The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 25, 2013 12:20 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 6,212
Registered: 12/13/04
Posted: Jan 25, 2013 7:20 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
Brian Greene: "Past, present, future - all equally real. They all exist." Max Tegmark: "The past is not gone and the future isn't non-existent. Past and future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way." Brian Greene: "Everything that has ever happened or will happen - it all exists." Albert Einstein: "The distinction beween past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent." Brian Greene: "Maybe we've been deceived and time does not flow. Perhaps the river of time is more like a frozen river..." David Albert: The most vivid example about the way the world is has to do with this flow of time. Physics does radical violence to this everyday experience of time."

All these absurdities have a single origin. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the emission theory's thesis that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source, and refuted the ether theory's thesis that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the light source). Then FitzGerald and Lorentz introduced, ad hoc, "length contraction" and "local time" in order to make the experiment confirm the constant speed of light and refute the variable speed of light. This "local time" is the precursor of the absurdities quoted above and used by Einsteinians to destroy human rationality:
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.