy professor & Einstein disciple:
||| "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
||| That is probably more a matter of FAITH than of proof."

 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web