http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there
were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell
when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate
more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on
quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum gravity
had been my holy grail for decades. After you've convinced yourself
that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working on,
it's hard to change your mind. But when I finally did, it was
tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit working
on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real progress.
When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. But for now, I'm
thinking about other things. And, I'm making more real progress
understanding the universe than I ever did before."

http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/recherche...ysique0708.htm
Responsables : Nadine de Courntenay, Olivier Darrigol , Sara
Franceschelli, Jan Lacki.
"L'étonnante diversité des descriptions théoriques utilisées dans la
physique d'hier et d'aujourd'hui a souvent été perçue comme une
faiblesse temporaire qu'il faudrait corriger dans un état plus avancé
de cette science. Dans cette veine, Pierre Duhem comparait le progrès
scientifique à une marée montante dont les vagues ne sont qu'un décor
périssable. Les penseurs réductionnistes cherchent à éliminer cette
diversité en dérivant tout phénomène de l'ontologie homogène d'une
théorie plus fondamentale que les autres. Les structuralistes et les
positivistes, quant à eux, s'efforcent d'identifier les structures
universelles qui dominent nos modes périssables de description.
Contrairement à ces deux attitudes, les héritiers de James Clerk
Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann et Henri Poincaré soulignent les vertus
épistémiques d'une diversité des descriptions et considèrent que
décrire est un acte dont la dynamique transcende les objets originels
de la description. Dans ce séminaire, nous proposons d'adopter cette
seconde attitude....."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track --
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed
that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror!
Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the
corner?"

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "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!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ingtheory.html
Lee Smolin: "Well, every string theory that's been written down says
the speed of light is universal. But other ideas about quantum gravity
predict the speed of light has actually increased. And an experiment
on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, launching next year, will
check this. So I've said, look, if the speed of light isn't universal,
that disconfirms string theory. But the string theorists say they
could probably invent versions of the theory that work either way.
We'd have to change our notion of what science is to accommodate this
proposition. You just can't do science on that basis."

http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/...relativity.pdf
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use...... The usual velocity
addition law is then replaced by a new one, in which the velocity of
light "added" to any other velocity ("added" in a new sense-it would
be better to say "compounded with") does not increase, but stays the
same! The Maxwell-Lorentz equations, when examined with the aid of
this new kinematics, prove to take the same form in every inertial
frame. They are, therefore, quite compatible with the relativity
principle, which demands that the laws of electricity, magnetism and
optics have this property. The presence or absence of an electric or
magnetic field, is then also found to be relative to an inertial
frame, allowing a completely satisfactory relativistic analysis of the
example of the conducting wire loop and magnet in relative motion.
Within six weeks of taking "the step," Einstein later recalled, he had
worked out all of these consequences and submitted the 1905 SRT paper
to Annalen der Physik. This does not imply that Lorentz's equations
are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein
already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the
processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body
radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible
with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light
compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we
model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can
still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly
expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have
to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. This is
an example of how the special theory of relativity functioned as a
theory of principle, limiting but not fixing the choice of a
constructive theory of light."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

Fattest rats are also trying to leave the sinking ship:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so
concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a
private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading
cosmologists."

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=52711
"Professor Stephen Hawking says he is involved in work which "with
luck" will answer "some of the ultimate questions". Much of the work
is centred at Cambridge University's new Centre for Theoretical
Cosmology. (....) "We are now working on the unification of Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity, which governs the large-scale structure
of the universe, with Quantum Theory, the theory of the very small.
"This unification should determine what happened in the Big Bang and
how the universe began." He added: "The centre will work to develop
theories of the universe which are both mathematically consistent and
observationally testable. "IT WILL BUILD ON A TRADITION DATING BACK TO
ISAAC NEWTON OVER THREE CENTURIES AGO."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...6/ecrein26.xml
Martin Rees: "Einstein's great work was over well before he was 40.
Photos from that time show him as a nattily dressed young professor,
though we're more familiar with the image of the old Einstein - the
benign and unkempt sage of poster and T-shirt. But Einstein didn't
rest on his laurels in old age: he worked till his dying day seeking a
unified theory of nature's forces. At that time it was, we now
realise, a premature quest which was doomed from the start. Cynics
have said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920
onwards. Although there's something rather noble about the way he
persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some
respects the EINSTEIN CULT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL. It unduly exalts
"armchair theory", which by itself would achieve little."

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 23, 12:16 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Fattest rats are also trying to leave the sinking ship:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten.

Yawn. What you write above is the norm - all physics theories in
history eventually went through replacement by something else.

Why do you act as if relativity was meant to be different?
Why do you act as if physicists thought relativity would be different?

Grow up.

--
Jan Bielawski

Other signals carefully sent by fat rats:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep...ns-lonely-path
Lee Smolin: "SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT. He rejected his own theory, even
before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he
cared about. For another 10 years, as others in the world of physics
slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely path
away from it. Why? The main reason..... A second reason was his
concern with incorporating gravity, making use of what he called the
equivalence principle, which postulates that observers can never
distinguish the effects of gravity from those of acceleration as long
as they observe phenomena only in their neighborhood."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../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
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: ""The principle of relativity, if implemented in Galilean
kinematics, dictated that the modified theory must embody an emission
theory of light. We know that Einstein entertained such a
theory.....Einstein leveled objections against all theories of this
type. Some were technical complications. The most fundamental,
however, was that these EMISSION THEORIES ADMITTED NO FIELD THEORY."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." The other Einstein: "I consider it
entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT,
that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole
castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev,

Fascinating quotes.

Let me fill you in on a secret.

Leibniz.

Leibniz had the answers we seek.

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

On Jan 24, 11:34*am, MobyDikc wrote:
Pentcho Valev,

Fascinating quotes.

Let me fill you in on a secret.

Leibniz.

Leibniz had the answers we seek.

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

There is another secret. In Big Brother world 2+2=4 is replaced by
2+2=5, in Einstein zombie world the true equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light is replaced by Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate (c'=c):

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Therefore in both worlds any theorizing can only be harmful (serve as
camouflage) if two and two continue to make five and if the speed of
photons continues to be independent of the speed of the light source.

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 24, 11:34 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it.

hahahaha

How weirdly I got into the topic from the angle of comedy.

As a comedian I had metaphysically deployed the conversation of energy
with the other fruitless thoughts.

The comedy aspect was CLEARLY driven, propelled and propagated by the
dishonesty of it's victims.

I hereby proudly announce how I still don't know the basics of
physics. But the odds are not zero for me to detect dishonesty when it
tries to con me.

It seems to me that even Newton missed the obvious. He had loadstone's
didn't he? Why didn't he build a perpetual motion device? After all
his failure he probably became dishonest about it. It's more like the
rule as the exception.

I wouldn't know where to begin 'n explain even if anyone was
interested.

The order of things is just totally wrong.

Lets try...

One should evolve a theory around an observation in stead of evolving
observations around theories.

Engineering should be the source of unknown effects.

Here it instantaneously it becomes clear how the experiment is
unavailable for pet theory propaganda.

One does not apply an experiment to a theory. Things just don't work
like that. The experiment MAY have real world application. The denial
of real world application is the denial of one's own use.

Like a gigantic team of software developers coding a trillion dollar
pixel accelerator.

jajajajajjaja

If we know how fast the pixel moves across the screen then we can
calculate the speed of dumb.

Which is inverse proportional with the rate of accomplishments.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA

ok ok,

say we have an electric chair on a stage.

At the left of the chair we have a gigantic battery that is fully
charged.

At the right we have an empty battery.

We put the first skeptic on the chair.

We hook the negative terminals of the batteries up to another.

The positive terminals go to the chair.

We pull the lever and the electricity flows from the battery at the
left to the one at the right.

We keep electrocuting skeptics until the difference is gone.

We now add one more empty battery.

Ok we hook up the chair with the half full batteries in series and we
discharge those into the empty one.

More skeptics go up in smoke.

We can now fry 6 times as much brainless morons using the same
gradient.

If we would replace the chair with an electric motor we could charge
additional batteries with the back emf.

If we would use bursts of pulses we would also be able to get some
radiant energy action going on.

The extra battery charges faster as the source can displace it's
potential.

It'zz nut geuing anywhere.

lolzzz

lets spin some electrostatic thingy all'zo lolzzz !!

Then when teh miztifying apparatuzz zpinnzz we may utilize the
gravitational ozialtionzzz all'zo.

Thats how funny physics is.

I can see the headlines already: "Comedian strikes gold."

anyway,

have a nice day.

:-)

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl

http://fototour.blogspot.com

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

On Jan 24, 12:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Other signals carefully sent by fat rats:

And this means what exactly?

--
Jan Bielawski

On Jan 24, 6:39*pm, JanPB wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Other signals carefully sent by fat rats:

And this means what exactly?

This means that your criminal masters can no longer sell their dead
science in this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

Pentcho Valev