Prev: why isnt sqrt(x^2 + y^2) a polynomial?
Next: infinity on the small scale between two integers and infinity on the large scale #628 Correcting Math
From: Neon on 5 Jul 2010 10:40
On Jul 5, 2:51 pm, Neon <Neon_Ki...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:26 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Einsteiniana's fundamental nightmare can be formulated in the
> > following way:
>
> > Judging from the frequency shift measured in a gravitational field,
> > the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer in perfect
> > accordance with Newton's emission theory of light (that is, Einstein's
> > 1905 light postulate is false).
>
> > The nightmare is so horrible that sometimes Einsteinians lose control
> > and expose the fundamental idiocy of Einstein's general relativity:
>
> > THE FUNDAMENTAL IDIOCY OF EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY: The frequency
> > varies in perfect accordance with Newton's emission theory of light
> > but the speed of light doesn't - it varies faster by a factor of two:
>
> >http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm
> > "In the general theory of relativity the predicted frequency shift for
> > light in a gravitational field is the same as Einstein had predicted
> > in 1911. However, in the 1915 theory, the amount of deflection which a
> > ray of light is predicted to undergo when passing by a gravitating
> > body is twice as much as he had predicted in 1911."
>
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > (FREQUENCY) = (SPEED OF LIGHT) / (WAVELENGTH)
>
> > If the observer stands on the surface of a celestial body with a
> > substantial gravitational field, or if, in the absence of a
> > gravitational field, the observer accelerates towards the emitter,
> > then he finds the frequency of coming light INCREASING, and this is
> > experimentally confirmed. The above formula allows two (incompatible)
> > implications:
>
> > 1. The wavelength is constant while the speed of light increases with
> > the frequency. This is fatal for Einstein's relativity and, if a
> > prophesy made by Einstein in 1954 is taken seriously, for contemporary
> > physics as a whole.
>
> > 2. The speed of light is constant while the wavelength decreases with
> > the frequency. This contradicts Einstein's general relativity where
> > the speed of light in a gravitational field is VARIABLE; moreover,
> > there can be nothing sillier than a wavelength varying with the speed
> > of the observer:
>
> >http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> > "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> > The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> > frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> > ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> > to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
>
> >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would .now
> > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
> To make it easy? Could Iwrite one formula on a strip of cardboard and
> make the other out of plaster or clay?

"Quick! Get me a jelly mould I've found another 2d !"
From: Pentcho Valev on 6 Jul 2010 01:39
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Nowadays the statement "the speed of light is variable in the presence
of a gravitational field" implies nothing for the majority of
physicists (rationality in science does not exist anymore) but in 1907
Einstein knew that if the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, then it varies with the speed of the observer as well (that
is, his 1905 light postulate is false):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "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."

The fundamental nightmare has always been forcing high priests in
Einsteiniana to undermine, camouflage, even deny the crucial role of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Here is the latest attempt:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/23339fd7ed3b1b58
Tom Roberts (the most famous Einsteinian on sci.physics.relativity):
You absolutely must have this postulate:

1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of
physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these
changes be referred to the one or the other of any two inertial
frames.

Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR
[#], one can derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and
Lorentz groups (this illustrates the power of group theory). Only the
third survives experimental tests, and is known as SR.

[#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
* the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
* space is homogeneous and isotropic
* time is homogeneous
* clocks and rulers have no memory

Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an
EXPERIMENTAL issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be
equal to the constant c in the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the
identification of the constant c in the Lorentz transforms with the
constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then leads to the unification
of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR was derived from
an assumption of that unification).
__________________________________
End of Tom Roberts' camouflage

Previous attempts by Tom Roberts and other high priests to undermine,
camouflage, even deny the crucial role of Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate:

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.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."

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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: why isnt sqrt(x^2 + y^2) a polynomial?
Next: infinity on the small scale between two integers and infinity on the large scale #628 Correcting Math