THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

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.../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/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "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

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, 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:


As they say around here, Dead on arrival.

Einstein recognized the limits of Newton's physics and a domain which
required its own mathematical theory.

Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

The fact of the matter is Hubble redshift is empirical evidence of
changes in the fabric of space time over cosmological distances: that
relativity "as-is" is only in agreement with observations where Hubble
redshift is NOT observed.

Michael Helland wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, 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:


As they say around here, Dead on arrival.

Einstein recognized the limits of Newton's physics and a domain which
required its own mathematical theory.

Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

The fact of the matter is Hubble redshift is empirical evidence of
changes in the fabric of space time over cosmological distances: that
relativity "as-is" is only in agreement with observations where Hubble
redshift is NOT observed.

Too bad relativity perfectly models the behavior of light and matter over
cosmological time scales.

That you haven't the faintest ****ing idea about cosmology despite 5 years
of posting about it and me giving you hints the whole time just means you
are a clueless ****, not that there's a problem with the theory.

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the emission theory equation
c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with
c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). Here "stupidly" and "dishonestly" refer to the fact
that c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) is not consistent with the gravitational redshift
factor advanced by Einstein himself and experimentally confirmed by
Pound and Rebka:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Since the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field
is a fundamental tenet of Einstein's general relativity, it would be
extremely difficult to camouflage it in a world where scientific
rationality still exists. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world no
camouflage is necessary: Einsteinians simply declare that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field and that's it (believers
sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" all along):

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

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.

Pentcho Valev

Another unambiguous rejection of Einstein's relativity (Einsteinians
do not react, the rest of the world does not care):

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/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.../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/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "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

"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.../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/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "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

On 7/12/10 12:26 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

Yup -- There has never been an observation that contradicts relativity
theory predictions--not one. General and special relativity remain
very fruitful tools for physicist and astrophysicist.

Helland out to read up on the testing and especially the practical
applications of those theories, such as particle accelerators and
global navigation satellite systems.

See also section 401.0 of my Quantum Gravity thread, which has
somewhat analogous results about Bohr-Sommerfeld vs Dirac theory
related to recent research from Serbia.

Osher Doctorow

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, 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:

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, 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.../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:

Complete nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Not a lie; fact.

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed.

No particular reason *to* discuss it. It's perfectly obvious.

The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

There *is* no sensible analogy between light and cannonballs.


Mark L. Fergerson

On 7/12/2010 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho wrote:
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

Complete nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

Don't let a little thing like a lack of reading comprehension get in the
way of his victory dance. He finally got a respected scientific journal
to agree with his point of view, even if it was in agreement for one
out-of-context sentence, and that sentence was also completely
misinterpreted.

Yousuf Khan