THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

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

http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program
ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11]
6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France

Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that
Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once
the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably
gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light":

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use. (...) Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light." (...) An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis. (...)
This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain
all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did
not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its
emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed,
his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission
theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any
lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of
light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be
obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. (...) The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

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:

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."

Hey, Valev. Take another look at the article.

I wrote them and pointed out the possibility that it might be
misunderstood, as you did.

Nature thoughtfully swapped "light" and "heavy" to eliminate the
possibility of confusion. The sentence now reads:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial — on Earth, it accelerates heavy
and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

This is the second time I've had to write to a publication to
clarify their writing *just* *for* *you*.

You're welcome.


Mark L. Fergerson

Einstein's children in France used to denounce Poincaré's principle of
diversity of theoretical representations and fiercely defend
Einstein's principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations:

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/memb...gol%20_amp.pdf
Olivier Darrigol: "Seul Einstein eut l'audace de déclarer que les
divers référentiels inertiels étaient entièrement équivalents, que les
temps et les espaces mesurés dans chacun d'entre eux étaient tous sur
le même pied. Il se persuada d'une exacte validité du principe de
relativité vers 1901, avant d'avoir lu Poincaré. Contrairement à ce
dernier, il accompagnait cette conviction du rejet du concept d'éther,
au nom d'un principe épistémologique d'univocité des représentations
théoriques : à un seul et même phénomène devait correspondre une seule
représentation théorique."

Einstein's relativity has come to an end but Einstein's children have
to eat - they are Poincaré's children now and denounce Einstein's
principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations and fiercely
defend Poincaré's principle of diversity of theoretical
representations:

http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article570
Olivier Darrigol: "L'étonnante diversité des descriptions théoriques
utilisées dans la physique d'hier et d'aujourd'hui est souvent perçue
comme une faiblesse temporaire qu'il faudra corriger dans un état plus
avancé de cette science. A l'opposé de cette attitude, les héritiers
de Maxwell, de Boltzmann et de Poincaré soulignent les vertus
épistémiques d'une diversité des descriptions et considèrent que
décrire est un acte dont la dynamique transcende les objets originels
de la description. Nous proposons de les suivre en explorant la
manière dont les divers modes, niveaux et ordres de description
dépendent des cultures scientifiques dans lesquels ils apparaissent et
affectent notre capacité à résoudre des problèmes concrets, nous
poussent à étudier de nouvelles sortes de phénomènes et suggèrent de
nouveaux objets physiques."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program
ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11]
6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France

Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that
Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once
the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably
gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light":

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use. (...) Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light." (...) An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis. (...)
This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain
all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did
not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its
emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed,
his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission
theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any
lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of
light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be
obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. (...) The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

Pentcho Valev

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Jul 12, 12:18*am, 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


Oh, PV, PV, PV.
Only you would think that if light is subject to gravitational
deflection (a la Newton), then it must ALSO be ballistic (a la
Newton).

It is.....proved by an analysis of variable star curves....the only real test
of c+v

After all, if it exhibits ONE Newtonian property, then it must exhibit
them ALL, eh?


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

The current fashion in Einsteiniana: Hinting at the end of Einstein's
relativity by denouncing the space-time idiocy:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a
speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was
1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying
to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as
special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster
and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by
itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski
proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent
reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can
be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It
is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is
right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) Something has to give in
this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the
smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.ph...s-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he
at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was
first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture
delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician
Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of
physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the
mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and
it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as
spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for
spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper
about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st
century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured
by the spacetime mirage. (...) What he and other pioneers on the
spacetime frontiers have seen coming is an intellectual crisis. The
approaches of the past seem insufficiently powerful to meet the
challenges remaining from Einstein's century - such as finding a
harmonious mathematical marriage for relativity with quantum mechanics
the way Minkowski unified space and time. And more recently physicists
have been forced to confront the embarrassment of not knowing what
makes up the vast bulk of matter and energy in the universe. They
remain in the dark about the nature of the dark energy that drives the
universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Efforts to explain the
dark energy's existence and intensity have been ambitious but
fruitless. To Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that it's
time for physics to drop old prejudices about how nature's laws ought
to be and search instead for how they really are. And that might mean
razing Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems
to me like it's a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht,
where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very
differently."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY
Harvey R. Brown, Oliver Pooley
"It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep
structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of
relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical
community."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France. (...) It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes. (...) I was, I
confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion.
It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how
the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness
in such rigid doses. (...) Now consider the passage of time. Is there
a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss
it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative
one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like
to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have
captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by
the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Pentcho Valev

The end of Einstein's relativity was officially announced in the
following coded way:

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

Translation: "Brothers Einsteinians, we are on a sinking ship! "The
passage of time is an illusion" is a consequence of Einstein's 1905
light postulate, and the falsehood of the consequence implies
falsehood of the postulate! You should quit working on Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and become experts in climate science for instance."

A previous confession by a high priest in Einsteiniana signalling the
end of Einstein's relativity was much more camouflaged and very few
Einsteinians took notice of it:

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