THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Are space and time separate issues that can be treated in a parallel way.
Next: number example to show how Infinitude of Twin Primes works #651 Correcting Math
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jul 2010 01:22 Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared." (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...") Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Mark Earnest on 12 Jul 2010 01:41 On Jul 12, 12:22 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis > that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs > does: Could you be a little more concise? If you want to explain relativity so much, tell it right here and now in language everyone can understand. If only the esteemed colleagues know, what good are they?
From: spudnik on 12 Jul 2010 14:38 it's just Norton's bot, as far as I can tell, without resaerching it ... googoling would be way too much positive feedback, and that's unpositive. anyway, what difference between lightwaves and rocks o'light, vis-a-vu the curvature of space (as was uncovered by You now who & you know whO-oo, in the 18th and BCE centuries (or 2nd and Minus Oneth millenia ?-) > If only the esteemed colleagues know, what good are they? thus&so: usually, it's considered to be perpendicular to all of the three spatial directions; at least, in some abstract sense. anyway, I invented the terminology; so ,there. : here:http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html & here:http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill- FinalPa... --BP's cap™ call the group! association of brokers http://tarpley.net
From: Pentcho Valev on 15 Jul 2010 03:03 Another unambiguous rejection of Einstein's relativity (Einsteinians do not react, the rest of the world does not care): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation Stephan J. G. Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of the West Indies "Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at speed v << c towards or away from a stationary source intercepts electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency change arises because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic radiation at a relative speed c ± v that is different from the light speed c. Though special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this light speed variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly contradicts the light speed invariance requirement of special relativity." The silence surrounding Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is equivalent to the silence surrounding the equality 2+2=5 in Big Brother's schizophrenic world: 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?" Pentcho Valev wrote: Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared." (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...") Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 16 Jul 2010 02:52
"The end of Einstein's relativity" does not mean that Einstein's relativity is no longer a money-spinner: http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html "The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration." http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage." "The end of Einstein's relativity" simply means that Einsteiniana's priests will exercise their priesthood somewhere else: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." Pentcho Valev wrote: Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared." (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...") Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |