EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: correct representation of slower clocks
Next: The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected
From: BURT on 23 Jul 2010 18:27 On Jul 23, 3:23 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > BURT wrote: > > On Jul 23, 1:19 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> We all know it's possible to construct theories of 'relativity' where > >> the speed of light is not constant but is still a measured invariant. > >> That's why it's m/s and not dimensionless. > > > When lightening strikes the train moves down the tracks. > > So what happens to the train when darkening strikes? > > Bob M. It turns on the lamp. Mitch Raemsch
From: Pentcho Valev on 25 Jul 2010 01:45 Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. True and consistent with the particle model of light. Maxwell's theory: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer but is independent of the speed of the emitter. A false but physically reasonable hypothesis: it is consistent with the wave model of light. Einstein's special relativity: The speed of light is independent of both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. A physically absurd hypothesis: it is inconsistent with both the particle and wave models of light. Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/ c^2). True and consistent with the particle model of light. Consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka. Einstein's relativity: Between 1907 and 1915, the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. From 1915 on, it varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/ c^2). Later writers (Stephen Hawking, Steve Carlip) teach that the speed of light does not vary at all with the gravitational potential. An inconsistency extremely dangerous for the integrity of scientists' minds. Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say, 2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization. Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand such a blow: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spiritual-living_b_650940.html "Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...) Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments. "One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric] alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not to the physical world." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Bob Myers on 25 Jul 2010 16:41 Pentcho Valev wrote: > Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with both > the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. True and > consistent with the particle model of light. Too bad that this "true" theory doesn't hold up to the simplest of experiments, isn't it? > > Einstein's special relativity: The speed of light is independent of > both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. A > physically absurd hypothesis: it is inconsistent with both the > particle and wave models of light. And being consistent with observation counts for nothing in your universe, huh? That's....umm....interesting. Bob M.
From: Pentcho Valev on 26 Jul 2010 03:07 In Einsteiniana you are allowed to claim that the speed of light is energy dependent, frequency dependent, time dependent, even time-space dependent, but claiming that Einstein's 1905 light postulate: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905 "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is false (that is, claiming that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitting body) is a crime against the civilization: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538 Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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 of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." http://roychristopher.com/joao-magueijo-frontier-cosmology "Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein's most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/ second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesnt buy it. His VSL (Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that he's out of his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London. He's a MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST WHOSE MIND IS BEGINNING TO WANDER." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "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 wrote: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say, 2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization. Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand such a blow: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spiritual-living_b_650940.html "Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...) Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments. "One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric] alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not to the physical world." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 03:49
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message news:805bc995-fbee-45a7-b850-199540fe562a(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > >In Einsteiniana you are allowed to claim that the speed of light is >energy dependent, frequency dependent, time dependent, even time-space >dependent, but claiming that Einstein's 1905 light postulate: Nope. its fixed at c thru any point in spacetime. rest of lies snipped |