An anti-Darwin, anti-evolutionary spirit rules.Einstein said:
An anti-Darwin spirit? Really? He says the concepts of events in time are not suspended, albeit complicated. So surely there's room for Darwin and evolution in this complicated Einsteinian space time continuum?the One and Only Einstein said:
...since this means accepting an infinite universe, whereas the Einsteinian pseudouniverse can only ever be finite - and therefore space travel finite (e.g. already complete with the Moon trips since Mars is too far at 20 lightminutes away
) - and ultimate escape futile.There certainly is room in the fantasy world of the Einsteinian space-time continuum. But I mean our physical universe, and that is what Einstein means too, therefore:
The invisible piper is a metaphor - though it could be extended to the Horst Wessel Song - a predestination Einstein definitely did not like!Einstein oraculizing in Bhagwan orange said:
From the same source there Einstein only added, “The exact sciences may call the whole world their fatherland". By "exact sciences" he means those subject to mathematical efforts to reduce to them to mere determinism, everything mathematically exactly described from the Big Bang, i.e. mathematical reductionism, mere quantification as the basis for difference - and therefore biological evolution of the Darwin type, and the historical sciences generally, is specifically EXCLUDED.
.
Another digression, eh?. There's no reason that evolution, either Lamarckian or Darwinian, couldn't occur in a predetermined fashion, as Einstein clearly believed. And for that matter, no reason that space travel can't occur within a finite universe with a speed limit.
Even being the dunderhead that I am, I have come up with an objection. In general, photons are generated within an inertial frame of reference by some artifact which has a characteristic wavelength. That is, by harmonic oscillators of various types. Thermal sources produce a distribution of wavelengths, but even they have a characteristic wavelength of peak amplitude. Also, photons can be passed through filters of characteristic wavelengths. So it follows that the wavelength of a photon is a fixed quantity in its originating frame of reference. The frequency of the photon is not a variable in the wave function of the photon, but rather it is a fixed parameter, and thus there is nothing to be collapsed.
In that case it is not Darwinian evolution, not natural selection from alternatives that nature throws up haphazardly - i.e. from natural disorder - both in the selection (i.e. reason for reproductive failure) and the origin of the variation in the first place. I forgive you for this error ONLY because the converse view of evolution being merely a predetermined plan, is that of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and their guru Daniel Dennett, all of whom argue for only necessity being science and chance or disorder to be a non-scientific concept.
Here you haven't grasped the point Jerry. If humans are unable to travel faster than light then a round-trip journey to alpha-Centauri would take over 9 years - longer than the round-the-world trips of scientific expeditions e.g. Charles Darwin on the Beagle. And who wants to be cooped up in a spaceship for that long, especially as most of it would be traveling too and from. Besides, there is nothing much in the radius of 20 lightyears - no sunlike stars therefore almost certainly no suitable earthlike planets, so any such space travel would be a futile gesture (if you believe Einstein).
You clearly are NOT aware of those scientists who reject a Parmenidean predestined universe - including Ilya Prigogine and Eric Lerner. You might reply that they accept SR (Special Relativity) - and they are wrong to do so - but they reject General Relativity (GR), which itself is dependent upon SR, and which I have also proven to be bunk in what it predicts.
An inertial reference frame is one WITHOUT inertial forces acting - no gravity, no inertia, no acceleration nor deceleration. The 'harmonic oscillations' you refer to are more often than not atomic circling motions seen side on, though amounting to the same thing.
That's right, the hotter the object the more the peak amplitude lies in shorter wavelengths. Why the ring on an electric stove turns red with heating - but the sun is hotter still (yellow) and a welding arc still hotter (bluish). The most important fact here is the quantum theory was based upon this thermodynamic observation of black body radiation - yet you can find physicists e.g. Per Bak, who get everything back-to-front. E.g. he describes quantum theory as fundamental but thermodynamics as merely "phenomenological" (i.e. crude and superficial).
That is right: there is an emission wavelength, or, in the case of black body radiation, an emission spectrum with the peak emission at a certain wavelength. In normal laboratory conditions the source and the filter are mutually static of course!
This last statement of yours is fundamentally erroneous. So let me remind you that frequency and wavelength are invert concepts where frequency is 1/wavelength and vice versa.
- at least if you can remember some of the lessons from the last 8 pages.A clue! In the 19th century before Einstein's BS, the question of Mercury's anomalous perihelion shift was termed "the Mystery of Planet Vulcan".Big Al Einstein in psychedelic Bhagwan orange said:
Really we can't even all agree on whether this afternoon is predestined or not. I found one source that says "Dennett accepts the results of modern physics and does not deny the existence of quantum randomness" (p. 328), although Dennett is said to argue that one couldn't tell the difference between an actual quantum neural computation, vs. a simulation using a pseudo-random number generation.
I never said it would be easy. But, are you familiar with the O'Neill space colonization plan, which has now been enthusiastically adopted and backed by Jeff Bezos? There's plenty of room in geosynchronous orbit for human habitat, and plenty of raw materials in asteroids to mine. If the human race can avoid extinction in the next few years, it could work. Right?? Umm.... I suppose I can see some practical difficulties, but what is it about this which is impossible under Einsteinian constraints?
I know, and even yours truly, Mr. Postflavian himself, is challenged at fundraising. So cry me a river.
It may be erroneous, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it. At least until you show me experimental evidence that it's wrong. Where is there anything I've said that contradicts that frequency = 1/wavelength?
I'm afraid that at least for now, I can't participate intelligently in a discussion about general relativity. I didn't study it in school and I don't know anything about it beyond the most basic introductory level.
The energy to haul up all the material into geostationary orbit in order to create the "habitable ring" of land indicated in your drawing. Presumably you will have to teach toddlers to run around with sticky tape, taping up the transparent walls to prevent the escape of atmospheric-pressured air (i.e. the old finger-in-the-dyke story, you Flying Dutchman you). Hence your reply is merely a jest as once again, even if achieved, mankind could still not progress further due to Einsteinian prejudice that nothing can travel faster than light.
...and it these people whose confidence and whose grip over the world has to be broken.
Read your statement in red again. It denies that frequency/wavelength can change. Hence it denies the Doppler Effect in light even though it was proven in the 19th century. In fact the Doppler Effect in light from streaming subatomic particles (canal rays) was shown by the 'other' pro-Nazi Nobel Prizewinning physicist Johannes Stark about 1900.
...but my task is to show that GR is simply a media-promoted scam, not science.
Statements such as this covertly imply that everything, including our thoughts and feelings, are controlled and merely secondary manifestations of a wholly ordered universe (Freemasonry's 'Great Architect' as the universe itself - Deism & Pantheism - not a personal god) absolutely causing and controlling human thoughts. It implies that the mind is merely secondary NOT in the general materialist sense that one must have a brain to think, but in the MONIST materialist sense that the universe is an integral whole, such that our thoughts and feelings are the inevitable product of whatever the arrangement of matter in the universe and the "inexorable laws" that control everything.*
The first statement about Dennett might be true, even though the later statement about his ideas contradicts it; but it is very good that you have uncovered the essential doublethink in Dennett's agenda. DDDD - the Deceitful Doublethink of Dan Dennett a.k.a. 'Compatibilism' - though you clearly do NOT understand the wider implications.
The materials are to be mined from convenient nearby asteroids and comets as they fly by, or perhaps from the Moon. A significant design goal is to minimize the amount of material raised from Earth's gravity well.
It seems that I have to spell out every single element of the Einsteinian consensus for you, otherwise you accuse me of Nazi trickery. I carefully qualified my remarks by stating that I was referring to a single inertial frame of reference. And within said frame, a photon's wave-like nature propagates through space, thus denoting a space-time structure. In a different frame, that wave-like structure is as it is perceived in the moving frame, thus becoming relatively stretched or compressed, and its frequency with respect to a point in the moving frame of reference changes likewise. This is the classical mechanical doppler effect. If the velocity of the moving frame approaches light speed, or if extreme accuracy is required, the frames must be adjusted for length contraction and time dilation.
...it is merely fictional because the function of plasma (hot ionized gases) in outer space is not properly understood, hence the 'transparent Perspex-like shell' keeping the atmosphere in has to be much more than strengthened glass. You may as well have a (Jacob's) latter or a stairway to heaven pictured, since we on Earth are going to be caught by the energy-&-environmental crisis by mid-century long before such a contraption could ever be built.
The last highlighted statement implies belief in SR so is not genuine physics. Your first statement is trivial and evasive since the Doppler Effect is revealed when an object in motion relative to the source detects a different wavelength i.e. the other object is in a "different inertial reference frame."Jerry said:
...since the highlighted underlined phrase indicates that you are thinking ONLY about the "classic mechanical Doppler effect" as you state more than clearly. However the classic mechanical Doppler Effect only refers to sound and similar waves (e.g. earthquake P waves).Jerry said:
Lorentz et al. fantasize about the stagnant ether (i.e. the plenum = Newton's absolute space) which propagated light. (And it is the plenum, and the belief therein, that creates the logical paradoxes via invoking TD&LC*) But light is not propagated, it is projected from a source, the so-called wave-function (an overly mathematical term) comprising all possible wavelengths traveling at speeds proportional to their wavelength. With this realization we see SR to be redundant nonsense, replaced by PDE theory.
These are certainly significant engineering & logistical objections, and I'm not saying I think Bezos is likely to succeed with this project in our lifetimes. But my point was simply that Einsteinian physics does not prevent endeavors such as this.
Einsteinian so-called physics is comfortable with and harmonize with all sorts of BS. If you believe in mutual TD&LC, you'll believe anything. A risky and failed expedition to Mars - 20 lightminutes away and using only electromagnetic communication (since Big Al says "nothing can travel faster than light") - will only be a pipe-dream since if it actually happened, the resulting disaster and global grief would be enough to overthrow the governments and private companies who sponsored such an idea. For those of us old enough to remember it - how sick we all felt, Soviet Russians too, when we thought that the Apollo 13 crew would die in space.
But this "longitudinal energy transfer" is in motion always, so is not confined to "one reference frame" to use Einstein's terminology. The photon does not "stress and compress" with merely a pre-labelled wavelength in one reference frame - implying the false notion of light "propagating", a term implying a stagnant light-bearing aether. Rather, light is projected as Walter Ritz saw, the longer the wavelength the faster its motion. The emission wavelength of a photon is instantly accompanied by all possible wavelengths for said photon - otherwise the Doppler Effect in light is inexplicable.
So we are in agreement, then, that I have more or less correctly represented the Einsteinian position?
True!