drell…@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> In a chapter called Beyond String Theory in his book The Trouble With
> Physics: The Rise Of String Thory, The Fall of Science, And What Comes
> Next, Lee Smolin writes:
> ". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some
> wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to
> isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What
> could this wrong assumption be?"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
See also:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
[and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> drell…@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> > In a chapter called Beyond String Theory in his book The Trouble With
> > Physics: The Rise Of String Thory, The Fall of Science, And What Comes
> > Next, Lee Smolin writes:
> > ". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some
> > wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to
> > isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What
> > could this wrong assumption be?"
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
> "…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> See also:
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> "Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
> modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
> Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
> gravity is false."
> Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
> the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
> remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
> [and of] the rest of modern physics."
> Pentcho Valev
Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer’s (Canadian) money on
something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:
GR QM
h=0 h=h
G=G G=0
It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
they could.
I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
You are constantly being silly while at the same time it is obvious you
do not know any physics.
Mike
On 9 Sep 2006 02:37:26 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> Your and
>other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
>Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
There’s nothing wrong with Euclid. Er, apart from all the mistakes of
course. I find it strange that Euclid was used to teach geometry for
about 2000 years, right up to the 1960s, and then stopped dead, or so
it seems to me. I don’t suppose kids learn geometry at all now.
–
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ben newsam wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2006 02:37:26 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> > Your and
> >other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> >Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
> There’s nothing wrong with Euclid. Er, apart from all the mistakes of
> course. I find it strange that Euclid was used to teach geometry for
> about 2000 years, right up to the 1960s, and then stopped dead, or so
> it seems to me. I don’t suppose kids learn geometry at all now.
> —
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
This is because you are an uneducated moron with no self-respect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
"Euclid (also referred as Euclid of Alexandria) (Greek:
Εὐκλείδης) (ca. 325 BC–265 BC), a Greek mathematician, who
lived in Alexandria, Hellenistic Egypt, almost certainly during the
reign of Ptolemy I (323 BC–283 BC), is often considered to be the
"father of geometry". His most popular work, Elements, is thought to be
one of the most successful textbooks in the history of mathematics.
Within it, the properties of geometrical objects are deduced from a
small set of axioms, thereby founding the axiomatic method of
mathematics."
http://www.math.uncc.edu/~droyster/math3181/notes/hyprgeom/node56.html
Theorem 16.1: If Euclidean geometry is consistent, so is hyperbolic
geometry
These two references should keep you busy for the next 10 years or so
idiot.
Mike
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:37:26 -0700, Mike wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> drell…@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>> > In a chapter called Beyond String Theory in his book The Trouble With
>> > Physics: The Rise Of String Thory, The Fall of Science, And What Comes
>> > Next, Lee Smolin writes:
>> > ". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some
>> > wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to
>> > isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What
>> > could this wrong assumption be?"
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
>> "…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
>> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>> See also:
>> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
>> "Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
>> modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
>> Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
>> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
>> gravity is false."
>> Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
>> the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
>> remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
>> [and of] the rest of modern physics."
>> Pentcho Valev
> Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer’s (Canadian) money on
> something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:
> GR QM
> h=0 h=h
> G=G G=0
> It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
> wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
> a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
> they could.
> I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
> 100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
> of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
> since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
> other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
It’s interesting how much SR and GR drives the kooks crazy. Why aren’t
they protesting QM or stat mech for that matter….
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> You are constantly being silly while at the same time it is obvious you
> do not know any physics.
> Mike
On 9 Sep 2006 08:38:00 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>Ben newsam wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2006 02:37:26 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>> > Your and
>> >other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
>> >Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
>> There’s nothing wrong with Euclid. Er, apart from all the mistakes of
>> course. I find it strange that Euclid was used to teach geometry for
>> about 2000 years, right up to the 1960s, and then stopped dead, or so
>> it seems to me. I don’t suppose kids learn geometry at all now.
>This is because you are an uneducated moron with no self-respect.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
You seem to have missed my point entirely. I was brought up on
Euclid’s Elements, and the store cupboard of every school maths
department while I was at school was filled with piles of well-thumbed
copies. Generations of schoolchildren had absorbed Euclid with their
mother’s milk for, like, centuries. Then, some time in the early 70s I
think, something happened, and education got trendy, and now I doubt
if you could find a single copy of Euclid’s Elements anywhere in a
school. You *might* be lucky to pick one up in a second hand shop, but
I doubt it. Good luck, because I have never seen a single copy since
before 1980.
Now, that’s pity, because Euclid, although not perfect, provides a
good intellectual stimulation for young minds.
–
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ben newsam wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2006 08:38:00 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> >Ben newsam wrote:
> >> On 9 Sep 2006 02:37:26 -0700, "Mike" <elea…@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> >> > Your and
> >> >other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> >> >Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
> >> There’s nothing wrong with Euclid. Er, apart from all the mistakes of
> >> course. I find it strange that Euclid was used to teach geometry for
> >> about 2000 years, right up to the 1960s, and then stopped dead, or so
> >> it seems to me. I don’t suppose kids learn geometry at all now.
> >This is because you are an uneducated moron with no self-respect.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
> You seem to have missed my point entirely. I was brought up on
> Euclid’s Elements, and the store cupboard of every school maths
> department while I was at school was filled with piles of well-thumbed
> copies. Generations of schoolchildren had absorbed Euclid with their
> mother’s milk for, like, centuries. Then, some time in the early 70s I
> think, something happened, and education got trendy, and now I doubt
> if you could find a single copy of Euclid’s Elements anywhere in a
> school. You *might* be lucky to pick one up in a second hand shop, but
> I doubt it. Good luck, because I have never seen a single copy since
> before 1980.
I apologize, I thought you were someone else I had a conversation about
the subject before and in particular Klein’s consistency theorem.
You are correct. Bourbaki and formalistic approach to math was a
contributing factor. the Economy did not need an more civil mechanical
engineers in great numbers but computer programmers and the like.
however, they missed the point. Geometry, of any kind, not only
Euclid’s, helps sharpen young peoples minds by offering a great number
of tangible problems that challenge the intiution and raise the IQ
level.
> Now, that’s pity, because Euclid, although not perfect, provides a
> good intellectual stimulation for young minds.
I agree and given the fact that the role of geometry has been elevated
in science to a stydy of topology of manifolds and prevailing theories
of gravitation are based on it.
Mike
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mike wrote:
> Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer’s (Canadian) money on
> something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:
> GR QM
> h=0 h=h
> G=G G=0
My my, aren’t you the short sighted one? Such a statement hardly
constitutes a definitive proof. Apparently, something has gone right
over your head, namely that unification has h = h and G = G, and that
it would reduce to GR when h approaches 0 and reduce to QM when G
approaches 0. Not thinking about all the possibilities is no excuse.
> It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
> wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
> a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
> they could.
You haven’t proven that statement. It’s just your own personal
opinion. A lot of people thought unification was silly till the E-Weak
theory and it’s subsequent verification came along. Unification has a
long history, from Maxwell’s unification of E and B fields, to
Einstein’s unification of gravity with the other inertial forces in GR.
That Einstein’s attempts to unify gravity and EM fields failed and
string theory also appears to have failed doesn’t really mean much.
Most scientific hypotheses die on the vine anyway. Frankly, I think
that the jury is still out on Smolen’s loop quantum gravity, since it
hasn’t been around as long as string theory. But who knows? Maybe we
do need a new approach.
> I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
> 100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
> of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
> since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
> other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
That seems to be first thing you’ve said that I’ve agreed with for a
long time.
Mike wrote:
> http://www.math.uncc.edu/~droyster/math3181/notes/hyprgeom/node56.html
> Theorem 16.1: If Euclidean geometry is consistent, so is hyperbolic
> geometry
Easily proven by making at least one of the coordinates imaginary.
"Pentcho Valev" <pva…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157782474.323325.132040@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
> drell…@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> > In a chapter called Beyond String Theory in his book The Trouble With
> > Physics: The Rise Of String Thory, The Fall of Science, And What Comes
> > Next, Lee Smolin writes:
> > ". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some
> > wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to
> > isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What
> > could this wrong assumption be?"
The wrong assumption of modern physics (mostly relativity) is that an
observer assumes himself to be in a state of rest. This wrong assumption led
him to the erroneous conclusion that all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and all the rods moving wrt him are contracted. Also this
conclusion is the reason why SR is incomplete. In real life all the
observers are in a state of motion. Therefore he will sees some of the
clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Also he
will sees some identical rods moving wrt him will have longer light path
length and some identical rods will have shorter light path length compared
to the light path length of his own rod.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
> "…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
This is not a problem. Why? Because the speed of light is a constant math
ratio as measure by all observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 )/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
Ken Seto
Igor wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer’s (Canadian) money on
> > something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:
> > GR QM
> > h=0 h=h
> > G=G G=0
> My my, aren’t you the short sighted one? Such a statement hardly
> constitutes a definitive proof. Apparently, something has gone right
> over your head, namely that unification has h = h and G = G, and that
> it would reduce to GR when h approaches 0 and reduce to QM when G
> approaches 0. Not thinking about all the possibilities is no excuse.
No, something went over your empty head. QM is inconsistent with G=G
and GR inconsistent with h=h. They are mutuallyn exclusive that is. If
you know anything about set theoretics, what the hell is the union of
two mutually exclusive sets of predictions?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
> > wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
> > a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
> > they could.
> You haven’t proven that statement. It’s just your own personal
> opinion. A lot of people thought unification was silly till the E-Weak
> theory and it’s subsequent verification came along. Unification has a
> long history, from Maxwell’s unification of E and B fields, to
> Einstein’s unification of gravity with the other inertial forces in GR.
> That Einstein’s attempts to unify gravity and EM fields failed and
> string theory also appears to have failed doesn’t really mean much.
> Most scientific hypotheses die on the vine anyway. Frankly, I think
> that the jury is still out on Smolen’s loop quantum gravity, since it
> hasn’t been around as long as string theory. But who knows? Maybe we
> do need a new approach.
You like emptry conversation and meaningless statements. Your way.
> > I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
> > 100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
> > of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
> > since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
> > other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> > Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
> That seems to be first thing you’ve said that I’ve agreed with for a
> long time.
Who gives a dime with what you agree or not. You are an idiot anyway.
Mike
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Mike wrote:
> Igor wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> > > Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer’s (Canadian) money on
> > > something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:
> > > GR QM
> > > h=0 h=h
> > > G=G G=0
> > My my, aren’t you the short sighted one? Such a statement hardly
> > constitutes a definitive proof. Apparently, something has gone right
> > over your head, namely that unification has h = h and G = G, and that
> > it would reduce to GR when h approaches 0 and reduce to QM when G
> > approaches 0. Not thinking about all the possibilities is no excuse.
> No, something went over your empty head. QM is inconsistent with G=G
> and GR inconsistent with h=h. They are mutuallyn exclusive that is. If
> you know anything about set theoretics, what the hell is the union of
> two mutually exclusive sets of predictions?
They’re only mutually exclusive in their respective limits. Read what I
wrote again.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > > It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
> > > wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
> > > a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
> > > they could.
> > You haven’t proven that statement. It’s just your own personal
> > opinion. A lot of people thought unification was silly till the E-Weak
> > theory and it’s subsequent verification came along. Unification has a
> > long history, from Maxwell’s unification of E and B fields, to
> > Einstein’s unification of gravity with the other inertial forces in GR.
> > That Einstein’s attempts to unify gravity and EM fields failed and
> > string theory also appears to have failed doesn’t really mean much.
> > Most scientific hypotheses die on the vine anyway. Frankly, I think
> > that the jury is still out on Smolen’s loop quantum gravity, since it
> > hasn’t been around as long as string theory. But who knows? Maybe we
> > do need a new approach.
> You like emptry conversation and meaningless statements. Your way.
Feel free to refute anything I said. I don’t you can. Are there
unified fields in physics already? Yes there are.
> > > I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
> > > 100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
> > > of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
> > > since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
> > > other’s continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
> > > Euclid for understanding plane geometry.
> > That seems to be first thing you’ve said that I’ve agreed with for a
> > long time.
> Who gives a dime with what you agree or not. You are an idiot anyway.
I’m trying to be helpful, but apparently, I’m talking right over your
puny head.