Crisis in Cosmology
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
This is only my idea about electron.
By this, I mean that I don't speak for ALL physicists;
that would certainly be presumptuous.
We have a Quantum Theorist in our department; I chatted
with him a bit - told him, my view is that an electron is like a box,
that you are told you can NEVER open, NEVER know what is inside.
But, coming through holes in the box, we sometimes see a tail wagging,
and sometimes a paw slapping around.
We can NEVER know there is a cat inside (I told you that, above).
So, we say sometimes there are paws in the box
(and sticking out), sometimes tails.
ANALOGY: electron, sometimes wave, sometimes particle.
He just shook his head and walked away. So, go figure.
Andy.
By this, I mean that I don't speak for ALL physicists;
that would certainly be presumptuous.
We have a Quantum Theorist in our department; I chatted
with him a bit - told him, my view is that an electron is like a box,
that you are told you can NEVER open, NEVER know what is inside.
But, coming through holes in the box, we sometimes see a tail wagging,
and sometimes a paw slapping around.
We can NEVER know there is a cat inside (I told you that, above).
So, we say sometimes there are paws in the box
(and sticking out), sometimes tails.
ANALOGY: electron, sometimes wave, sometimes particle.
He just shook his head and walked away. So, go figure.
Andy.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm subject archive
Supposed distribution of dark matter in the Universe. Credit: NASA/UNC
Aug 03, 2009
Contributing editor Dr. Thomas Wilson recently drew attention to an article in the Journal of Physics A (JPA) that purported to place direct limits on the mass of earth-bound dark matter and that presented a misleading interpretation of confidence intervals. After reading Dr. Wilson's article, as well as the original JPA paper, Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Theoretical Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of Hull, England, sent a protest directly to Professor Patrick Dorey, the JPA editor, concerning material of such dubious quality being accepted for publication. The reply and subsequent communications are related below.
Readers are encouraged to review the detailed commentary, but the outcome is easily summarized. Drs. Dunning-Davies and Wilson pointed out basic errors in Adler's article to the referees. They also objected to a lack of correct review at the Journal that resulted in sensational claims propagating into the popular media. As expected, the referees reacted emotionally to the criticism and rejected the comments for publication.
In summary, the entire process can be described as:
* A “fast-track” article was published with misleading interpretations of data in a mainstream physics journal, probably because it mentioned dark matter in Earth’s immediate neighbourhood (i.e. sensational claims).
* Referees missed these basic errors, indicating a failure of the review process.
* No one besides Drs. Dunning-Davies and Wilson responded to the errors, revealing a general blindness in scientific critical thinking.
* Mainstream popular science media published and expanded on the “findings,” demonstrating a lack of critical thinking in the science media.
* When a critical review of the article was submitted, the referees reacted emotionally and rejected an alternative view, showing a lack of professional scientific conduct.
++++
Dear Jeremy Dunning-Davies,
Many thanks for your message concerning the FTC by Adler. I'm sorry for the slow reply, but we wanted to dig out the original referee reports, which took longer than expected. All I can say is that the referees were all respected workers in related fields, and were happy with publication. So I think that procedures were correctly followed. On the other hand, if you do feel that important points were missed which deserve to be brought to wider attention, you would be very welcome to submit a "comment" to the journal at jphysa@iop.org (which would also be refereed, of course).
With best wishes,Patrick Dorey.
++++
Dear Professor Dorey,
Thank you so much for taking all the trouble you obviously have taken over my letter. I assure you it is appreciated. I feel I should state, though, that I never had any real doubt that correct procedures had been followed. I'm rather more concerned that some referees don't actually do the job they're supposed to do and, on occasions, if something appears to conform to conventional wisdom, they will accept it on the nod, so to speak. I will indeed look at the Adler paper again and may take up your suggestion to submit an official comment.
Thank you once again,
Jeremy Dunning-Davies.
++++
Editor's note: As a result of the above email exchange, the following response article was submitted to JPA by Drs. Wilson and Dunning-Davies:
Some comments on ‘Placing direct limits on the mass of earth-bound dark matter’
By Stephen L. Adler, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 (2008) 412002
Abstract:
Claims made concerning limits on the mass of possible earth-bound dark matter in a recent paper by Stephen L. Adler are examined afresh and doubts are raised.
In this short article by Adler, it is claimed that a method is introduced for calculating the maximum amount of dark matter that must be present in the space between the Laser Geodynamics Satellites and the Moon’s orbit. The method suggested is deceptively simple. The author indicates that this quantity of dark matter is given by subtracting the values of the product of the universal constant of gravitation and the mass for the earth and the moon from the value of the same product for the two combined.
This is summarised in equation (4):
GMdm = GMcombined – GMe – GMm .
Published data is then used to give an estimate of the expected answer.The first query concerns the alternative method for determining the moon’s mass by studying the orbit of a close passing asteroid which is influenced by both the gravitational field of the moon and that of the earth. It is pointed out that, from such an analysis, one may find an accurate figure for the ratio,
where ΔMe and ΔMm denote possible contributions from earth-bound and moon-bound dark matter.
Hence, to a first approximation
where δ =
Hence,
GMm
Due to this relationship, one must enquire as to why the third term on the left-hand side of equation (5) is as it is. However, if this equation is correct, the claim following equation (7) is certainly of dubious validity since, to arrive at this result, so many approximations have been made. Therefore, the claim of a ‘potential one percent accuracy’ must be open to doubt.
A numerical evaluation then follows and this raises even more serious queries. Firstly, each of the separate values of the product GM is found by different methods, each involving different sets of assumptions. The figures are then manipulated in different ways, again with implicit assumptions, before the final calculation. After all this, the GM for dark matter is found to be 0.0001±0.0016 which, on dividing by the value of GM for the earth leads to a ratio of (0.3±4)×10^-9. Based on this, it is asserted that there must be a mass of dark matter less than 4×10^-9 times the mass of the earth in the volume of space considered – assuming G constant.
There are two problems we can see with the conclusion above. The first problem concerns the statistical significance of 0.0001±0.0016. The second problem concerns the assertion that there must be a mass of dark matter less than 4×10^-9 times the mass of the earth in the volume of space considered. Let’s consider each in turn.
Adler’s value for the combined Earth-Moon GM is 403,503.2357 ± 0.0014. If for comparison we add the separate Earth and Moon values and use standard interval calculations to get the new error, we get 403,503.2356 ± 0.0011. If you look at these two values with error bars on a chart, the second summed value fits perfectly within the 95% confidence error bars of the original combined value. There’s no significant difference between the two values. Yes, you can do some misguided mathematical calculations to derive a difference value of 0.0001 (“in the noise” so to speak), but it’s not meaningful.
Consider now the ratio (0.3±4)×10-9. Adler uses this value to assert there is at most 4×10-9 times the mass of the earth in the volume of space considered. However, it follows that -3.7 is as statistically valid as +4.3. The best that may be deduced is that there is a 95% likelihood of there being, or not being, any dark matter in the stated volume of space. We’re not sure that is really very interesting; certainly not a result justifying a Fast Track Publication.
Whatever one’s belief on the existence, or not, of dark matter, probably the most important comment in the paper occurs in footnote 5, where the author comments that the analysis in the paper is based on purely gravitational considerations. It must always be remembered that other forces could be exerting influences also. Finally, although this paper seems to have been lauded in both the Scientific American and the American Scientist, apparently because it lends credence to the notion that dark matter exists, it has to be acknowledged that other reasonable explanations exist for the other observed effects to which those articles refer in the context of this one by Adler.
++++
The initial response from the journal, together with subsequent correspondence, now follow:
Ref: A/315310/COM/973Dear Dr Dunning-Davies.TITLE: Comment on "Placing direct limits on the mass of earth-bound dark matter"AUTHORS: Dr Jeremy Dunning-Davies et alYour comment submitted to Journal of Physics A: Mathematical andTheoretical has now been refereed and the referee report(s) are attached.I am sorry to tell you that the referee(s) have recommended that yourcomment should not be published in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical andTheoretical, for the reasons given in the reports. Your comment hastherefore been withdrawn from consideration.I would like to thank you for your interest in Journal of Physics A:Mathematical and Theoretical.Yours sincerelyDaniel Heatley and Paul Fishman - Publishing AdministratorJournal of Physics A: Mathematical and TheoreticalArticle under review for Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and TheoreticalComment on "Placing direct limits on the mass of earth-bound dark matter" -Dr Jeremy Dunning-Davies et al
ID: A/315310/COMBOARD MEMBER'S REPORT
============================
I do not view this article as appropriate for the Journal, and it should not be sent out for normal refereeing. The tone of the article is quite inappropriate, and the article really seems to be attacking Dr Adler's article on the grounds that it received publicity in Scientific American and the American Scientist. The technical criticisms that the current authors bring up against Dr Adler's article are wrong. Dr Adler's key conclusion in his article is the quite proper and perfectly correct statement that that "the mass of earth based dark matter lying between the moon's orbit ... and the LAGEOS orbit ... must be less than 4 x 10^{-9} of the earth's mass, AT A 1-SIGMA CONFIDENCE LEVEL''. (my emphasis) The current authors have set up a "straw man" by systematically ignoring all of Dr Adler's cautionary qualifying statements, and have effectively attacked statements he did not make. This comment is utterly inappropriate for publication.
++++
Dear Miss Gillan,
Thank you for your communication. However, I feel I must raise some queries over the decision not to accept the comments by Dr Wilson and myself. I originally wrote to Professor Dorey about the original article by Adler, pointing out that, in that article, nothing concrete had been proved and it did not reflect well on the journal that it had been accepted for publication with such seeming undue haste. His reply is reproduced below and, as you can see, he states that I'm welcome to submit a comment which would be refereed! Hence, the submitted comment should have been refereed.
Also, it's unclear from the Board member's comments why our criticisms are considered "wrong". He doesn't explicitly indicate where we are in error when we state that Adler's mathematical conclusion equally implies both the positive presence of dark matter as well as the nonsensical notion of the negative presence of dark matter (a negative value for the dark matter mass). The response seems to be rather emotional and, quite frankly, gives the distinct impression that he knows they've been caught out.
Further, if criticism such as ours is to be stifled, how can true science be expected to progress? In the comment we submitted, there is very obviously no setting up of a 'straw man'; we have commented only on statements contained in the original article. I really think the Board member concerned should read what was actually written and not what he imagines was contained in the comment. Emotional reactions to submissions - because that is what has occurred here - have no place in science and only serve to bring the journal concerned into disrepute. Hence, I am asking that this submission be reconsidered, possibly by Professor Dorey personally.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Dunning-Davies.
++++
Subject: Re: Fw: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. - A/315310/COM/973
Dear Dr Dunning-Davies,
Thank you for your email.Our procedure with all Comments is for them to be initially refereed by a Board Member. If the Board Member recommends that the Comment be considered further, then a Reply is invited from the original author. In this instance the Board Member did not recommend further consideration, however I wish to assure you that this is all in line with our procedure and indeed with the information provided by Patrick Dorey. We consider Comments to be an important forum in the journal and as such, we entrust the refereeing of them to Board Members. I am sorry that you felt the report to be inaccurate, however after further consultation, I must inform you that this decision is final. I wish you success with publishing your findings in a more specialised journal.
Yours sincerely,
Rebecca Gillan
++++
Dear Miss Gillan,
Thank you for your reply. However, I must confess it only serves to bring J. Phys. A into further disrepute, particularly since the apparent correct procedure does not conform to what Professor Drury originally stated. Also, the Board member's comments simply don't stand up, in the same way that Adler's original article doesn't stand up.
I realise none of this is your fault but this attitude by scientific morons makes you wonder why anyone pursues open-minded scientific investigations.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Dunning-Davies.
++++
Final comments by Wilson and Dunning-Davies:
The correspondence Jeremy Dunning-Davies subsequently had with Journal of Physics A is included in full and graphically illustrates, we feel, the attitude being displayed towards independent thought in science today – particularly if that independent thought disagrees, or even appears to disagree, with accepted conventional wisdom. We would, however, point out that the disagreement expressed by us was with some sloppy statistical analysis; the fact that dark matter was involved was really irrelevant to the criticism and possibly shows how vulnerable these people really feel their position to be. This must surely be regarded as a very worrying attitude to find existing at such a level in what is supposed to be scientific publishing.
In all, this has been a disappointing if not predictable exercise. However, it is important that the educated public and professional scientific community continue to raise these criticisms. In the absence of a functional review process, it is even more important for all of us to cast a critical eye on everything we read in journals and the media in general.
Contributed by:
Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies and Dr. Thomas Wilson
Einstein's Elusive Gravitational Waves
Now Einstein realised that his field equations do not satisfy the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so, in order to save his theory from this catastrophe, he simply invented something, ad hoc, to make his theory satisfy the usual conservation laws; namely, his pseudo-tensor. Not only is this unscientific, it is also unconscionable, and completely fallacious for the following reason. Assumption of the validity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor implies the existence of a mathematical entity called a linear invariant, which is dependent solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. One does not even have to know the details of this; all one needs to know is that the pure mathematicians, Georgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved, in the year 1900, that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and consequently everything relying upon it, such as Einstein gravitational waves, is meaningless. Here is T. Levi-Civita's demonstration of the invalidity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor:
Now Einstein realised that his field equations do not satisfy the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so, in order to save his theory from this catastrophe, he simply invented something, ad hoc, to make his theory satisfy the usual conservation laws; namely, his pseudo-tensor. Not only is this unscientific, it is also unconscionable, and completely fallacious for the following reason. Assumption of the validity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor implies the existence of a mathematical entity called a linear invariant, which is dependent solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. One does not even have to know the details of this; all one needs to know is that the pure mathematicians, Georgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved, in the year 1900, that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and consequently everything relying upon it, such as Einstein gravitational waves, is meaningless. Here is T. Levi-Civita's demonstration of the invalidity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor:
Curiously, the astrophysical scientists claim to have found black holes all over the place; but
in actual fact nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. All claims for discovery of black
holes are false. Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics recently
admitted this:
The Gillessen Dialogues
Thus, the LIGO and LISA projects and their international counterparts are destined to detect
nothing. Undaunted, the astrophysical scientists however, never let the truth get in the way of
a good story.
When will the great long awaited purge of academia begin? We must drive these crazy bastards from our towns and villages.
in actual fact nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. All claims for discovery of black
holes are false. Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics recently
admitted this:
The Gillessen Dialogues
Thus, the LIGO and LISA projects and their international counterparts are destined to detect
nothing. Undaunted, the astrophysical scientists however, never let the truth get in the way of
a good story.
When will the great long awaited purge of academia begin? We must drive these crazy bastards from our towns and villages.
Strange contradiction
Strange contradiction
1
In one hand :
The particles in the Universe are more than antiparticles
/ Baryon asymmetry /
2.
In the other hand:
Dark matter in the Universe is more than visual matter
Question :
Does one physic’s hand know that the other hand do ?
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
========== .
Strange contradiction
1
In one hand :
The particles in the Universe are more than antiparticles
/ Baryon asymmetry /
2.
In the other hand:
Dark matter in the Universe is more than visual matter
Question :
Does one physic’s hand know that the other hand do ?
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
========== .
Strange contradiction
Comment:
It does seem like a paradox, doesn't it?
Actually, these are two unrelated concepts.
Baryons represent detectable matter.
Dark matter represents undetectable matter.
Different stuff.
That still leaves the question about physic's hands, though....
/ NoPlate /
=== .
I think that actually, the ‘Baryon asymmetry ‘and ‘Dark matter ‘
both belong to one conception.
Why?
Because antiparticles exist in ‘ Dirac sea ‘, in Vacuum and
‘ dark matter ‘, by idea, must exist there too.
They both belong to one and the same reference frame.
Now the questions are:
‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
some kind of different particles ? ’,
‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
To answer to this question we must know that Vacuum is.
But it is a pity, we still don’t have answer to this question.
And Dirac said:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘
==== .
So ,
all discussions are tautology without understanding that Vacuum is.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Comment:
It does seem like a paradox, doesn't it?
Actually, these are two unrelated concepts.
Baryons represent detectable matter.
Dark matter represents undetectable matter.
Different stuff.
That still leaves the question about physic's hands, though....
/ NoPlate /
=== .
I think that actually, the ‘Baryon asymmetry ‘and ‘Dark matter ‘
both belong to one conception.
Why?
Because antiparticles exist in ‘ Dirac sea ‘, in Vacuum and
‘ dark matter ‘, by idea, must exist there too.
They both belong to one and the same reference frame.
Now the questions are:
‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
some kind of different particles ? ’,
‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
To answer to this question we must know that Vacuum is.
But it is a pity, we still don’t have answer to this question.
And Dirac said:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘
==== .
So ,
all discussions are tautology without understanding that Vacuum is.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Comments.
1.
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> Now the questions are:
> ‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
> some kind of different particles ? ’,
> ‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
== .
Some theories of DM assume that DM are their own anti-particles. These
theories also say we should occasionally see a DM particle collide with
another DM particle and annihilate each other, releasing a gamma ray
from an area of space where there should be nothing producing it.
Of course that's just one theory of DM, nobody knows if it's the right
model of DM.
/ Yousuf Khan /
2.
Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. We do experiments
without knowing the outcomes. When we find conflicting results
we can use that as a clear indication that we are missing something.
If we 'know' what is expected, it is difficult not to influence the
outcomes so that they compliment each other, that is,
we cannot trust the results.
But it is a good question, and one worth thinking about.
/ MidAtlantian2 /
================= .
Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. ???
???
Socratus
== .
1.
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> Now the questions are:
> ‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
> some kind of different particles ? ’,
> ‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
== .
Some theories of DM assume that DM are their own anti-particles. These
theories also say we should occasionally see a DM particle collide with
another DM particle and annihilate each other, releasing a gamma ray
from an area of space where there should be nothing producing it.
Of course that's just one theory of DM, nobody knows if it's the right
model of DM.
/ Yousuf Khan /
2.
Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. We do experiments
without knowing the outcomes. When we find conflicting results
we can use that as a clear indication that we are missing something.
If we 'know' what is expected, it is difficult not to influence the
outcomes so that they compliment each other, that is,
we cannot trust the results.
But it is a good question, and one worth thinking about.
/ MidAtlantian2 /
================= .
Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. ???
???
Socratus
== .
computer generated colours so cool but the big question is that if you were to look at it as it is, it isn't pretty
Comment by Jim.
================
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, socratus <israsad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
> In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
> How can the SRT be understood ?
Thank you for zeroing in of the heart of the issues. Light quanta is
what exhibits relative energy and everything including space time is
exhibited by perception of relative energy.
> More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
> but the discussions about it are still going on .
>
> I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
> === .
>
> One of the SRT laws says:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
> If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
> they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
> are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
> so we cannot compare them. From our school days
> we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
> is not possible.
As Feynman proclaimed, nothing in quantum logical electro dynamical
kinetic action is like a particle or a wave.
> It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
> We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
> ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
> reference frame.
We can say momentum was exchanged between electrons by the change in
momentum state they exhibit. But our notion that "something"
transferred the momentum, the photon and the anti photon, cannot be
modeled as a particles or a waves.
> Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
Equal and opposite quantum logical action, exhiobits kinetic momentum
transfer, experienced as "the electrodynamics of moving bodies", is
the title of Einstein's 1905 paper introducing special relativity..
> Once again:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!
I must stipulate that this is by local measurement according to your
own ruler and clock. Light appears slower in a relatively denser
vacuum although measurement in the denser quantum logical electro
dynamical kinetic structure are non the wiser and experience no effect
of compaction of their rulers or slowing of their clocks They
measure light speed as constant with respect to their rules no matter
how long others figure their rulers to be relatively. The length of
the ruler never changes locally independent of motion or local
mass/energy density as it is perceived relatively.
> The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
> The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
> Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
> influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.
The geometrical form of the light quanta is two dimensional, equal and
opposite change in quantum logical electro dynamical kinnetic space
time. A 10 meter antenna receives photons ten meters in size and can
receive half the photons twice that size and so on by increases size
exhibited by delay elements in the curcuit. An electron state changes
by the effective distance of the size of the photon, x=c*h/e, locally
in logical state space and fraction of collective space time.
> Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
> 1.
> The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.
This is a contrested point. The vacuum energy has the effect of 185
Giga Electron Volts per cubic centimeter. As John Wheeler proclaimed,
the vacuum is only marginally less dense than matter. At the same
time, the vacuum is the zero point we measure relative to. We only
measure values directly that are higher than the vacuum energy. We
see energy flow from high energy to low. We can never see them
directly going below the vacuum energy as that is the lowest energy
around. It is not that the vacuum energy is small, it is that it
necessariily appears to be zero independent of how much energy it
contains.
> This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
> the Universe must be infinite.
This does not follow exactly. We cake an error of catagory
considering a photon a rest mass. As the photon has no rest mass it
cannot be considered a small mass. It's mass is determined by its
energy by e=m*c^2. That it does not exhibit a rest mass locally does
not mean the universe is not contained in finite time. At the same
time, photons looping logically do exhibit a rest frame and thus a
rest mass. Photons slowed by mass density or relative motion in their
local space appear slower than light and thus exhibit a rest frame.
Certainly the observable universe is contained in finite time and the
existence of unobservables is dubious. Belief that anything infinite
has been constructed in finite time is contradicted by the necessity
of renormalization of quantum logical system to remove all infinities
to get the answers that agree with experience.
> 2.
> This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
> Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
> is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
> and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
> and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
> Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
> they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
> the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14 ……
If we believe the second law of thermodynamics we are falsly led to
the conclusion that T goes to zero in finite time. However, this is
impossible by the third law of thermodynamics. When a system achives
motion to the mazimal entropy, T=0, the motion that brings it to that
state cannot be stopped and any motion moves it away from equalibrim.
Absolute zero can never be obtained by a thermodynamic system.
But the issue is much deeper than this. We can achieve extremely low
temperatures and see light slowed down by slow quantum action down to
stopped light. We cannot really stop light due to the no cloning
theorum which can be related to the third law. But the slowed light
is only a relative perpective. Locally the light is always at the
same speed and they do not consider it slow. They would measure
exactly c. While the universe might be cold and slow from our current
perspective, it will not be slow for the inhabitants of the future
world.
> 3.
> According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
> of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
> are also some kind of energetic power.
No. Equal and opposite kinetic quantum logical action need not
involve any change in energy. Action of change of state to a higher
or lower energy is a matter of relative perspective. The notion of
energy emerges, it is not fundimental. It is true that higher energy
determines the clocking of quantum logical interaction from our
perspective by there is nothing preferred about our perspective.
> All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.
We have no call to presume anything exists besides equal and opposite
quantum logical interactions. What we call the vacuum is simply the
space and time exhibited by delays in quantum logical interaction.
What we consider physical distance, is the perceived logical distance
of logic propagating at light speed locally according to our physical
logical perspective and logical action at the speed of light.
> So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
> energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.
Well, it exhibits two half dimensional vectors, one lateral and one
transverse, so if is certainly flat. In that it obeys half spin
networks at any relative frequency we can consider its cycle as a sort
of a circle. That the linear momentum exhibited is a two pi multiple
the angular momentum supports this circular view.
But, is is not actually a particle or a circle. As you have already
said, to define it as such represents a category error.
> But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
> speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
> way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.
It is so mad, the direction of travel is not even necessarily the same
for all observers. The perceived logical ordering depends on both
position and motion.
> But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
> of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
> of the Quantum of Light.
> Once again.
> The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
> ( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
> The theory says : in the movement
> a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
> b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
> c) the time of its life changes.
> (according to Lorentz transformation )
What is constant is our perception of light speed, or the rate of
quantum logical kinetic electro dynamical interaction locally. What
covaries is the perception of space time and energy relatively as far
as everyone else is concerned from other positions and varying
relative motion. Logical interactions are absolute, but their
orderings and size, and thus how much space and time they exhibit is
only relative. What we call space and time is that which is exhibited
locally. There is no global preferred notion of size or time.
Only the direction of time is absolute, as interaction events are
experienced only once by the direct participants and never again
exhibiting only positive time and space in relative degree but in
absolute immutable local orderings all relative participants agree to.
The notion of the moving flat circular twist, right handed to exchange
momentum between electrons, or left handed to exchange momentum
between positrons, may help us comprehend the action of a quanta, but
in characterizing quanta as particles and waves we are embellishing
simple equal and opposite half spin twists with a deeper reality than
they actually posses. Ultimately, doing so, will lead us to the wrong
answers and the false believe that the quantum is strange.
Jim
> ==== .
> Best wishes
> Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
>
> http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
> ===================== . .
>
>
================
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, socratus <israsad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
> In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
> How can the SRT be understood ?
Thank you for zeroing in of the heart of the issues. Light quanta is
what exhibits relative energy and everything including space time is
exhibited by perception of relative energy.
> More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
> but the discussions about it are still going on .
>
> I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
> === .
>
> One of the SRT laws says:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
> If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
> they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
> are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
> so we cannot compare them. From our school days
> we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
> is not possible.
As Feynman proclaimed, nothing in quantum logical electro dynamical
kinetic action is like a particle or a wave.
> It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
> We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
> ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
> reference frame.
We can say momentum was exchanged between electrons by the change in
momentum state they exhibit. But our notion that "something"
transferred the momentum, the photon and the anti photon, cannot be
modeled as a particles or a waves.
> Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
Equal and opposite quantum logical action, exhiobits kinetic momentum
transfer, experienced as "the electrodynamics of moving bodies", is
the title of Einstein's 1905 paper introducing special relativity..
> Once again:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!
I must stipulate that this is by local measurement according to your
own ruler and clock. Light appears slower in a relatively denser
vacuum although measurement in the denser quantum logical electro
dynamical kinetic structure are non the wiser and experience no effect
of compaction of their rulers or slowing of their clocks They
measure light speed as constant with respect to their rules no matter
how long others figure their rulers to be relatively. The length of
the ruler never changes locally independent of motion or local
mass/energy density as it is perceived relatively.
> The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
> The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
> Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
> influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.
The geometrical form of the light quanta is two dimensional, equal and
opposite change in quantum logical electro dynamical kinnetic space
time. A 10 meter antenna receives photons ten meters in size and can
receive half the photons twice that size and so on by increases size
exhibited by delay elements in the curcuit. An electron state changes
by the effective distance of the size of the photon, x=c*h/e, locally
in logical state space and fraction of collective space time.
> Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
> 1.
> The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.
This is a contrested point. The vacuum energy has the effect of 185
Giga Electron Volts per cubic centimeter. As John Wheeler proclaimed,
the vacuum is only marginally less dense than matter. At the same
time, the vacuum is the zero point we measure relative to. We only
measure values directly that are higher than the vacuum energy. We
see energy flow from high energy to low. We can never see them
directly going below the vacuum energy as that is the lowest energy
around. It is not that the vacuum energy is small, it is that it
necessariily appears to be zero independent of how much energy it
contains.
> This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
> the Universe must be infinite.
This does not follow exactly. We cake an error of catagory
considering a photon a rest mass. As the photon has no rest mass it
cannot be considered a small mass. It's mass is determined by its
energy by e=m*c^2. That it does not exhibit a rest mass locally does
not mean the universe is not contained in finite time. At the same
time, photons looping logically do exhibit a rest frame and thus a
rest mass. Photons slowed by mass density or relative motion in their
local space appear slower than light and thus exhibit a rest frame.
Certainly the observable universe is contained in finite time and the
existence of unobservables is dubious. Belief that anything infinite
has been constructed in finite time is contradicted by the necessity
of renormalization of quantum logical system to remove all infinities
to get the answers that agree with experience.
> 2.
> This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
> Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
> is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
> and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
> and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
> Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
> they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
> the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14 ……
If we believe the second law of thermodynamics we are falsly led to
the conclusion that T goes to zero in finite time. However, this is
impossible by the third law of thermodynamics. When a system achives
motion to the mazimal entropy, T=0, the motion that brings it to that
state cannot be stopped and any motion moves it away from equalibrim.
Absolute zero can never be obtained by a thermodynamic system.
But the issue is much deeper than this. We can achieve extremely low
temperatures and see light slowed down by slow quantum action down to
stopped light. We cannot really stop light due to the no cloning
theorum which can be related to the third law. But the slowed light
is only a relative perpective. Locally the light is always at the
same speed and they do not consider it slow. They would measure
exactly c. While the universe might be cold and slow from our current
perspective, it will not be slow for the inhabitants of the future
world.
> 3.
> According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
> of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
> are also some kind of energetic power.
No. Equal and opposite kinetic quantum logical action need not
involve any change in energy. Action of change of state to a higher
or lower energy is a matter of relative perspective. The notion of
energy emerges, it is not fundimental. It is true that higher energy
determines the clocking of quantum logical interaction from our
perspective by there is nothing preferred about our perspective.
> All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.
We have no call to presume anything exists besides equal and opposite
quantum logical interactions. What we call the vacuum is simply the
space and time exhibited by delays in quantum logical interaction.
What we consider physical distance, is the perceived logical distance
of logic propagating at light speed locally according to our physical
logical perspective and logical action at the speed of light.
> So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
> energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.
Well, it exhibits two half dimensional vectors, one lateral and one
transverse, so if is certainly flat. In that it obeys half spin
networks at any relative frequency we can consider its cycle as a sort
of a circle. That the linear momentum exhibited is a two pi multiple
the angular momentum supports this circular view.
But, is is not actually a particle or a circle. As you have already
said, to define it as such represents a category error.
> But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
> speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
> way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.
It is so mad, the direction of travel is not even necessarily the same
for all observers. The perceived logical ordering depends on both
position and motion.
> But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
> of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
> of the Quantum of Light.
> Once again.
> The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
> ( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
> The theory says : in the movement
> a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
> b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
> c) the time of its life changes.
> (according to Lorentz transformation )
What is constant is our perception of light speed, or the rate of
quantum logical kinetic electro dynamical interaction locally. What
covaries is the perception of space time and energy relatively as far
as everyone else is concerned from other positions and varying
relative motion. Logical interactions are absolute, but their
orderings and size, and thus how much space and time they exhibit is
only relative. What we call space and time is that which is exhibited
locally. There is no global preferred notion of size or time.
Only the direction of time is absolute, as interaction events are
experienced only once by the direct participants and never again
exhibiting only positive time and space in relative degree but in
absolute immutable local orderings all relative participants agree to.
The notion of the moving flat circular twist, right handed to exchange
momentum between electrons, or left handed to exchange momentum
between positrons, may help us comprehend the action of a quanta, but
in characterizing quanta as particles and waves we are embellishing
simple equal and opposite half spin twists with a deeper reality than
they actually posses. Ultimately, doing so, will lead us to the wrong
answers and the false believe that the quantum is strange.
Jim
> ==== .
> Best wishes
> Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
>
> http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
> ===================== . .
>
>
Something did happen to me. I saw the light. When I got close to it I was swept away to a white place. Then the forced sex with ugly little purple women started. I have not yet fully recovered my stamina.
Stephen Hawking fizzizizt
© Jeremy Northum
Renowned physicist professor Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture, “Out of a Black Hole” Monday in Rudder Auditorium.
What once was a concept of science fiction, the mystery of black holes are slowly being uncovered, said Professor Steven Hawking Monday in Rudder Auditorium in his lecture "Out of a Black Hole."
In an introduction Chris Pope, professor of physics at Texas A&M and astronomy and holder of the Stephen Hawking chair
Out of this world -- Signs of the Times News
© Jeremy Northum
Renowned physicist professor Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture, “Out of a Black Hole” Monday in Rudder Auditorium.
What once was a concept of science fiction, the mystery of black holes are slowly being uncovered, said Professor Steven Hawking Monday in Rudder Auditorium in his lecture "Out of a Black Hole."
In an introduction Chris Pope, professor of physics at Texas A&M and astronomy and holder of the Stephen Hawking chair
Out of this world -- Signs of the Times News
hot gas and foul wind, too much LSD
Galaxy NGC 1068 reveals a powerful stream of X-rays emerging from its nucleus.
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/MIT/UCSB/P.Ogle et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI/A.Capetti et al.
Black Winds
Jun 11, 2010
Supermassive black holes are said to generate galactic winds. “Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
--- Stephen Wright
As a recent
press release from the Chandra X-ray Observatory reports, "strong winds" are racing outward from the core of NGC 1068, a galaxy said to be 50 million light-years away in the constellation Cetus. The source of the winds is supposed to be an "average sized" supermassive black hole (SMBH) that is accelerating "hot gas" around its event horizon until gravity can no longer hold it in place. The gas is said to be heated by X-ray bursts from the SMBH, whereupon it is ejected along a tangential trajectory at an average velocity of 1.6 million kilometers per hour. In the image at the top of the page, Chandra's X-ray results are combined with those from the Hubble Space Telescope to illustrate the temperature differences between the galactic body and the jet of X-ray emitting material. The hot gas possesses a spectrographic temperature reading of over 100,000 Celsius, 20 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
To say that gas can be heated until it gives off X-rays and "blows like a wind” betrays a serious lack of understanding, or a careless presentation of observations. No gas can remain intact at such temperatures because electrons will be stripped from the nuclei, causing it to change into the primal stock from which the Universe is made: plasma.
X-rays in space, no matter the source, are not created in gravity fields regardless of how strong they are theorized to be. Charged particles (plasma) accelerated by electric currents spiral in the resulting magnetic fields and shine in all high energy frequencies, extreme ultraviolet, X-rays, and sometimes gamma rays.
In a
galactic circuit, electric power flows inward along the spiral arms where it is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid, or galactic bulge. When it reaches a certain current density it discharges, usually out of the galaxy’s spin axis as an energetic jet of plasma. Laboratory experiments have replicated the phenomenon with a plasma focus device. Electromagnetic forces confine those jets into thin
filaments that remain coherent for thousands of light-years. Chandra's observations of NGC 1068 indicate that material from the galactic core reaches more than 3000 light-years from its source, but that estimate could be off by a significant factor. Jets usually end in double layer lobes that extend for many times the size of the galaxy and radiate copiously in radio frequencies. The diffuse currents then flow toward the galaxy’s equatorial plane and spiral back into its nucleus. Hannes Alfvén identified the "exploding double layer" as a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Galactic jets, toroids, and glowing clouds are all examples of electricity flowing through dusty plasma confined within Birkeland currents that stretch across the light years.
Stephen Smith
Black Winds
Galaxy NGC 1068 reveals a powerful stream of X-rays emerging from its nucleus.
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/MIT/UCSB/P.Ogle et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI/A.Capetti et al.
Jun 11, 2010
Supermassive black holes are said to generate galactic winds. “Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
--- Stephen Wright
As a recent
press release from the Chandra X-ray Observatory reports, "strong winds" are racing outward from the core of NGC 1068, a galaxy said to be 50 million light-years away in the constellation Cetus. The source of the winds is supposed to be an "average sized" supermassive black hole (SMBH) that is accelerating "hot gas" around its event horizon until gravity can no longer hold it in place. The gas is said to be heated by X-ray bursts from the SMBH, whereupon it is ejected along a tangential trajectory at an average velocity of 1.6 million kilometers per hour. In the image at the top of the page, Chandra's X-ray results are combined with those from the Hubble Space Telescope to illustrate the temperature differences between the galactic body and the jet of X-ray emitting material. The hot gas possesses a spectrographic temperature reading of over 100,000 Celsius, 20 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
To say that gas can be heated until it gives off X-rays and "blows like a wind” betrays a serious lack of understanding, or a careless presentation of observations. No gas can remain intact at such temperatures because electrons will be stripped from the nuclei, causing it to change into the primal stock from which the Universe is made: plasma.
X-rays in space, no matter the source, are not created in gravity fields regardless of how strong they are theorized to be. Charged particles (plasma) accelerated by electric currents spiral in the resulting magnetic fields and shine in all high energy frequencies, extreme ultraviolet, X-rays, and sometimes gamma rays.
In a
galactic circuit, electric power flows inward along the spiral arms where it is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid, or galactic bulge. When it reaches a certain current density it discharges, usually out of the galaxy’s spin axis as an energetic jet of plasma. Laboratory experiments have replicated the phenomenon with a plasma focus device. Electromagnetic forces confine those jets into thin
filaments that remain coherent for thousands of light-years. Chandra's observations of NGC 1068 indicate that material from the galactic core reaches more than 3000 light-years from its source, but that estimate could be off by a significant factor. Jets usually end in double layer lobes that extend for many times the size of the galaxy and radiate copiously in radio frequencies. The diffuse currents then flow toward the galaxy’s equatorial plane and spiral back into its nucleus. Hannes Alfvén identified the "exploding double layer" as a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Galactic jets, toroids, and glowing clouds are all examples of electricity flowing through dusty plasma confined within Birkeland currents that stretch across the light years.
Stephen Smith
Black Winds
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud
Albert Einstein is today revered as “the Father of Modern Science”. His wrinkled face and wild hair has become a symbol for scientific genius and “his” famous E = mc^2 equation is repeatedly used as the symbol for something scientific and intellectual. And yet there has for years been mounting evidence that this “Father of Modern Science” was nothing but a con man, lying about his ideas and achievements, and stealing the work and the research of others.
The most glaring evidence against Einstein concerns “his” most famous equation. One website notes “The equation E=mc^2, which has been forever linked to Einstein & his Theory of Relativity was not originally published by Einstein. According to Umberto Bartocci, a professor at the University of Perugia and a historian of mathematics, this famous equation was first published by Olinto De Pretto …two years prior to Einstein’s publishing of the equation. In 1903 De Pretto published his equation in the scientific magazine Atte and in 1904 it was republished by the Royal Science Institute of Veneto. Einstein’s research was not published until 1905… Einstein was well versed in Italian and even lived in Northern Italy for a brief time.”
It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation “E=mc^2″ should be called the “De Pretto Equation” not the “Einstein Equation.”
This raises the question: “What sort of man was Einstein?” Is there evidence that he may have been prone to unethical behavior? One website reports “Einstein… was still far from the ideal husband. A year before they married, Maric gave birth to a daughter, Lieserl, while Einstein was away. The child’s fate is unknown – she is presumed to have been given up for adoption, perhaps under pressure from Einstein, who is thought to have never seen his first born. After the marriage, Mileva bore two sons but the family was not to stay together. Einstein began an affair with his cousin Elsa Lowenthal while on a trip to Berlin in 1912, leaving Mileva and his family two years later. Einstein and Mileva finally divorced in 1919, but not until after Einstein sent his wife a list of ‘conditions’ under which he was willing to remain married. The list included such autocratic demands as ‘You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way’. After the divorce, he saw little of his sons. The elder, Hans Albert, later reflected ‘Probably the only project he ever gave up on was me.’ The younger, Eduard, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and died in an asylum. Einstein married Elsa soon after the divorce, but a few years later began an affair with Betty Neumann, the niece of a friend… Accusations of plagiarism aren’t limited to Mileva – it’s also been claimed that Einstein stole the work of a host of other physicists. One question which may remain moot is quite how much Einstein drew from the work of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare in formulating the theory of special relativity. Elements of Einstein’s 1905 paper paralleled parts of a 1904 paper by Lorentz and a contemporary paper by Poincare. Although Einstein read earlier papers by the two, he claimed not to have seen these later works before writing the 1905 paper. One apparently damning fact is that the 1905 paper on special relativity had no references, suggesting that Einstein was consciously hiding his tracks.”
One source notes “David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.” Another source notes “Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.” Apparently Hilbert’s work was soon to become “Einstein’s work.”
The historic record is readily available and the truth is known to many scientists and historians, even if they are afraid to say anything. The idea that light had a finite speed was proven by Michelson and Morley decades before Einstein. Hendrik Lorentz determined the equations showing relativistic time and length contractions which become significant as the speed of light is approached. These gentlemen along with David Hilbert and Olinto De Pretto have been airbrushed out of the picture so that Einstein could be given the credit for what they had done.
Einstein appeared to latch onto his first wife, a much more talented student three years his senior, to compensate for his own limited abilities. Another website notes: “…in 1927, H. Thirring wrote, ‘H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein’s first work (1905). . . .’ Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled ‘The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz’. Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker’s famous book. . .”
Einstein was a minor contributor at best and in any case an intellectual thief and pretentious braggart. Einstein was still alive when Whitaker’s book was published and he said NOTHING about it. No libel suit, no refutation, no public comment at all.
Einstein was the first great fraudster and idea-thief in modern science. His theft of Olinto De Pretto’s equation E = mc^2 gave him considerable scientific credibility which he built a career on. De Pretto was not a career physicist and spent his life as an industrialist, passing away in 1921. De Pretto had published his equation twice before Einstein and was no doubt amazed that someone could claim credit for his work. Einstein used and eventually discarded his first wife, Mileva, who was a much more brilliant student than Einstein and is suspected of writing much of Einstein’s early work. (She may have been reluctant to expose Einstein since he was still the father of her children.) David Hilbert’s work on the equations for Special Relativity was submitted for publication before Einstein and was sent to Einstein as correspondence. Einstein claimed credit for the equations which Hilbert derived. (David Hilbert passed away in 1943.)
Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud | Altermedia news U.S.A.
Ian Moseley – Altermedia August 17, 2010
Albert Einstein is today revered as “the Father of Modern Science”. His wrinkled face and wild hair has become a symbol for scientific genius and “his” famous E = mc^2 equation is repeatedly used as the symbol for something scientific and intellectual. And yet there has for years been mounting evidence that this “Father of Modern Science” was nothing but a con man, lying about his ideas and achievements, and stealing the work and the research of others.
The most glaring evidence against Einstein concerns “his” most famous equation. One website notes “The equation E=mc^2, which has been forever linked to Einstein & his Theory of Relativity was not originally published by Einstein. According to Umberto Bartocci, a professor at the University of Perugia and a historian of mathematics, this famous equation was first published by Olinto De Pretto …two years prior to Einstein’s publishing of the equation. In 1903 De Pretto published his equation in the scientific magazine Atte and in 1904 it was republished by the Royal Science Institute of Veneto. Einstein’s research was not published until 1905… Einstein was well versed in Italian and even lived in Northern Italy for a brief time.”
It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation “E=mc^2″ should be called the “De Pretto Equation” not the “Einstein Equation.”
This raises the question: “What sort of man was Einstein?” Is there evidence that he may have been prone to unethical behavior? One website reports “Einstein… was still far from the ideal husband. A year before they married, Maric gave birth to a daughter, Lieserl, while Einstein was away. The child’s fate is unknown – she is presumed to have been given up for adoption, perhaps under pressure from Einstein, who is thought to have never seen his first born. After the marriage, Mileva bore two sons but the family was not to stay together. Einstein began an affair with his cousin Elsa Lowenthal while on a trip to Berlin in 1912, leaving Mileva and his family two years later. Einstein and Mileva finally divorced in 1919, but not until after Einstein sent his wife a list of ‘conditions’ under which he was willing to remain married. The list included such autocratic demands as ‘You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way’. After the divorce, he saw little of his sons. The elder, Hans Albert, later reflected ‘Probably the only project he ever gave up on was me.’ The younger, Eduard, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and died in an asylum. Einstein married Elsa soon after the divorce, but a few years later began an affair with Betty Neumann, the niece of a friend… Accusations of plagiarism aren’t limited to Mileva – it’s also been claimed that Einstein stole the work of a host of other physicists. One question which may remain moot is quite how much Einstein drew from the work of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare in formulating the theory of special relativity. Elements of Einstein’s 1905 paper paralleled parts of a 1904 paper by Lorentz and a contemporary paper by Poincare. Although Einstein read earlier papers by the two, he claimed not to have seen these later works before writing the 1905 paper. One apparently damning fact is that the 1905 paper on special relativity had no references, suggesting that Einstein was consciously hiding his tracks.”
One source notes “David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.” Another source notes “Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.” Apparently Hilbert’s work was soon to become “Einstein’s work.”
The historic record is readily available and the truth is known to many scientists and historians, even if they are afraid to say anything. The idea that light had a finite speed was proven by Michelson and Morley decades before Einstein. Hendrik Lorentz determined the equations showing relativistic time and length contractions which become significant as the speed of light is approached. These gentlemen along with David Hilbert and Olinto De Pretto have been airbrushed out of the picture so that Einstein could be given the credit for what they had done.
Einstein appeared to latch onto his first wife, a much more talented student three years his senior, to compensate for his own limited abilities. Another website notes: “…in 1927, H. Thirring wrote, ‘H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein’s first work (1905). . . .’ Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled ‘The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz’. Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker’s famous book. . .”
Einstein was a minor contributor at best and in any case an intellectual thief and pretentious braggart. Einstein was still alive when Whitaker’s book was published and he said NOTHING about it. No libel suit, no refutation, no public comment at all.
Einstein was the first great fraudster and idea-thief in modern science. His theft of Olinto De Pretto’s equation E = mc^2 gave him considerable scientific credibility which he built a career on. De Pretto was not a career physicist and spent his life as an industrialist, passing away in 1921. De Pretto had published his equation twice before Einstein and was no doubt amazed that someone could claim credit for his work. Einstein used and eventually discarded his first wife, Mileva, who was a much more brilliant student than Einstein and is suspected of writing much of Einstein’s early work. (She may have been reluctant to expose Einstein since he was still the father of her children.) David Hilbert’s work on the equations for Special Relativity was submitted for publication before Einstein and was sent to Einstein as correspondence. Einstein claimed credit for the equations which Hilbert derived. (David Hilbert passed away in 1943.)
Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud | Altermedia news U.S.A.
The electricity is everywhere because the atom consists of negative electrons and positive protons --- of which all the matter consists.
But the heat as demonstration of the active living object and the cold inert dead object is more illustrative; so listen to the explanation by the ungraduated interpreter the inspired Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly and his saying that the hot object is attractive and the cold object is attracted.
Moreover, the hot object rotates around itself and the cold object does not rotate around itself.
Cause of the gravity
Proving that the gravity is because of the heat
But the heat as demonstration of the active living object and the cold inert dead object is more illustrative; so listen to the explanation by the ungraduated interpreter the inspired Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly and his saying that the hot object is attractive and the cold object is attracted.
Moreover, the hot object rotates around itself and the cold object does not rotate around itself.
Cause of the gravity
Proving that the gravity is because of the heat
You forgot neutrons EA. Cold is relative to heat and therefore does not exist. In this universe everything has heat, more or less, but it,s all heat. We could have a nice hot cup of minus fifty degree tea on the surface of Jupiter.