Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 8/3/16 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Einstein's Plagiarism (Reverse Engineering) Einstein derived the constancy...

alena lis: on 8/2/16 at 9:03am UTC, wrote What a beautiful photo! https://19216801.mobi/

Pentcho Valev: on 7/30/16 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Einsteiniana: Profiteers Leave the Sinking Ship "Fotini...

Anonymous: on 7/28/16 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Variable Speed of Light and the End of Einstein "Assume the observer and...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/15/16 at 14:30pm UTC, wrote The unlimited freedom to fudge the theory until it predicts anything one...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/13/16 at 17:40pm UTC, wrote Since When Is Physics Untestable? Frank Close, professor of physics at...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/11/16 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Does a “Fraudulent Joke” stand behind the Discovery of Gravitational...

Pentcho Valev: on 7/10/16 at 19:00pm UTC, wrote Open Letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics 2016, W.W. Engelhardt, JET,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Happy 10th Birthday FQXi! Podcast: Space News, Quantum Collapse Tests & The Big Picture [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 31, 2016 @ 20:42 GMT
NASA/Beletsky
Believe it or not, it’s a decade since FQXi launched, back in May 2006. There’ll be more celebrations on the site to come, but to commemorate our birthday month, we invited one of FQXi’s directors, Anthony Aguirre, on to the latest edition of the podcast. He talks about why the institute was launched, its ups and downs, and one of his favourite research projects funded by FQXi. I’d be interested to know in the comments if you agree with his choice…

In the news round-up, Brendan and I chat through the launch of the first quantum science satellite, scheduled for July, in China. The project is led by FQXi member Pan Jian-wei. We also discuss Kepler’s announcement of the discovery of over a thousand new exoplanets, and Breakthrough Starshot — a mission to send tiny spacecraft to Alpha Centauri. (The latter is funded by Russian billionaire, Yuri Milner, who received some criticism over the feasibility of the project. I interviewed Milner for Science about these issues, and you can read that Q&A here.) Aguirre discusses some of these news items with us, along with the question of who should be responsible for funding the bulk of foundational research: the government, charitable foundations, or individuals?

Catalina Oana Curceanu, a quantum physicist at National Institute of Nuclear Physics, in Frascati, Italy, talks about her team’s experiments to test collapse models — rivals to standard quantum theory that explain why large objects don’t retain quantum properties, that is, why we never really see cats that are both alive and dead at the same time — with reporter Carinne Piekema. You can also read Curceanu’s Q&A, by Carinne.

And finally, cosmologist Sean Carroll explains his research on how space and time emerge from quantum theory, and talks about his latest book, The Big Picture, to reporter Sophie Hebden. If you like the sound of Carroll’s research, don’t worry, there will be a more detailed article by Sophie, on the site, soon.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 31, 2016 @ 22:08 GMT
Nowadays most theoreticians reject, explicitly or implicitly, Einstein's spacetime, but in the last 2-3 years FQXi has been suspiciously silent about that:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Spacetime is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates, so if it is wrong and should be "retired", then a postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 2, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
Einstein's relativity is so obviously absurd that virtually everybody attacks it, explicitly or implicitly. The problem is that its official denunciation would mark the end of physics as a conceptual system - theoretical physicists would lose their jobs:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 31, 2016 @ 22:28 GMT
Happy B-Day FQXi.

Many thanks for creating a forum where anyone can present and share ideas. An informal venue such as this is essential to cultivate new and alternative thinking. The support provided to established scientists is also beneficial.

This would be a really good time to announce a new contest ... hint, hint:-)

Best Regards and Success to All,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 07:14 GMT
Happy Birthday FQXI, and thank you for providing this website and its mind-provoking content to the public. I wish you to stay healthy and to have a long life!

Best Regards

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 05:04 GMT
Congratulations. 10 years (60-70 dog years) and FQXi is still a pup ; dashing here and there and chewing on all sorts of surprising, interesting and "crazy' things. Rather than an old dog content to laze self satisfied by the fire.

Pat on the back. "Good FQXi".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 06:31 GMT
I think as the community is international (and wishing to avoid cultural misunderstandings) I should explain that I am not calling FQXi a dog. Dogs and physics research organisations belong to different categories of thing that should not be confused. But if it was a dog I would tell it was good just for being.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 06:41 GMT
Well at least no one else will be thinking 'bother that's just what I was going to say' : ) Office greeting card like.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 10:16 GMT
Happybirtday FQXi and long life indeed.Thanks for this Platform.You permit to thinkers and theorists to show their works and theories in a total transparence on net.It is a wonderful and innovant Platform andlong life and don't forget that we must change this planet and harmonise all the chaotical systems.It is our rules also.A big project for the humanity on this sphere turning around a sphere Inside a sphere.Take care.

Steve Animal,metazoars,chordae,mammalians,primates,hominidaes,homo
sapiens sapiens from belgium

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 14:54 GMT
Anthony, Zeeya and Brendan

very briefly touch on the subject of governmental investment in research, a subject that was contentious politically half a century ago. We now live in a world dominated by gigantic organizations, fewer than half of which are governments. The economy of scale necessary to operate globally has created that historic anomaly, and governments world-wide find it necessary to issue real numbers of unit currency (most of it digitally) to support the deficit of money supply needed to service the exponential extension of payment of interest and fees on all manner of financial instruments. Essentially, world governments are literally bankrupt and that is why the Lehman collapse of '08 triggered a global shut-off of cash flow in a matter of hours, like Zeus swinging closed a speed valve.

The sad truth is that academicians and scientists sold out to corporate enterprise and took the easy money, rather than going the long route of qualifying for federal doles. So now, governments find it more expedient to grant tax exemption to private investors in research, than for politicians to argue that the taxpayer would benefit more from a modest return on public investment in research instead of buying into an indexed fund of an over-diversified portfolio. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi ,what a world dear John,but we evolve also so the hope exists.And if we create a real revolution here on FQXi in solving all our major globalprobelms like crazy Jedis of the Sphere.The aimis the harmonisation and the imrpovement simply.They exist these solutions.We could create so many revolutionary innovant inventions.The Wheel in space with an intrinsic ecosystem.Mars.The vegetalisation of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 16:29 GMT
Steve,

Don't forget humor. A history professor narrating a program I watched years ago, ended by saying that history is so much more interesting than fiction, because human beings aren't real smart and we do a lot of stupid things. Which kind of helps lighten the burden of carrying the world on your shoulders, when you think about it. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 16:37 GMT
:)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 17:28 GMT
Red Herring: Does Nonlocality Violate Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

George Musser: "So this non-local connection among these particles or whatever kind of object is bearing that connection seems to violate our intuition from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. So that theory among other things said that influences in nature are limited by the speed of light. So you can’t have any kind...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 18:28 GMT
But you say Black Holes don't exist either!

Yet in the illustration you link, which reduces the electrodynamics of moving bodies to only the time and distance parameters through invariance between two inertially independent systems, rather than as a covariance within a single inertial reference frame;

just because the dot disappears into the picture of a receiver doesn't mean that the energy it carries disappears from existence. It has to do something with that accumulation of energy, and does so by re-emitting it towards the sender picture in the illustration. So why not just patent that and put a small satellite in equatorial orbit beaming back to a ring of ground stations and tap off the amplified energy that would have to result from a rationale that the speed of light is coupled to the sender's speed? Just mail in the key, Lee.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 4, 2016 @ 22:44 GMT
Zeeya, thanks for another interesting podcast, You said re.measurement of quantum systems "..at that point reality solidifies and the particle chooses a set location". There are a couple of problems with that statement, it seems to me. Firstly what is meant by reality? Is the outcome of a measurement the same reality as the unmeasured one? Is it the same reality solidifying or production of something different? Secondly the particle being inanimate is most likely not choosing a set location but one is imposed upon it by initial conditions and when the measurement is made. Carryn Bickerman ( sorry if misspelled) said " ..but what we measure in the world of atoms and electrons does not match up with our own visual reality." Going on to talk about waves. My own thoughts:EM information in the environment is spread over space and that can provide different seen manifestations of an object. With the premise that the external reality is within space only and not space-time (space-time being a product of EM information processing) , different observers could simultaneously see different manifestations of the object, even the same cat alive and dead (if death was near instantaneous and discernible). I don't think it would be right to say the potential manifestations are in superposition though, because they (the manifestations )don't actually exist until they are produced. At a very minute quantum scale though only one observation can be made.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 04:19 GMT
Zeeya you begin "The microscopic world behaves very differently from everyday reality. Particles can be in the weird superposition of being in more than one position at the same time".I think that is a bit misleading because you are comparing a model in its own mathematical space with the reality experienced in everyday life, an output of the human sensory system, another model. Both are models of an independent external reality and both are different. Neither is the external reality itself. Even the description particles can be in the weird superposition is misleading because they are not real particles, as most people would think of them, until a measurement is made and associated with the idea of a particle. Anna was closer when she said the other Anna doesn't exist (until she looks) though I would argue that there is no need for possibilities that do not become manifest to an observer in this universe to become manifest to an observer in another. If I look at the front of a car rather than the back I do not have to posit that in another universe another me is looking at the back. The potential sensory data simply wasn't received and so there is no other output reality than the one produced.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 22:27 GMT
If the result of the test of the spin of an entangled electron is found , it can't be assumed that the (will be seen to be) anti correlated partner instantly becomes one with opposite spin because the spin outcome is the result of the unique provocation given to the particles during the test, provoking the response. The spin response of the partner does not happen until the test is done. So there is no faster than light communication of the first tested particle to the second tested. The way in which the particles are prepared can predispose them to certain responses without them having to carry around a complete set of responses to every possible provocation as intrinsic properties. The wavefunction of the system is an abstract representation and not an ontological description, taking it to be ontological leads to the weirdness of the descriptions about QM happenings.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2016 @ 22:51 GMT
The ideas that true reality is just the output of information is misguided. Even John Bell saw the necessity for 'beables' including the apparatus of an experiment including all settings on the instruments. It is the interaction of the particle's information with the material reality that is giving the observed outcomes. That is so for quantum experiments and it is so for experienced macroscopic reality. It is the intensity and frequency information imparted to the visual system from photon 'particles' that leads to the generation of the visually experienced reality. That reality though encoded in the photons can not become the reality experienced without the material beables of the visual system . The EM information within the environment is objectively real but does not become a space-time experienced reality until received and processed (by the beables). Another reason to be confident that there is a material reality is that it is necessary to satisfactorily address all of the temporal paradoxes without fudging a solution by proposing new laws of physics or parallel universes with different time lines that people can jump between.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 5, 2016 @ 14:12 GMT
Brian Greene: Massaged Data Confirmed Einstein's Relativity

Brian Greene (36:13): Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct.

Actually the massage was a downright fraud, universally taught and venerated today, that eventually proved fatal for physics:

"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 10:00 GMT
Arthur Eddington is perhaps the greatest fraudster in the history of science (judging from the previous posting and what follows):

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand;...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 16:52 GMT
Hello dear Zeeya,

I beleive that I found who are these persons hacking my LinkedIn and face and mails.I don't tell their names.They have perhaps tried to copy my theory with a mathematicalmodels.They say that they are from USA and space studies and global defense.In fact it is just a strategy to imply a confusion in my head;But they have forgotten several parameters.Now they have seen that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 17:03 GMT
people becomes crazy in fact on this earth,but how is it possible ?If the bad, the evil systems and teams imply this chaos.It is not acceptable.The bad persons without consciousness are going to imply the destruction of our civilizations you know.It is sad ,we go all in a wall.The global problem is simple, the bad persons.The nice and gentle persons them are obliged to suffer and to accept.Is it logic ? no.What is the problem? the vanity, the hormons, the jealousy,the envy,the bad, the unconsciousness, the lack of universal education?In all case these persons and teams or others decrease the velocity of evolution and of harmonisation.These persons are nor scientists, nor universalists, nor theorists,nothing, they are just bad persons.It is sad.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 17:45 GMT
Well, can you come up with something better than Einstein's relativity?

Marco asks: "Dear Dr B: Why not string theory?" Sabine Hossenfelder replies: "Because we might be wasting time and money and, ultimately, risk that progress stalls entirely. [...] For what quantum gravity is concerned, string theorist’s main argument seems to be “Well, can you come up with something better?”

This "argument" is not a patent of string theorists; all Einsteinians use it when the obvious absurdity of Einstein's relativity is exposed. Here is the full version:

Well, can you come up with something better than Einstein's relativity?

In a world different from Einstein schizophrenic world, the answer would be easy. Einstein's "science" parted from the traditional Newtonian science when Einstein replaced Newton's true assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of both the source and the observer with the false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of both the source and the observer. So the Newtonian science is obviously better than the Einsteinian "science" - the latter involves a falsehood that is absent in the former.

The Newtonian theory would be flawed if the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite, but the problem should be solved within the theory. Einstein's relativity cannot be the solution of anything - it was born in sin and should be discarded altogether.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 19:18 GMT
"Newton's true assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of both the source and the observer"

This is false. Newton never said this. Like all waves, the speed (velocity) varies only with the medium. That is why light changes speed when it moves from air to glass or to water. Same as sound. However, being a vector quantity, the RESULTANT velocity can vary due to motion of the observer. The Doppler frequency can also vary.

Does speed of sound vary with the speed of the source? No, neither does the speed of light.

Akinbo

*Watch out for my forthcoming book.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 04:37 GMT
Akinbo,

Michelson's (not Morley's) idea was to find a light-carrying medium in empty space. You wrote: "Like all waves, the speed (velocity) varies only with the medium." Why not accepting the possibility that em waves behave in vacuum as if they are their own medium? Acoustic media like air are resonant systems. They convey energy. Light in vacuum is energy.

The propagation speed c of light in empty space doesn't depend on any motion of emitter or observer but it refers to the mutual distance between the receiver at the moment of arrival and of the emitter at the moment of emission. While there is no natural point of reference in space, for any chosen moment, the imagined snapshot of relative to each other distances between object in space shouldn't be put in question.

In so far, you are correct; Pentcho is wrong.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 09:15 GMT
Eckard, being an electrical engineer can you tell me what is electrical or magnetic about light transmission (not emission at a source which can be electrical but transmission). Are there truly alternating electric and magnetic fields when light is propagated in space? Where are the moving electric charges in empty space? Does empty space have conducting wires where electric charges move? Does light require motion of electrons to be propagated and where are these electrons? Or can you have electric field without electrons? Where is the potential difference in empty space since current cannot flow without it?

I suggest that the term 'electromagnetic' wave can only refer to the peculiar source of such waves and not the method of propagation. Like all waves there must be a medium and a mechanical model for its transmission. Einstein himself said this much in his 1920 Leiden lecture.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 13:02 GMT
Without recourse to length contraction and other fudge factors (in Banesh Hoffmann's text below: "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 19:04 GMT
Pentcho,

Michelson expected in 1881 but could not confirm a light-carrying medium with a point of reference somewhere in space, not even when he cooperated in 1887 with Morley. However, the emission theory is even more obviously untenable.

I don't see any reason to question the second postulate because the usual understanding of the first one is strictly speaking unfounded.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 7, 2016 @ 20:22 GMT
Eckard,

Einstein's second postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Let the stationary observer measure the frequency to be f, the speed of the light c, and the wavelength λ:

f = c/λ

As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures becomes f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that the speed of the waves the moving observer measures is c'=c+v. The result is valid for all kinds of waves, light waves included.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 00:14 GMT
Eckard,

my apologies, I was hasty. Yes, I had suggested 'malleable' in the relativistic description of spacetime which you disagree with, and you had replied repeating those words. The effort should be to at least understand what the other person is arguing.

Which in regard to the c'=c+v argument as stated by Pentcho is clearly a rhetorical fallacy in the form of;

Amphiboly - A phrase or proposition susceptible to more than one interpretation, esp. as ambiguous in grammatical construction; also, the ambiguity so caused.

The speed of measurement does not alter the velocity of the wave. A good experienced carpenter can layout cut marks on a piece of lumber a lot faster (and accurately) than an apprentice, but that doesn't mean the lumber gets longer. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
The Utmost Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity

Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) is equivalent to this one:

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 16:38 GMT
What fatality? The statement states "relative to you" not relative to an arbitrary assigned background.

Where the proper form of argument can be found as to the speed of propagation and the speed of an emitter is in the frame of reference where we would have nothing other than the emitter to refer. Yet we can't assume that emission source to actually be stationary in any realistic scenario. We can then state that c'=c+v with the caveat that we don't know what the velocity of the emitter is other than in relation to something else in the external environment. However, there is a counterargument to that; the absolute motion of the emission source need not refer to an external point of reference, it need only refer to the difference between its center of mass and the position within that mass of its moment of inertia. The actual frequency of emission is then time dependent on that difference in the discharge of excess energy that it would have to dump regardless of it own absolute state of motion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 9, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published - symmetrical time dilation is not even wrong. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, invalidly of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 10, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 11, 2016 @ 07:12 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Zeeya and FQXi,

Could you make an article for the terraformation of Mars,I have several ideas with add of systems.

An other article could be relevant with the Wheel spaceship in space for the checking of intrinsic gravitation with centrip accel.Of course they are enormous projets.But we are obliged to make it for the well of all créations if I can say.We must anticipate ....Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 11, 2016 @ 07:42 GMT
Terraformation of Mars is possible.Of course it is an incredible project but we must do it for the well of all.We must begin with 1/2 green house bio sphères.The unicells of course, selected are important like algaes .....The compost also and the vegetal multiplication.The CH4 CO2 H2O O2 NH3 ...are foundamentals.I am asking me if we could accelerate the global process for mars with a production quick of O2.Is there ices ?We can produce quickly O2 and the cycles with CO2 can be adapted due oue green houses sphères with intrinsic ecosystems, the number becomes important of course to reach the points of equilibrium.We put the compoist of earth there and after we can create ecosystems.In a very small part of compost it exists so many lifes,animals, vegetals, fungis....It is the basis for our earth and also for mars and evenfor spaceship.We cannot live without these foundamntals, it is not possible.Already that it is time to act globally on this planet with the composting at big globalscale and the vegetal multiplication more theTimprovement spherisation of ecosystems.It is foundamental and VERY IMPORTANT TO TAKE ITS RESPONSABILITIES NOWWWWWWWWWW NOWWWWW NOW !!! Take care Jedis of the SPHERE

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 17, 2016 @ 17:44 GMT
Hello,it is fascinating this terraformation It is not easy but it is possible by addition of solutions(composting,vegetal multiplication,algaes,...).1/2 biosphères first are essential.Others methods are possible with thermodynamics for O2 CO2 .It is important to work in closed biosphères first with autarcy.Electrolyse that said can help to produce the O2 present on Mars.We could increase the CH4 and with the CO2 in majority , so we can with add of H solve the terraformation.The H2O and H must be add and the composting must be put into exponentials.That is why the vegetal multiplication is important.The basis of lifes are HCNO.The 1/2biospheres are important.The 1/2spheres must be big and be autarcic for the intrinsic lifes and productions.The temperature due to CO2 can be decreased.So it is possible.we can also accelerate the process of composting with different bacterias, fungis....We must import these basis,these microanimals and vegatls and minerals because all is in interactions.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 17, 2016 @ 17:56 GMT
Do you know the works of Oparine? They are relevant because with different proportions of CH4 NH3 H2C2 H2O CO2 HCN....Like a kind of primordial soap before the lifes.And with add of energy like uv or temperature or acids or pression....the amino acids appear like arginin for example, it proves that the gravitational codes are relevant for the electromagnetic combinations but it is precise in logic.We can play with HCNO.Mars or a spaceship needs vegetals and animals and minerals ,H2O,O2,CO2,CH4.....It is the bricks of lifes and the bricks of terraformation.They are a lot of nitrates I think also on Mars, we could utilise them forthe oxygenation witha kind of eletrolytic method imrpoved with acceleration of this process.If we add the solutions and that we reach the exponentials so we can even accelerate the process.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 11, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity

An extremely dangerous comment in Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:

"Amos said... Uncle Al wrote: " Photons and matter never fall identically within a gravitational field, by a factor of 2." What do you mean by that? If, for example, we could measure the deflection of neutrinos (moving at nearly the speed of light) from a distant star as they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 13, 2016 @ 15:50 GMT
Just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." [That is what the emission theory says - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g.]...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 14, 2016 @ 15:05 GMT
According to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity idiotically DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g. In my previous posting I showed that the idiocy was unavoidable - the acceleration "-2g" can be regarded as a parameter, or a fudge factor, introduced into the "theory" in order to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 18, 2016 @ 15:12 GMT
Einstein informs the gullible world that his approach was deductive:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 19, 2016 @ 13:30 GMT
Shameless idolatry:

BBC Documentary - Secrets Inside Einstein's Mind

My comment on YouTube:

At 6:46 Einsteinians start explaining that, according to Maxwell's 19th century theory, the speed of light was the same for all observers (did not depend on the speed of the observer). This is a blatant lie - at least one of the narrators in this BBC documentary, John Norton, knows the truth (but has found it profitable not to expose the lie):

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

How can the BBC allow such doublethink to be broadcast?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 20, 2016 @ 15:25 GMT
The Subtlest Practitioner of Doublethink in Einsteiniana

For all waves (light waves included), when the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ, where c is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary observer and λ is the wavelength. Given the formula

(measured frequency) =...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 11:59 GMT
Happy birthday FQXi team and creators; a good site, a good blog, to share ideas, to write freely.

Ten years seem few, for what has become adult.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 18:15 GMT
The Sacred Nonsense in Einstein Schizophrenic World

The constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but Einstein had to adopt it because he wanted to disfigure space and time and so produce much more nonsense:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karl H Coryat wrote on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 20:15 GMT
Happy Tenth Anniversary, FQXi! And, Happy Ninth Anniversary of the ruining of these comments sections!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 21:52 GMT
The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity

The initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, with speed v. Two hypotheses are conceivable:

Hypothesis 1 (Newton's emission theory): The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ.

Hypothesis 2 (Einstein's special relativity): The speed of the light relative to the observer does not shift. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the observer does not shift either (speed and frequency are proportional).

Needless to say, the experiment (measurement of the Doppler effect) confirms Hypothesis 1 and refutes Hypothesis 2:

"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 18:00 GMT
Another simple experimental falsification of Einstein's relativity. Consider the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Length contraction is absurd. Accordingly, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refutes the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 18:03 GMT
Mr Valev,doyou know Mr Durmagambetov director of the CNTF AND Mr Miroslav Pelikan?On LinkedIn all is became a circus.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT
A simple experimental falsification of Einstein's general relativity. Consider the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The speed of light falling towards the source of gravity varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g). Accordingly, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 18:38 GMT
Administrators,

Are you happy with what this forum has become? Just asking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 26, 2016 @ 19:01 GMT
Happy to see you again Tom,hope that your health is better ,take care Jedi.I am a little sad that you write less,I have learnt a lot with you ,eckard, John, Lawrence(hope he is well and that all goes well for him)I like the technical détails that you post ,hope you are going to post on blogs,take care Jedi of the SPHERE:)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 23:47 GMT
Tom, they should be happy because by providing this 'space' for discussion and being inclusive FQXi has facilitated advances in physics that have eluded other kinds of research. I think they can celebrate that achievement and the way in which they have shed a light on the difficulties faced by researchers inside and outside of academia.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 08:13 GMT
The cake can be shared ....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 28, 2016 @ 18:21 GMT
"Time in Cosmology" Conference

Judging from hints in this article, one may be going to abandon Einstein's idiotic spacetime at the "Time in Cosmology" conference:

Adam Frank, Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?

The idea is not new:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 29, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
"Time in Cosmology" Conference (2)

In 2000 the journal Nature informed the world about the discovery of light pulses that can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal speed of 300000 kilometers per second, but Neil Turok heroically saved Einstein's relativity by saying "I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics":

July 19, 2000: "For generations,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 12:10 GMT
Einsteinians return to Newtonian space and time (go to 53:28 in the video):

FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28

The reactions of the participants show that in Einstein schizophrenic world this could only be a joke - after all, career and money can only come from Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 12:13 GMT
You know Mr Valev, the real relevance is that both of them are correct.Gravitation and relativity are two foundamentals of our universe.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 15:09 GMT
Returning to the article .Let's speak about Mr Milner and Mr Carrol.Both are generalists and their works that I didn't know really are relevant.It could be relevant to focus on waves of gravity if my équations are correct of course to try to communicate with these waves instead of our waves Under our special relativity.It is not relevant to utilise this special relativity.The photons cannot ,the spherons yes.The aim is to check them?The dark matter not baryonic is the answer but how can we analyse these particles .If th spherical volumes are the answer ,it is interesting to analyse them.But now of course we are going to have difficulties due to scales of analyses but it is possible.I don't understnd why our actual waves are utilised ,it is not really relevant.Reagrds

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians?

At 53:28 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:

FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28

Here is another striking statement:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 08:58 GMT
Hello,dear Zeeya,Fqxi,

Hope the essay's contest will arrive soon.We wait the essays for the critics.That will change a little,Hope it is soon.Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
The Real Problem of Time in Physics

The conference "Time in Cosmology", June 27-30, 2016, organized by the Perimeter Institute, has just ended - see videos here.

My impression is that participants were all insane and didn't know what they were talking about. However I am antirelativist so my opinion about Einsteinians should not be taken seriously. Still I am going to extract the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 1, 2016 @ 18:49 GMT
Thanks Pentcho for bringing attention to the Time in cosmology conference and providing links.

Two things. First, Lee and Jiao will soon put themselves in trouble and be labelled dissidents... if they don't play their politics well.

Second, concerning the speed of electricity link. There is an on going debate bout its speed started by one Ivor Catt. If the carrier of electricity are electrons moving in a wire and electricity travels at light speed, since electrons have mass then how can they do this given the postulate of Special relativity concerning the effect of velocity on mass? You can see more on this on the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Alliance website.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
The "real problem of time in physics" is aftermath of an invalid deduction performed by Einstein in 1905. Einstein's postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

So even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), physics would still be dead by now, corrupted by the metastases of the asymmetrical time dilation (moving clocks run slower than stationary ones) invalidly deduced by Einstein in 1905.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 17:00 GMT
Einstein's 1905 postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation, but then how did Einstein manage to convince the world that asymmetrical effects occur - e.g. the moving clock lags behind the stationary one and the traveling twin remains younger than his stationary brother? In 1918 Einstein declared that, although time dilation is symmetrical and therefore the clock paradox cannot be solved by special...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 12:45 GMT
Integrity in Perimeter Institute:

Neil Turok, September 2013: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

June 2015: "My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way," he [Neil Turok] says."

Neil Turok, June 2016 (11:47): "Physics is in a golden age. It really is."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 13:34 GMT
Thanks for posting this introduction From Neil Turok, June 2016 :Sounds very encouraging, optimistic, open and accepting of different approaches. Neil Turok "Somebody will come up with a good idea one of these days and it is an opportunity for all of us to rise and support the emergence of new ideas".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 15:50 GMT
How many at the table ?Have you a small seat for a small belgian alone lost on this sphere.Perhaps that some does not really like the belgian cake but the most important is the resistance of this table after all not the suits lol :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 19:17 GMT
Lets skip sandwiches. First party I ever attended I was asked what I would like to eat and was then scolded by the hostess for not choosing from the selection of sandwiches. Even at that age I knew what i didn't want : )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 2, 2016 @ 20:37 GMT
Have you seen all, Morgan Freeman is dead,he is a member of the future of lifes institute.I am sad,I liked him, he is dead few years ago in a hospital.A beautiful mind.Peace to his soul .I liked his télévisons shows and also his films, he was a wondeful actor.He travels Inside the sphere ....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 00:53 GMT
Alex Holcombe on TRUTH This attitude seems to favour the way in which ideas can be considered within the FQXi community.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 13:10 GMT
Einsteinians Repudiate Einstein's Spacetime

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

What...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 18:55 GMT
If it isn't obvious to you that string theorists wish to preserve the principle of nonlocality that supports Bell's theorem (and absolute Newtonian space and time) as the basis of quantum theory, then it won't be obvious to you that your "analysis" by cut and paste is confused and completely wrongheaded.

If one accepts nonlocality as a postulate, as one must in order to prove the theorem, one can't accept continuous spacetime -- even though there is evidence for spacetime (LIGO results, for example) and none for nonlocality, an "attempt to breathe in empty space" as Einstein said.

The only thing doomed around here is FQXi's reputation, a victim of assisted suicide.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 19:24 GMT
Hi Tom,

Don't worry ,FQXi is a good Platform and it is not because there is a kind of circus at this moment that this will change.The essays arrive....But I must agree also that where is the time with Lawrence, you,and friends.I have learnt a lot due to you.FQXi permits this Tom also, the transparence and the education.But I agree that It is irritating sometimes to see the anti relativity.Now there is an other problem ToM also, the teams Inside the team ...Hope you understand what I mean.The sciences community is so vanitious that sometimes I am surprised by the comportments of some people.It is probably these hormons always and this vanity.It is an important parameter I beleive humbly.That decreases even the velocity of evolution.The most important is to be dterministic and accept this determinsim.The human nature is always surprising due to this simple words,vanity of vanities ,all is vanity.But let's continue about phsyics.You say "If one accepts nonlocality as a postulate, as one must in order to prove the theorem, one can't accept continuous spacetime -- even though there is evidence for spacetime (LIGO results, for example) and none for nonlocality, an "attempt to breathe in empty space" as Einstein said" could you develop a little this non locality ,there is a link with the works of Bohm ?Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 3, 2016 @ 19:33 GMT
I don't understand you Mr Valev insisting on a thing proved since many years ,c is constant.The only moment when c changes is when photons become bosons due to gravitational codes when they are encoded, so c decreases towards the encoding.c is constant and is the maximum for photons.It is simply a postulate,verified, accepted and tested, and experimented.I don't understand why people wants to break this relativity.If is was with particles different ,there I can agree but with photons bosons, that has no sense.Tom could you explain him the experiment haveing proved that c is constant and invariant,Regards.Soon the essays tomit is cool :) take care Jedi of the sphere.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 14:30 GMT
The constancy of the speed of light is so obviously absurd (variability is so obviously correct) that sometimes Einsteinians inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity by demonstrating that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer (receiver):

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 14:48 GMT
The only obviously absurd thing is that you have not studied relativity in any depth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
Tom, Steve asked you to "explain the experiment having proved that c is constant and invariant" and your explanation consisted in two words: "Time dilation". Could you try an explanation in five words? In ten words? Teach us, Tom! This time-dilation experiment is so crucial and we (Steve and I) don't understand it at all.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 15:39 GMT
Tom knows the different expermiments about c since Gallileo ....Fizeau.....Foucault.....many experiments have been made imrpoving the results.It is accepted by the international system of mesures or this or that.In fact ,I beleive humbly that the errors ofinterpretations are due to a simple fact.A wave Under c permits to drive the signals,the informations.That said how can we inetrpret an information ??? It is Under c because we use the electromagnetic waves like a tool.But in fact the inforamtions must be classed ,it is important.That permits to class the different informations and waves.If my équations are correct, so we can have a broken c but it is not with photonic waves,but gravitational,spheronic in my model.It is there that it becomes relevant because the waves can be also classed and even we can play with the pilot waves .So a gravitational information can be drived by electromagnetism.That said in the reality it is the opposite, it is the gravitation the chief orchestra.We can class all the different informations with photons and spherons.The binar codes are an other mechanic but also Under c.It becomes very intriguing if the computer becomes a 3D system and that the different informations are in the game.The spherons can pass c ,not photons wihch are Under an other coded system, but ,not linear this one, the gravitational stable not linear codes....Hope that I am clear :) Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 4, 2016 @ 20:27 GMT
Happy 4 july independance day dear friends :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 6, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Testing Einstein's Relativity: Does It Make Sense?

"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..."

"In 1916 Einstein found what he considered a glitch in his new theory of general relativity. His equations showed that the contents of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 7, 2016 @ 20:23 GMT
Fudge factors are just one of the reasons why it makes no sense to test Einstein's relativity. A second reason is fraud. All evidence allegedly confirming relativity is either fraudulent or inconclusive but Einsteinians have produced so much of it that any truly refuting evidence would be overwhelmed and buried in the Augean stables. The fraud production was started by Arthur Eddington - perhaps...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 17:10 GMT
The unlimited freedom to fudge the theory until it predicts anything one wants goes hand in hand with the temptation to fudge and even completely fabricate the evidence "confirming" the prediction. The story of LIGO is actually the story of people diligently rehearsing evidence fake, the dress rehearsal having taken place in 2010:

"Einstein believed in neither gravitational waves nor black...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 9, 2016 @ 18:30 GMT
LIGO Conspirators: What Comes Next

"Now, about 150 scientists from all over the world followed the invitation of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Hannover, Germany, and gathered for discussions of the most recent developments and the next steps in gravitational wave research. [...] + Soon we may be seeing gravitational wave signals from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 9, 2016 @ 02:26 GMT
First you decide what is light from wave-particle duality and then what do you mean by speed of light. Then comes the question of change frequency in Doppler effect. Does it not violating principles of relativity? Can you explain double slit experiment in clear terms with light. You do not know what is light. You do not know what is time . If have to read all my theories produced from year 2002. Instead huge sum of money wasted in verifying relativity by wrong interpretaion which I say frying the fish with its own oil. Modern physics is in dole drums. We are responsible for making physics a big business.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 9, 2016 @ 17:18 GMT
Light is the glue that bonds all matter. A photon of light represents a transient bond between a source to an observer.

Objects like beam splitters and double slits all affect the phases in the spectrum of each photon and therefore the mere presence of these objects affects the photon bonding state between the source and the observer. That is called interference.

While intuition leads us to ignore the quantum nature of all photon bonds and their phase coherence for the classical predictions of intuition, photon phase does entangle the phases of both source and observer.

Most explanations of the double slit experiment ignore the phase relationship between the source and observer and simplify photon exchange as a matter absorption. This simplification really complicates any explanation since just as the electron bonds with a proton to make hydrogen with the perpetual exchange of a Rydberg photon that involves the whole universe, all photon exchanges result in different versions of this same quantum bond that likewise involve the whole universe.

Our intuition simplifies these nonlocal quantum bonds into what we call local cause and effect. However, including photon phase and entanglement between the source and observer greatly simplifies the explanations of double slits and beamsplitters and resolves the mystery. All quantum bonds are superpositions of one sort or another and both phase and amplitude both play a role...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 10, 2016 @ 19:00 GMT
Open Letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics 2016, W.W. Engelhardt, JET, Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik. Abstract: The Nobel Committee is informed that according to Professor Karsten Danzmann (Albert Einstein Institut) the LIGO detectors are not calibrated as expected from the statement in the discovery paper: "The detector output is calibrated in strain by measuring its response to test mass motion induced by photon pressure from a modulated calibration laser beam [63]". The claim that gravitational waves have been detected is not substantiated experimentally, since direct calibration data, namely mirror displacement as a function of laser power moving the mirrors, are not published.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 11, 2016 @ 16:20 GMT
Does a “Fraudulent Joke” stand behind the Discovery of Gravitational Waves?

See also the comments on the publication. LIGO conspirators don't care about criticism - they are not going to answer any provocative question. Just collecting millions of dollars (having wasted billions so far) and dancing:

Gravitational Wave Dance

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 13, 2016 @ 17:40 GMT
Since When Is Physics Untestable?

Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "What happens when we can’t test scientific theories? [...] In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 15, 2016 @ 14:30 GMT
The unlimited freedom to fudge the theory until it predicts anything one wants goes hand in hand with the temptation to fudge and even completely fabricate the evidence "confirming" the prediction. All evidence allegedly confirming Einstein's relativity is either fraudulent or inconclusive but Einsteinians have produced so much of it that no critical examination is possible - any criticism is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 28, 2016 @ 15:58 GMT
Variable Speed of Light and the End of Einstein

"Assume the observer and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v (v is negative if the observer and the source are moving towards each other). Considering the problem in the reference frame of the source, suppose one wavefront arrives at the observer. The next wavefront is then at a distance λ=c/fs away from the observer (where λ is the wavelength, fs is the frequency of the wave the source emitted, and c is the speed of light)."

The observer measures the frequency to be

fo = fs(1 - v/c),

and the speed of the light relative to the observer is, accordingly,

c' = λ.fo = c - v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

It is easy to see that the "relativistic time dilation" introduced in the Wikipedia article does not change the conclusion that the speed of the light relative to the observer is different from the speed of the light relative to the source. Einsteinians will have to admit that the Doppler effect, relativistic or not, refutes Einstein's relativity. No more hamburgers.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 30, 2016 @ 17:07 GMT
Einsteiniana: Profiteers Leave the Sinking Ship

"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

In the end confused Fotini abandoned Einstein's idiotic "theory" (it will continue to destroy young people's minds) and started a more profitable business:

"This Physics Pioneer Walked Away from It All. Why Fotini Markopoulou traded quantum gravity for industrial design."

Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. 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. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


alena lis wrote on Aug. 2, 2016 @ 09:03 GMT
What a beautiful photo!

https://19216801.mobi/

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 3, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
Einstein's Plagiarism (Reverse Engineering)

Einstein derived the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived the Lorentz equations from the "postulate":

John Norton: " The mathematical apparatus needed to complete this approach had already been developed by H. A. Lorentz in his theorem of corresponding states. Einstein knew...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.