Prev: Quantum Gravity 402.0: 1/2 Yields Quantum Gravity, Unification, Supersymmetry, Cosmology, Dark Energy, etc.
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.1: "Matter" as Contraction, "Space" as Expansion
From: Pentcho Valev on 17 Jul 2010 02:56
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

That is, the speed of light may depend on or be independent of the
speed of the light source - in either case Einsteinians should sing
"Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" and criticise Newton the Villain:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond was the first to discover that, even if the
speed of light varies in accordance with the prediction of Newton the
Villain's emission theory of light (c'=c+v), this will not shake in
any way Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Jul 2010 02:51
The claim that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is independent of the
constancy/variability of the speed of light (truth/falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is obviously idiotic and yet too many
Einsteinians (some quite clever) desperately teach that (Mitchell J.
Feigenbaum and Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond have already been quoted):

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

True, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you can safely teach
anything but still openly teaching that the falsehood of Einstein's
1905 light postulate "need not be a problem for relativity" is
strange. Perhaps clever Einsteinians fear that their secret belief in
Newton's emission theory of light cannot be kept secret any longer:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
EINSTEIN'S 1909 CONFESSION: "A large body of facts shows undeniably
that light has certain fundamental properties that are better
explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation
theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the
development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light
that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission
theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this
belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the
composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the
electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state
of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the
light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is
conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical
medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover,
this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual
property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the
absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "And then, in June, Einstein
completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story:
Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special
relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red
Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes
a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as
wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each
problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 19 Jul 2010 01:58
As I said in my previous message, clever Einsteinians secretly believe
in Newton's emission theory of light - it is relatively easy to infer
the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate as one synchronously
analyses the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton (a very clever Einsteinian): "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts (an Einsteinian relatively clever and famous on
sci.physics.relativity): "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is
compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way.
The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission
theories, but not relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."
_____________________________
end of quotation

On the other hand, clever Einsteinians know that that the adoption of
c'=c+v, the emission theory equation showing how the speed of light
varies with the speed of the emitter, would destroy Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world completely (Einsteinians would not be able to make
any money in a world which is not schizophrenic). So, although the
rallying cry "Back to Newton" is not forbidden in Einsteiniana,
Einsteinians preserve the schizophreny by calling in on Lorentz and
borrowing crucial idiocies (e.g. "Lorentz invariance" or "length
contraction"):

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Relativity-Space-time-structure-perspective/dp/0199275831
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philsophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation. (...)
Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the
heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of
relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself
became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the
limitations of what he called the 'principle theory' approach inspired
by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and
philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts
about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behaviour of rigid
bodies and clocks in motion in the kinematical part of his great
paper, and suggested that the dynamical understanding of length
contraction and time dilation intimated by the immediate precursors of
Einstein is more fundamental. (...) Physical Relativity is the well-
deserved co-recipient of the Lakatos Prize for Philosophy of Science."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "One then appeals to the relativity
principle again - the principle entails that these coordinated
contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of
velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial
isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those
encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that
rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the
two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an
explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around.
It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is
consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to
have the same speed in each inertial frame."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Quantum Gravity 402.0: 1/2 Yields Quantum Gravity, Unification, Supersymmetry, Cosmology, Dark Energy, etc.
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.1: "Matter" as Contraction, "Space" as Expansion