http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Astronomy/Cosmology/?view=usa&ci...
The Life of the Cosmos
Lee Smolin
"Lee Smolin offers a new theory of the universe that is at once
elegant, comprehensive, and radically different from anything proposed
before....Natural selection may guide the appearance of the laws of
physics, favoring those universes which best reproduce.....Offers an
intriguing blend of the ideas of Einstein and Darwin. Argues that the
laws of nature may themselves be subject to natural selection."

In fact, Lee Smolin has initially discovered that Einstein's idiotic
"law of nature" according to which the speed of light is constant does
not allow Einstein zombie world to reproduce successfully anymore:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles...

Well, I have to give them credit for turnaround. The Kaluza Klein paper
was not accepted. Here is the referee report below, with my own
comments and queries. I would like whatever objective input you all can
give on this report and how you see this.

The draft which was reviewed is at the link below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/kaluza-klein-and-lorentz-force-40....

REFEREE REPORT:

The author wants to derive the Maxwell equation from the vacuum Einstein
eqs. in vaccum in a 5-dimensional spacetime. This is of course nothing
but the original Kaluz-Klein idea, which is too well known not to be
viable in this form.

In the manuscript there are a number of confusions, e.g. between
classical and quantum concepts (see page 3, where suddenly h-bar appears
out of the blue), what is means to really derive the Lorentz force, the
55 components of the Christoffel symbols are put arbitrarily equal to
zero, otherwise the author would already fail on page 5, etc.

high resolution moon landing

you gone think is a joke

giant humanoids, no way, t

tha relaticiy community are mutes, never heard
nor mentioning anyplace

scroll about 10%%

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8732299029875299580&q=ufo+duration%%3Along&total...

A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by Drs.
Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects...

The book

G. Nimtz and A. Haibel, Tunneleffekt - R

I have a question: Consider the path integral:

Z = DA exp[-iS(A)] = C exp [iW(J)]

where S(A) = $d^4x L.

Above, the field variable is A, the source of the field is J, the
amplitude is W(J), the action is S(A), the Lagrangian density is L, and
C is an overall product factor independent of J and often containing a
product of inverse determinants.

Let's posit that L=0, everywhere. We take that as a supposition.
Perhaps 0 = some other expression involving the sources and fields, but
nonetheless, this expression L is always = 0.

Would the following deductions be true / permissible?

1) S(A) = 0, because the integral over a volume of anything which is
zero, is itself zero. No constants of integration come into play. For
example, thinking about Maxwell's equations in integral form, if there
is a three volume within which the charge is zero everywhere, then the
total enclosed charge is zero.

if 1) is true, then:

2) Z = DA, because exp[-iS(A)] = 1

if 2) is true, then:

Come on now .. admit that you were wrong. Its not hard. You completely
stuffed up what SR predicts happens wrt length contraction. Now be a good
boy and admit it .. and an apology for all your unprovoked name calling and
criticizing my correct position would really show that you are a person
worth of respect. Or will you be a remain a laughing stock forever?

In case you've forgotten:

"There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn being
one of them) that rely on the misguided idea that length contraction allows
larger objects (like the pole) to fit inside smaller enclosures (like the
barn) as a byproduct of rapid relative motion. This is not the case"

"Uniform relative motion cannot make a longer object (the pole) fit inside a
shorter box (the barn). I was very clear on this from the very beginning."

"When compared at rest wrt each other, the pole in the problem is much
larger than the barn. Uniform relative motion cannot
make it fit inside the closed barn. This is what I am trying to convey"

"If the pole is in UNIFORM motion and you try to close the barn doors
simultaneously in the barn frame, you will hit the pole. The pole has not
become magically shorter simply through UNIFORM RELATIVE motion"

Hi NG

i am thinking about some connection between qm and GR, that is stuningly
simple. You start with the idea, that length is an observable. The
observable is connected to the expectation value E of an operator...

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/02/28/brian-greene-time-oped-time08-cx_bg_0229physics...
Brian Greene: "By 1915, with his "General Theory of Relativity,"
Einstein took these realizations one step further, concluding that
something similar happens in a gravitational field. He figured out
that the stronger the gravity you experience, the slower time elapses.
After synchronizing our watches, were I to stay in the lobby of the
Empire State Building while you went sightseeing on the observation
deck, I would experience stronger gravity (being closer to Earth) and
according to Einstein, when we rejoin, my watch would be behind yours.
The effect would be incredibly small, since the difference in gravity
you and I would experience is trifling."

Silly Brian does not even understand that the idiocy called
"gravitational time dilation", as defined by his cleverer brothers,
depends on the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL difference between "you and
me", not on "the difference in gravity you and I would experience".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

On Feb 28, 5:17 pm, Eric Gisse gmail.com> wrote: