In article <science-0629.19991227@news.mantra.com>,
jai@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> EINSTEIN - CHARLATAN, FLIM-FLAM MAN OR MAN OF THE CENTURY?
Adolph Hitler was the man of this century (true Stalin
murdered more persons, on the whole, but Hitler made
possible the post-WWII "super-heroic" Stalin who
destroyed Communism from within). Although I still think
centuries from now the one man people will still look back on
with fondness will be Neil Armstrong, frankly.
> ROME - The mathematical equation that ushered in the
> atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian
> dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in
> developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed
> yesterday.
>
> Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza,
> published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine,
> Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical
> historian.
He should have published it in The NY Times.
> Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative
Since it's hardly possible to "time" anything without "motion"
I'd say they have to be at least fraternal twins.
> Comment 1
>
> Einstein essentially asked himself - "What would I see if
> an object was traveling at the speed of light and was
> approaching me?"
>
> He found the answer without experimentation - a task that
> speaks for itself.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 20:38:10 PST by Senator Pardek
I believe he also found that if he'd pluck his eyes out
he'd become blind... without experimentation. Although
I don't know what that says about itself.
> Comment 4
>
> I have never felt comfortable with these exotic theories
> that extend beyond three dimensions. There is a current
> movement afoot to get us all to accept an eleven
> dimensional universe. Theoretical physics has become
> populated with charlatans, kooks, and wack jobs.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 20:49:59 PST by Peggy
To say that something "existed" is to imply it no longer exists (just
as to say something "will exist" is to imply that although it does
not
exist now, it will yet come into existence in future). This flies in
the face of our conviction that "matter" can neither be created nor
destroyed: What people mean to say when they imply those impossibilities
is that "forms & shapes" change (and since the only "existence"
forms
& shapes have is in our minds, to say: "That shape over there has
changed to another shape" is totally meaningless outside our minds).
We live in a universe where individual forms & shapes are constantly
changing independently of all the other changing forms & shapes--and
consequently it's impossible to keep track of all of them long enough
to synchronize them all.
Meaning = the idea of time is not recognized by nature, only by us.
> Comment 5
>
> You find that situation with most inventions and
> discoveries. Each guy builds a little bit more on the
> last guy. There is rarely someone who comes up with it
> all. I think it is the first one to the patent office or
> like you say, the guy with the better press agent who
> gets the glory.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 20:51:14 PST by Patriot76
Einstein in The Stone Age might or might not have
discovered the wheel, but he probably wouldn't have
had to undergo circumcision. (Probably.)
>
> Comment 7
>
> I am not smart enough to comment on the GTR, but I hope
> it turns out to be wrong.
Already your hope is truer than GTR.
>
> Without some form of supra-luminal travel, I will never
> have a chance to see another planet.
To time-travel you have to have a place to go to (it must
exist). The past never "existed," nor will the future "come into
existence." Existence is what exists, period: Abe Lincoln did not
cease to exist (in fact he's still buried somewhere "right now" &
has been exhumed at least once): Only shapes & forms cease
to exist and/or come into existence.
> Not that I have much of a chance now, but I would like to
> dream.
God, who can live without dreaming?
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 20:58:19 PST by Ronin
> Comment 8
>
> I'd like to try time travel. I want to go back and meet
> my ancestors I traced and I want to go back to George
> Washington's time.Even if only to be invisible but able
> to walk around and observe history.
Watch out for the horse puckies, though. They were
everywhere back then. (Yes, and now: I know.)
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:02:11 PST by Patriot76
> Comment 9
> All of today's physics are based upon Einstein's
> assumption that nothing can "exceed the speed of light",
> and Time's greatest person of the third millenium will be
> that individual who proves that next great assumption
> wrong.
In that... Einstein will NEVER be proven wrong. (A man
can be wrong in many things, but unlikely in everything.)
You can read why the so-called speed of light cannot be
"faster" at: http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:04:43 PST by CruisinAround
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Comment 10
>
> Theoretical physics has become populated with charlatans,
> kooks, and wack jobs.
Also politics, philosophy, and street miming.
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:05:57 PST by Hugin
> Comment 11
>
> Negative.
>
> The speed of light barrier will be beaten - not through
> sheer horsepower, but by going around it. What we have
> learned From Albert will make it so.
Ha! It's already been done: I believe the Starship Enterprise
can reach speeds of ten or eleven times that of light
quite comfortably.
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:09:28 PST by Senator Pardek
>
> Comment 13
> What makes Einstein notable was his overall theory of
> Relativity - the way gravity affects light, the way light
> affects time, etc. He was the first to show that time is
> not merely a mental construct of man's imagination, but
> rather a physical objective reality. Most of his theories
> have been proven true and they ushered in the modern
> scientific age.
Although many of Einstein's ideas coincide with reality
they never do so to the extent that Shakespeare's do.
Einstein could not have 'shown' that "time is not merely
a mental construct of man's imagination, but rather a physical
objective reality" for the simple reason that it's just not so:
Try this: Existence as an infinite number of parallel lines
(each one a counter) standing for the ever-changing "shapes
and forms" (individual/independent motions) of the universe
extending infinite in a direction you'd care to recognize:
Every one of the counters is progressing at a rate different
independently from all the other counters.
You are, of course, one of those counters: That's your "time."
You notice that the "earth rotation" counter is not synchronized
with your counter (say it's 12045 beats per each one of yours, if
you live around 33 years).
You notice that the "earth orbit" counter is synchronized neither to
your counter (an odd 33/1) nor to the "earth rotation" counter
(365.xxx/1...!)... etc.
The ice-cream melting counter is also off on its own pace. And
so is the bowling-ball melting counter. Even the counter of the atoms
whose vibrations you use to keep your watch on time is not
synchronized with any other counter in the universe! You try "timing"
"that" block of iron counter (which seems not to be moving at all);
and you tell your descendants to keep timing it, but a thousand
generations of your descendants pass and the block of iron counter
still looks like it's not moving at all. One of those descendants gets
a little impatient and takes a blow torch to the block of iron (and
gets its counter moving at quite a clip). But as soon as he ceases
applying the torch to it, the block of iron counter again slows down
to its own sweet time... Meaning:
Man may apply his idea of time outside his own mind, but, in truth,
once man's application is removed, nature returns to its absolute
obviousness of the idea (e.g. every single counter will continue to
"change" at its (each's) own rate without regard to what any of the
other counters are doing).
You may further explore this line of thought at:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity/
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:11:59 PST by Levine2001
> Comment 14
>
> Once gravity is better understood, and found - as I
> suspect - to exceed the speed of light, Einstein's
> theories will collapse.
I suspect it shall be a lot sooner than you imagine.
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:14:59 PST by Peggy
> Comment 16
>
> most if not ALL of what Einstein promoted was complete
> rubbish and balderdash
I suspect it was a lot less than you'd wish it were.
> General and special relativity seem to have survived
> every test so far. Einstein predicted the bending of
> starlight by gravity (many times verified), explained the
> mysterious precession of the orbit of Mercury, predicted
> time dilation at relativistic speeds (verified,
> especially by delayed particle decay in linear
> accelerators), predicted gravitational redshifting, and
> predicted the expansion of the universe. (But, in his
> greatest mistake, he revised the expansion out with a
> "cosmological constant" because it seemed nonsensical in
> that pre-Hubble era.) To say that his work was not an
> advance but a setback implies that you're in exclusive
> possession of truly advanced knowledge.
Nostredamus predicted many things as well. In a cause/effect
reality the entirely of existence is predictable (all one needs is
total knowledge). But something else, too: Coincidence (and
a lucky guess is as good as an informed one) also works.
> Oh, and he won a Nobel for an unrelated paper explaining
> the photoelectric effect, reviving the decades-dead idea
> that light can act as a particle.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:18:42 PST by VadeRetro
> Comment 17
>
>> I have never felt comfortable with these exotic
>> theories that extend beyond three dimensions.
>
> What is it about time that you don't accept?
It's that no "individual motion" in the universe
acknowledges "accepts" any other "individual motion" in
the universe's "time" that is ALWAYS the crucial point.
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:20:14 PST by edsheppa
> Comment 18
>
> But when you think about it, doesn't every great achiever
> "steal" a little from others? Bill Gates (and Steve Jobs)
> capitalized on breakthroughs made in a Xerox laboratory.
> Elvis Presley stole rock and roll from black blues
> singers. Even the great Johann Sebastian Bach put his
> name to works created by others.
Whoa! I'm aware of many transcriptions Bach did of other
composer's works (for different instruments), but I don't
believe Bach ever was in need of stealing pennies from
the homeless on his way to his Kingdom (which remains to this
day the greatest monument to/in the entire world of music).
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:21:51 PST by SamAdams76
> Comment 23
>
>> What is it about time that you don't accept?
>
> I accept the construct of time. It's when it is elevated
> to a dimension that invites skepticism.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 21:33:53 PST by Peggy
This is the Achilles' heel of SR/GR: IF it is based
on the notion that time has existence outside the human
mind, then it is de facto wrong (just as if were it based
on the notion that Santa Claus is real... it would also be
de facto wrong). Unfortunately, it is not immediately
obvious to most people that time has no existence
outside the human mind. But it will eventually be known
to most people (just as today most people know that
the earth isn't flat--And I did say "most people").
> Comment 26
>
>> Are you knowlegable enough to have a meaningful
>> opinion?"
"Every human being, even 'the least' of them, knows
something I do not--And in that he is my master."
--Voltaire
> I'm certainly not in the theoretical physics camp, but my
> college degree is electrical engineering.
>
> Posted on 12/26/1999 22:00:34 PST by Peggy
>
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
******************