LEE SMOLIN AGAINST ISAAC NEWTON

[Androcles]

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.

| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.

How?

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.

| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.


Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.
| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.
Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

| They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
| And I do too.

| Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
| calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
| equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
| the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
| photons as they grazed the Sun mass.

| This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.

| His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
| "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
| des Lichter"

| He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
| right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).

| However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
| be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
| something that has never been documented, since the
| 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
| meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
| mechanics.

| Just like the community never considered confirming
| atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
| mechanical clocks experiments.

| They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
| a point.

Androcles' third law:
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
Loading Image...
(from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
photons have direction and come in pairs)

The equivalent mass of a photon is m = 2E/c^2, from which
one might surmise the gravitational deflection, should one know
the energy.

However,
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Riding the Earth, you, Eddington and Einstein (who didn't bother
to look anyway, the only one that did is Eddington who obtained ONE
suitable photograph) are observers on the roundabout. The light has
to curve. From simple trigonometry, the deflection has to be ~v/c.
A star in the direction of the Earth's travel will show no aberration,
a star at right angles will show maximum aberration. The observed
star close to the sun has to be identified in daylight and there is
further curvature as a result of refraction in Earth's atmosphere.

[Fripounette]

Post by Androcles
The equivalent mass of a photon is m = 2E/c^2

Yes.
E=m*c^2 ----> m=E/c^2 multiplié par deux.
Parce qu'un photon passe par les deux fentes..... dans l'exprérience
de Young. et non par une seule fente. C'est bon?
Fripounette.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Fripounette

Post by Androcles
The equivalent mass of a photon is m = 2E/c^2

Yes.
E=m*c^2 ----> m=E/c^2 multiplié par deux.
Parce qu'un photon passe par les deux fentes..... dans l'exprérience
de Young. et non par une seule fente. C'est bon?
Fripounette.

Oh, tu sais, passer par une seule fente, ça peut être bon aussi.... :))

R.H.

[Fripounette]

Fripounette a écrit :>> Parce qu'un photon passe par les deux fentes.....
dans l'exprérience

Post by Fripounette
de Young. et non par une seule fente. C'est bon?
Fripounette.

Oh, tu sais, passer par une seule fente, ça peut être bon aussi.... :))
R.H.

Y en a marre de tes réflexions pôrnographiques. Tu sais parler que de
ça.T'es un gros naze. Nul
et encore plu smysogyne que les posts de Vincent Thiernesse.
Fripounette.

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.
| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.
Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

| They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
| And I do too.
| Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
| calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
| equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
| the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
| photons as they grazed the Sun mass.
| This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.
| His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
| "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
| des Lichter"
| He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
| right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).
| However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
| be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
| something that has never been documented, since the
| 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
| meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
| mechanics.
| Just like the community never considered confirming
| atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
| mechanical clocks experiments.
| They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
| a point.
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
photons have direction and come in pairs)

| My view is de Broglie's on photons. I see them as complex
| standing harmonic oscillators in motion, with only half
| their energy oscillating electromagnetically. The other
| half is is oriented in the direction of motion and is
| thus impervious to transverse force interaction.

Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

inasmuch as a spinning bullet has energy in the spin and
energy of forward motion, I cannot agree to the ratio 1/2.
If one travels alongside the spinning bullet then it has no energy
of forward motion (which is necessarily relative) but retains
its energy of spin.

Post by Androcles
The equivalent mass of a photon is m = 2E/c^2,

Yes. Obvious and perfectly explained by relativistic Newtonian.

Post by Androcles
from which one might surmise the gravitational deflection,
should one know the energy.

| Since it invariantly amounts to half the full quantum,
| we always know the energy that maintains the velocity.

BUT!....
An object falling in a gravitational field accelerates alongside
an object with the same mass or twice that mass.
A photon of mass 2 will curve exactly the same as a photon
of mass 1. Therefore the mass or (mass equivalent) is irrelevant.

Post by Androcles
However,
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Riding the Earth, you, Eddington and Einstein (who didn't bother
to look anyway, the only one that did is Eddington who obtained ONE
suitable photograph) are observers on the roundabout. The light has
to curve. From simple trigonometry, the deflection has to be ~v/c.

| This does not take into account that the permanent half-half
| equilibrium of the photons energy (directed half plus oscillating
| inert half) continuously takes up the slack so that v can equal no
| other velocity than c.

You've misunderstood, v is the velocity of the Earth at right-angles
to the direction of the light and is approximately 0.0001c.
sin(v/c) ~= v/c for small angles. This has nothing to do with the
intrinsic oscillation, it is strictly the Coriolis effect.

| Any energy added adds to both halves and any energy expended
| subtracts from both halves.

| This is what the de Broglie photon structure reveals.

Post by Androcles
A star in the direction of the Earth's travel will show no aberration,
a star at right angles will show maximum aberration. The observed
star close to the sun has to be identified in daylight and there is
further curvature as a result of refraction in Earth's atmosphere.

| Agreed.

André Michaud

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.
| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.
Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

| They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
| And I do too.
| Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
| calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
| equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
| the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
| photons as they grazed the Sun mass.
| This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.
| His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
| "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
| des Lichter"
| He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
| right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).
| However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
| be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
| something that has never been documented, since the
| 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
| meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
| mechanics.
| Just like the community never considered confirming
| atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
| mechanical clocks experiments.
| They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
| a point.
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
photons have direction and come in pairs)

| My view is de Broglie's on photons. I see them as complex
| standing harmonic oscillators in motion, with only half
| their energy oscillating electromagnetically. The other
| half is is oriented in the direction of motion and is
| thus impervious to transverse force interaction.
Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif

| I see. Standing dephased pi/2.

Of course... the magnetic field cannot be zero at the same
time as the electric field or energy would not be conserved.
E = -dB/dt



| Does not accomodate real physical quantum localization.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein.
I don't care about your real physical quantum localization, that
means nothing. Energy is conserved.



| In the 3-spaces model, the dephasing is 180 and 2 orthogonal
| spaces allow the electromagnetic oscillation while a 3rd
| orthogonal space (normal space) harbor the directed energy
| sustaining the motion of the oscillating half.

Then your model is wrong.

Post by Androcles
inasmuch as a spinning bullet has energy in the spin and
energy of forward motion, I cannot agree to the ratio 1/2.
If one travels alongside the spinning bullet then it has no energy
of forward motion (which is necessarily relative) but retains
its energy of spin.

| This is where we differ. In relativistic Newtonian, if you
| travel alongside the bullet, it can only mean that you have
| sufficient energy in the forward motion yourself to be
| able to travel alongside the moving bullet.

We certainly do differ, I have no idea what "relativistic Newtonian" is.
In the real world I can spin a top while sitting in my chair, but I
certainly have enough energy to travel alongside it as it goes around
the Sun.

| In the underlying 3-spaces model, the energy is not relative
| but has physical existence. The energy of the speeding bullet
| does not diminish as your own increases to catch up with it.

A brick on a shelf has enough energy to break your toe, but
not if you happen to be in the attic with the shelf below you.
Energy is relative.

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles
The equivalent mass of a photon is m = 2E/c^2,

Yes. Obvious and perfectly explained by relativistic Newtonian.

Post by Androcles
from which one might surmise the gravitational deflection,
should one know the energy.

| Since it invariantly amounts to half the full quantum,
| we always know the energy that maintains the velocity.
BUT!....
An object falling in a gravitational field accelerates alongside
an object with the same mass or twice that mass.
A photon of mass 2 will curve exactly the same as a photon
of mass 1

| In the 3-spaces model, this is because its velocity sustaining
| energy also falls to 1

KE = 1/2mv^2, v is relative, hence energy is relative.
More correctly, KE = 1/2mv^2.cos(phi).
A bullet traveling away from you can do no work on
your body and is therefore harmless. cos(pi) = -1
To reverse the bullet, first you must stop it, absorbing its
energy in (say) compressing a spring, and then give it back.

The energy of the cordite is converted to the KE of the bullet,
converted again to compress the spring and then converted
back into the KE of the bullet which is then absorbed as
heat tearing in hole in you.

| For photons, acceleration only increases the total quantum
| of energy. Does not affect the equilibrium velocity, which
| is c.

Acceleration is rate of change of velocity by definition.
Only in crackpot relativity does light travel at 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
both ways at once.
Loading Image...

Post by Androcles
Therefore the mass or (mass equivalent) is irrelevant.

| Yes.

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles
However,
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Riding the Earth, you, Eddington and Einstein (who didn't bother
to look anyway, the only one that did is Eddington who obtained ONE
suitable photograph) are observers on the roundabout. The light has
to curve. From simple trigonometry, the deflection has to be ~v/c.

| This does not take into account that the permanent half-half
| equilibrium of the photons energy (directed half plus oscillating
| inert half) continuously takes up the slack so that v can equal no
| other velocity than c.
You've misunderstood, v is the velocity of the Earth at right-angles
to the direction of the light and is approximately 0.0001c.
sin(v/c) ~= v/c for small angles. This has nothing to do with the
intrinsic oscillation, it is strictly the Coriolis effect.

Right. My bad.

André Michaud

Post by Androcles
| Any energy added adds to both halves and any energy expended
| subtracts from both halves.
| This is what the de Broglie photon structure reveals.

Post by Androcles
A star in the direction of the Earth's travel will show no aberration,
a star at right angles will show maximum aberration. The observed
star close to the sun has to be identified in daylight and there is
further curvature as a result of refraction in Earth's atmosphere.

| Agreed.

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.
| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.
Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

| They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
| And I do too.
| Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
| calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
| equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
| the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
| photons as they grazed the Sun mass.
| This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.
| His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
| "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
| des Lichter"
| He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
| right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).
| However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
| be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
| something that has never been documented, since the
| 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
| meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
| mechanics.
| Just like the community never considered confirming
| atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
| mechanical clocks experiments.
| They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
| a point.
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
photons have direction and come in pairs)

| My view is de Broglie's on photons. I see them as complex
| standing harmonic oscillators in motion, with only half
| their energy oscillating electromagnetically. The other
| half is is oriented in the direction of motion and is
| thus impervious to transverse force interaction.
Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif

| I see. Standing dephased pi/2.
Of course... the magnetic field cannot be zero at the same
time as the electric field or energy would not be conserved.
E = -dB/dt

| In 3D + time classical wave theory yes.

Fine, that's the world I live in.


| But with 9D + time

Go away, crank, go live in your 9D universe.

[Androcles]

Post by Androcles

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

| Right.
| Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
| twice the angle observed.
How?

| I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
| bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
| magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
| with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
| Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
| body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
| apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
| into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
| twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
| travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
| the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

See my reply to Andre.

[unknown]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:41 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
Pentcho Valev

Okay, agreed, Smolin got that badly wrong. <sigh>


Newton light-bending refs:
: Principia, vol.1, Prop XCVI (etc.).
: Opticks, "Queries"

The sad thing here is that Newton's two main publications both
contradict the myth, they're both currently in print in paperback,
they're probably in every uni library, and many physicists //still//
can't be bothered to check their data against a primary source.

The irony is that physicists tend to believe that fact-checking in
their community is quite excellent. So they get complacent, and
things that really should get picked up and emphatically corrected
often don't. Everyone just trusts that certain common statements
/must/ be true, or else they wouldn't be in print.

So, because people believe that fact-checking is obviously so much
better in physics than in the other hard sciences, it's often a lot
worse.

In fact, it's often absolutely appalling.

=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: Policeman, to hand-held device:
: " Maniac has responded with a scornful remark! "
: -- Demolition Man (1993)

[Androcles]

<Eric Baird> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:41 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
| <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html

| >"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
| >starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
| >Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
| >- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
| >cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
| >nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
| >
| >However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:
| >
| >http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
| >Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
| >Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
| >Abstract:
| >Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm
| >
|

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9

| >Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
| >lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
| >it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
| >
| >Pentcho Valev
| >***@yahoo.com
|
|
| Okay, agreed, Smolin got that badly wrong. <sigh>
|
|
| Newton light-bending refs:
| : Principia, vol.1, Prop XCVI (etc.).
| : Opticks, "Queries"
|
| The sad thing here is that Newton's two main publications both
| contradict the myth, they're both currently in print in paperback,
| they're probably in every uni library, and many physicists //still//
| can't be bothered to check their data against a primary source.
|
| The irony is that physicists tend to believe that fact-checking in
| their community is quite excellent. So they get complacent, and
| things that really should get picked up and emphatically corrected
| often don't. Everyone just trusts that certain common statements
| /must/ be true, or else they wouldn't be in print.
|
| So, because people believe that fact-checking is obviously so much
| better in physics than in the other hard sciences, it's often a lot
| worse.
|
| In fact, it's often absolutely appalling.
|

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

Ok, Einstein got that gleefully wrong. <sigh>
Did you mention that in your book?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Androcles
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

Pour moi, c'est la plus formidable bourde de toute l'histoire de la science.
Il s'agit du plus énorme "a priori" connu dans un papier scientifique (celui de 1905).
C'est tellement énorme que la plupart des lecteurs pensent réellement qu'Einstein
avait raison, et qu'ils ne réfléchissent même pas à ce que d'autres tentent de leur dire
(Androclès, Hachel).

Ceux-là sont considérés comme d'immonde abrutis n'ayant, je cite,
"rien compris à ce que c'est qu'une procédure de synchronisation".
Ils ne voient pas que là, l'abruti est peut-être de l'autre côté de la barrière,
c'est à dire du côté de leur clavier.

Prenons un observateur C placé loin de AB et observant ce segment de droite
transversalement.

Quoi de plus clair que la vitesse de la lumière (raisonnement par l'absurde)
va être la même dans les deux sens, et qu'il faudrait admettre un bizarre
et énorme a priori pour qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi.

Mais cela ne nous prouve en rien que la vitesse de la lumière est égale pour
l'aller et le retour pour A (ou pour B).

Ce n'est pas du tout la même chose.

C'est même si évident que si l'on n'avait pas fait de ce forum un immense
concours de bite dont les coupables se reconnaitront aisèment, il y a belle
lurette qu'on aurait pu voir a difformité du concept (les vitesses apparentes
ne sont pas symétriques en RR, ce qui est absurde).

R.H.

Post by Androcles
Ok, Einstein got that gleefully wrong. <sigh>
Did you mention that in your book?

[diegel]

Je demande aux contributeurs des forums de sciences de cesser de poster sur
le forum de philo, surtout pour faire mousser de nulles controverses sur la
relativité d'Einstein.
Dans la fenêtre 'Groupes de discussion', supprimez 'fr.sci.philo'.
Un peu de savoir-vivre !

[Androcles]

"Richard Hachel" <***@tiscali.fr> wrote in message news:***@tiscali.fr...
|
| Androcles a écrit :
|
| >
| > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
| > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
| > to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
|
| Pour moi, c'est la plus formidable bourde de toute l'histoire de la
science.
| Il s'agit du plus énorme "a priori" connu dans un papier scientifique
(celui de 1905).

| For me, it is the most formidable boob of all the history of science.
| It acts of most enormous "a priori" known in a scientific paper (that of
1905).

| C'est tellement énorme que la plupart des lecteurs pensent réellement
qu'Einstein
| avait raison, et qu'ils ne réfléchissent même pas à ce que d'autres
tentent de leur dire

| It is so enormous which the majority of the readers really think that
Einstein
| was right, and that they do not even think so that others try to say to
them

| (Androclès, Hachel).
|
| Ceux-là sont considérés comme d'immonde abrutis n'ayant, je cite,
| "rien compris à ce que c'est qu'une procédure de synchronisation".
| Ils ne voient pas que là, l'abruti est peut-être de l'autre côté de la
barrière,
| c'est à dire du côté de leur clavier.
|
| Prenons un observateur C placé loin de AB et observant ce segment de
droite
| transversalement.
|
| Quoi de plus clair que la vitesse de la lumière (raisonnement par
l'absurde)
| va être la même dans les deux sens, et qu'il faudrait admettre un bizarre
| et énorme a priori pour qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi.
|
| Mais cela ne nous prouve en rien que la vitesse de la lumière est égale
pour
| l'aller et le retour pour A (ou pour B).
|
| Ce n'est pas du tout la même chose.
|
| C'est même si évident que si l'on n'avait pas fait de ce forum un immense
| concours de bite dont les coupables se reconnaitront aisèment, il y a
belle
| lurette qu'on aurait pu voir a difformité du concept (les vitesses
apparentes
| ne sont pas symétriques en RR, ce qui est absurde).
|
| R.H.
Yes.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

[diegel]

Je demande aux contributeurs des forums de sciences de cesser de poster sur
le forum de philo, surtout pour faire mousser de nulles controverses sur la
relativité d'Einstein.
Dans la fenêtre 'Groupes de discussion', supprimez 'fr.sci.philo'.
Un peu de savoir-vivre !

[unknown]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:39:00 GMT, "Androcles"

Post by Androcles
| On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:41 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev

...

Post by Androcles

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9

| >Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
| >lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
| >it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
| >
| >Pentcho Valev
| Okay, agreed, Smolin got that badly wrong. <sigh>
| : Principia, vol.1, Prop XCVI (etc.).
| : Opticks, "Queries"

...

Post by Androcles
| So, because people believe that fact-checking is obviously so much
| better in physics than in the other hard sciences, it's often a lot
| worse.

...

Post by Androcles
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Ok, Einstein got that gleefully wrong. <sigh>
Did you mention that in your book?

Actually I did, it's alluded to in Chapter Five,
"The Newtonian Catastrophe", on pages 58-59.

Newton appeared to be relying on "lightspeed" (rather than
light-velocity) arguments when he constructed his attempt at a unified
theory of optics and gravitation ... this turned out to be an awful
mistake ... some of the English physics community committed their
reputations to some of Newton's resulting predictions, which then
turned out to be wrong ... in an attempt to save face, some of the
community started claiming that Newton had never said such a thing,
and that Newtonian theory had never said that gravity affected light
... this was a second disaster, that may have held back progress in
some parts of gravitational theory by a century ...

... and Einstein, apparently unaware of the earlier controversy, then
went and did something similar with special relativity.


===
The chapter doesn't come out and say, "Einstein got this part wrong"
(it tries to treat SR a little more fairly than that), but it does
point out that in the previous case of a theory using round-trip
arguments, which seemed to be defended as strongly by its proponents
as SR is defended today by its fans ... this sort of approach had been
a disaster.


===
Most "intelligent" communities tend to learn from their own previous
mistakes, and guard against making the worst of those mistakes a
second time, so repeat disasters tend not to happen.

But in physics, we don't learn from our mistakes in the same way,
because we tend not to be told that these mistakes ever happened.
We //do// get told all about bad predictions and rotten experiments
done by people whose theories never quite made it to the mainstream
(so that we can feel smug about those silly people who foolishly step
outside "taught" reality), but we aren't told about the catastrophic
cockups that originated within the mainstream itself. That stuff gets
eliminated from the educational histories, because it's not considered
helpful. It's easier to inspire students by telling them that if they
stick with the mainstream, they'll always be on the winning side, and
that the "unscientific" people are the dissidents.


I think that most physics people probably still think that SR is
fundamentally correct and can't possibly be wrong (incomplete, but not
//wrong//), and I think that a lot of that belief is based on trust in
peer review, trust in the accuracy of information provided by the
system, and trust that all relevant information will have been be
provided to them and that any misinformation will necessarily have
already been corrected.

They figure that the chances of the system telling them that SR is
necessarily correct if it //isn't// correct are so small as to be not
worth considering. They trust the system to work well, because it
always has in the past ... or so they think.
What they //don't// know are the case histories of instances where the
system has previously gone pathologically wrong, and without that
information, they won't know what warning signs they should be looking
out for that might indicate if the current belief system is
pathological.

They don't have the information necessary to make that sort of
assessment ... and in fact, the absence of that information and those
case histories is itself one of the warning signs.
They may //think// that the reason why the information doesn't seem to
exist is because we've never really had a serious "system crash" in
physics ... but if you look back at the contemporary C17th-C19th
English-language physics texts, you find that that's not the case.
Physics people may reckon that physics is unique in that nobody would
//ever// lie about verifiable data because everyone knows that you
wouldn't be able to get away with it ... but it seems that when C19th
physicists lied about the Newtonian history, they not only managed to
get away with it, the lie then continued as a self-perpetuating myth
for more than a century after the people it was meant to protect had
died, even though the contra-evidence was readily available in print,
sitting on the science library shelves.

So, an apparently deliberate piece of misinformation that was fed into
the system in the C19th still seems to be being taught in the C21st,
even though it's been contradicted by the physical evidence for all
that time.

In a peer-review-regulated system that genuinely treated the
correctness of data as sacrosanct, and which ranked scientific
accuracy as being more important than politics, this sort of thing
couldn't happen. So our system isn't as good as we think it is
(or as good as we say it is).

(I tackled social herd behaviour in science in chapters 20 & 21,
"Limitations of Language and Procedure", and "The Perils of
Experimentation")

================================

PS, I actually think that Smolin is one of the Good Guys: He's
radical, free-thinking, and not afraid of speaking out and calling
things as he sees them, even if it upsets his immediate peer group. He
questions stuff. He's also personally interested in the subject of how
new theories interface with older ones, and wrote a book criticising
the "string theory" community for cheerleading. He's supposed to be
one of the more radical mainstream researchers working on quantum
gravity.
So if it's not occurred to //him// to check whether the taught history
of Newtonian theory is actually true, then one has to wonder exactly
how bad a state we're in.


=Erk= (Eric Baird) www.relativitybook.com
: " It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't
: see the problem. "
: - G. K. Chesterton

[Androcles]

<Eric Baird> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:39:00 GMT, "Androcles"
| <***@Hogwarts.physics> wrote (in part):
|
| ><Eric Baird> wrote (in part) in message
| >news:***@4ax.com...
|
| >| On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:41 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
| >| <***@yahoo.com> wrote (in part):
| ...
| >

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9

| >| >Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
| >| >lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
| >| >it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
| >| >
| >| >Pentcho Valev
| >| >***@yahoo.com
|
| >| Okay, agreed, Smolin got that badly wrong. <sigh>
| >| Newton light-bending refs:
| >| : Principia, vol.1, Prop XCVI (etc.).
| >| : Opticks, "Queries"
| ...
| >| So, because people believe that fact-checking is obviously so much
| >| better in physics than in the other hard sciences, it's often a lot
| >| worse.
| ...
|
| >'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
| >light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
| >to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
| >
| >Ok, Einstein got that gleefully wrong. <sigh>
| >Did you mention that in your book?
|
|
| Actually I did, it's alluded to in Chapter Five,
| "The Newtonian Catastrophe", on pages 58-59.
|
| Newton appeared to be relying on "lightspeed" (rather than
| light-velocity) arguments when he constructed his attempt at a unified
| theory of optics and gravitation ... this turned out to be an awful
| mistake ... some of the English physics community committed their
| reputations to some of Newton's resulting predictions, which then
| turned out to be wrong ... in an attempt to save face, some of the
| community started claiming that Newton had never said such a thing,
| and that Newtonian theory had never said that gravity affected light
| ... this was a second disaster, that may have held back progress in
| some parts of gravitational theory by a century ...
|
| ... and Einstein, apparently unaware of the earlier controversy, then
| went and did something similar with special relativity.
|
|
| ===
| The chapter doesn't come out and say, "Einstein got this part wrong"

Why not?


| (it tries to treat SR a little more fairly than that),

What's unfair about pointing out Einstein's third postulate, the KEY
to all his time dilation?



| but it does
| point out that in the previous case of a theory using round-trip
| arguments, which seemed to be defended as strongly by its proponents
| as SR is defended today by its fans ... this sort of approach had been
| a disaster.
|
|
| ===
| Most "intelligent" communities tend to learn from their own previous
| mistakes, and guard against making the worst of those mistakes a
| second time, so repeat disasters tend not to happen.
|
| But in physics, we don't learn from our mistakes in the same way,
| because we tend not to be told that these mistakes ever happened.
| We //do// get told all about bad predictions and rotten experiments
| done by people whose theories never quite made it to the mainstream
| (so that we can feel smug about those silly people who foolishly step
| outside "taught" reality), but we aren't told about the catastrophic
| cockups that originated within the mainstream itself. That stuff gets
| eliminated from the educational histories, because it's not considered
| helpful. It's easier to inspire students by telling them that if they
| stick with the mainstream, they'll always be on the winning side, and
| that the "unscientific" people are the dissidents.
|
|
| I think that most physics people probably still think that SR is
| fundamentally correct and can't possibly be wrong (incomplete, but not
| //wrong//), and I think that a lot of that belief is based on trust in
| peer review, trust in the accuracy of information provided by the
| system, and trust that all relevant information will have been be
| provided to them and that any misinformation will necessarily have
| already been corrected.

That's your greatest weakness (as well as Einstein's), voicing your
personal opinion; I'm only interested in provable fact, not in what
you or anyone else think. You can write pages of word salad, it's still
meaningless opinion.

"Actually I did, it's alluded to".

C'mon, Eric, Einstein's third postulate, key to all time dilation,
is vaguely alluded to somewhere in Chapter Five and you can't
even quote it without looking it up yourself.



|
| They figure

"They think"... where's facts?

| that the chances of the system telling them that SR is
| necessarily correct if it //isn't// correct are so small as to be not
| worth considering. They trust

"They think"... where's facts?

the system to work well, because it
| always has in the past ... or so they think.
| What they //don't// know

"They think"... where's facts?

are the case histories of instances where the
| system has previously gone pathologically wrong, and without that
| information, they won't know

"They think"... where's facts?

what warning signs they should be looking
| out for that might indicate if the current belief system is
| pathological.
|
| They don't have the information

"They think"... where's facts?

necessary to make that sort of
| assessment ... and in fact, the absence of that information and those
| case histories is itself one of the warning signs.
| They may //think//

"They think"... where's facts?

that the reason why the information doesn't seem to
| exist is because we've never really had a serious "system crash" in
| physics ... but if you look back at the contemporary C17th-C19th
| English-language physics texts, you find that that's not the case.
| Physics people may reckon


"They think"... where's facts?

that physics is unique in that nobody would
| //ever// lie about verifiable data because everyone knows that you
| wouldn't be able to get away with it ... but it seems that when C19th
| physicists lied about the Newtonian history, they not only managed to
| get away with it, the lie then continued as a self-perpetuating myth
| for more than a century after the people it was meant to protect had
| died, even though the contra-evidence was readily available in print,
| sitting on the science library shelves.
|
| So, an apparently deliberate piece of misinformation that was fed into
| the system in the C19th still seems to be being taught in the C21st,
| even though it's been contradicted by the physical evidence for all
| that time.
|
| In a peer-review-regulated system that genuinely treated the
| correctness of data as sacrosanct, and which ranked scientific
| accuracy as being more important than politics, this sort of thing
| couldn't happen. So our system isn't as good as we think it is
| (or as good as we say it is).
|
| (I tackled social herd behaviour in science in chapters 20 & 21,
| "Limitations of Language and Procedure", and "The Perils of
| Experimentation")
|
| ================================
|
| PS, I actually think

"You think"... where's facts?

that Smolin is one of the Good Guys: He's
| radical, free-thinking, and not afraid of speaking out and calling
| things as he sees them, even if it upsets his immediate peer group. He
| questions stuff. He's also personally interested in the subject of how
| new theories interface with older ones, and wrote a book criticising
| the "string theory" community for cheerleading. He's supposed to be
| one of the more radical mainstream researchers working on quantum
| gravity.
| So if it's not occurred to //him// to check whether the taught history
| of Newtonian theory is actually true, then one has to wonder exactly
| how bad a state we're in.
|
|
| =Erk= (Eric Baird) www.relativitybook.com
| : " It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't
| : see the problem. "
| : - G. K. Chesterton

[Pentcho Valev]

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
LeeSmolin- ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s):LeeSmolin
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9&shouldResize=False
LeeSmolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

That is a mystery. Lee Smolin is silly but by no means cretin. All
criminal Einsteinians know that Newton's corpuscular model of light
does imply bending caused by a gravitational field, and some even
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back. This was impossible, according to the
then accepted ideas of space and time. But in 1915, Einstein put
forward his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity."
Again, Stephen Hawking is silly but by no means cretin. Even Einstein
zombies now know that the Michelson-Morley experiment shows the speed
of light is variable, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Yes criminal Einsteinians are mysterious individuals. They are either
extremely silly or extremely dishonest or both but one can never be
sure:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is
that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special
theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to
have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have
learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon
can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Lady Chacha]

Supertroll Dono trolled:

Dumbshit,

Do you see the difference, you despicable pile of dung?