Anti-Einsteiniana: Natural Philosophy Alliance?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Documents of Project DoD Federici DMCA Takedown lawsuit now available
Next: Rational Number Square To Two Discovered. By Aiya-Oba
From: Pentcho Valev on 8 Feb 2010 08:07 If members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance prefer a more historical approach, they could ask: What happened in 1907? Here is some initial information: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now- legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD." The crucial question: Is the fact that the speed of light DOES VARY with the gravitational potential discovered by Einstein in 1907 consistent with Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to which the speed of light DOES NOT VARY with the speed of the light source? If not, is the fact that the speed of light DOES VARY with the gravitational potential discovered by Einstein in 1907 consistent with Newton's emission theory of light according to which the speed of light DOES VARY with the speed of the light source? Pentcho Valev wrote: W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 3: "For vewed sub specie eternitatis scientists (even physical scientists) are a fickle lot. The history of science is a tale of multifarious shiftings of allegiance from theory to theory. Newtonian mechanics had its hour of flourishing with virtual universal allegiance. Then, following a dramatic and brief period of turbulence, relativistic mechanics came to the fore and is espoused with the same universal allegiance and firm commitment on the part of the community." Newton-Smith's is an outdated account: except for the few remaining profeteers (who were unable to become climate change experts), nobody supports Einstein's relativity anymore, let alone "with firm commitment". The problem is that Anti-Einsteiniana is not organized and is difficult to be organized in a world where money, not ideas, is the essence of any organization. Still some anti-relativity community, perhaps too loose for the moment, does exist: http://www.worldnpa.org/main/ "The Natural Philosophy Alliance, quite unlike establishment physics, does not impose any particular ideas on its members, whose ideas are so diverse that generalization about them is very difficult. Aside from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need of a thorough overhaul, and that a much more tolerant spirit than has recently been shown in these fields must be practiced in order to achieve the needed changes, not very much comes close to achieving unanimous approval among NPA members. Nevertheless, certain interests and themes are very widespread, and certain opinions are subscribed to by a very large majority. The central theme that concerns nearly all members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no validity whatsoever." (By NPA Founder, John E. Chappell) I think NPA should adopt a more concrete stance on special relativity. The theory is strictly deductive so it can only have "no validity whatsoever" if a postulate is false. Official mavericks in Einsteiniana are somewhat more advanced than NPA members in identifying the false postulate: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |