|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 22, 10:10*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kost.../05science.pdf Einsteiniana's hypnotists discuss in the journal Science: "Special Relativity Reconsidered. Einstein’s special theory of relativity reaches into every corner of modern physics. So why are so many trying so hard to prove it wrong?....Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong....Yet a growing number of physicists are entertaining the possibility that special relativity is not quite correct....Only a decade ago, questioning special relativity would have struck many as heretical, says Robert Bluhm, a theoretical physicist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. "When I started working on it, I was kind of sheepish about it because I didn’t want to be perceived as a crackpot," Bluhm says. "It seems to really have gone mainstream in the past few years.".....According to legend, Einstein invented special relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment....Why are some physicists so keen to take on Einstein? Answers vary widely." Einstein zombie world: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ The legend mentioned above ("Einstein invented special relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment") is often replaced by another one, created by Einstein himself and equally dishonest: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5640 John Gribbin: "Just as worryingly, given that the story involved is over 100 years old, they fail to give due emphasis to the importance of James Clerk Maxwell's influence on Albert Einstein. Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field define a speed of light that is the same for all observers, and Einstein always said that it was this prediction from those equations of the constancy of the speed of light that led him to his special theory of relativity." The truth: According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. It seems clever Einsteinians now see that both legends are inefficient and that is the reason why the slogan: GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY is so popular in Einsteiniana. Pentcho Valev |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 22, 10:10 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kost.../05science.pdf Einsteiniana's hypnotists discuss in the journal Science: "Special Relativity Reconsidered. Einstein’s special theory of relativity reaches into every corner of modern physics. So why are so many trying so hard to prove it wrong?....Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong....Yet a growing number of physicists are entertaining the possibility that special relativity is not quite correct....Only a decade ago, questioning special relativity would have struck many as heretical, says Robert Bluhm, a theoretical physicist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. "When I started working on it, I was kind of sheepish about it because I didn’t want to be perceived as a crackpot," Bluhm says. "It seems to really have gone mainstream in the past few years.".....According to legend, Einstein invented special relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment....Why are some physicists so keen to take on Einstein? Answers vary widely." Einstein zombie world: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ http://spectator.org/archives/2007/0...tion-and-count Einstein's Revolution, and Counterrevolution By Tom Bethell "I recommend the book. Isaacson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, came to his task with a strong interest in science, inspired by his father; he further enlisted the aid of physicists and Einstein scholars....Special relativity, I fear, will remain a bit mystifying to those who study his chapter on that conundrum; he never quite elucidates the sleight-of-hand involved (Banesh Hoffmann, an earlier biographer, did). But he makes up for it by taking a valiant stab at explaining general relativity in layman's terms, which is rarely attempted....SPECIAL RELATIVITY MAKES VERY Peculiar claims. You and I, next to one another, carry identical rulers and wear exactly synchronized watches. When I move, I see your ruler shrink and your watch slow down. You observe no such changes -- called time dilation and length contraction -- but you do see my ruler shrink and my watch slow down....Isaacson: "Some may be tempted to ask: Which observer is 'right'? Whose watch shows the 'actual' time elapsed? Which length of the rod is 'real'?" Mindful of the perplexing history here, he diplomatically finesses the question ("it is not a question of whether rods actually shrink or time really slows down..."). At the end of a new book called It's About Time, the recently retired physics professor N. David Mermin, who taught relativity at Cornell for decades, asks the same question. He asks of moving sticks and clocks that allegedly shrink and lag: "Do these things really happen, or are they just secondary manifestations... leading to disagreements about what constitutes a valid measurement?" Mermin's answer is one that you might consider surprising in a book published exactly 100 years after Einstein's theory was invented: There is by no means unanimity among practicing physicists on this question, and one frequently finds assertions that, for example, moving clocks appear to run slowly when measured by stationary ones, or that moving sticks appear to shrink. He's right about that. Here is Arthur Eddington, the famous British astronomer who led the 1919 eclipse expedition that confirmed Einstein's prediction about the bending of starlight grazing the sun. Eddington wrote: "The shortening of the rod is true, but it is not really true. It is not a statement about reality (the absolute) but it is a true statement about appearances in our frame of reference."......Isaac Asimov posed the same question about shrinking sticks and lagging clocks in 1966: "Which [observer] is really 'right'? The answer is neither and both," he wrote. Many such examples could be given. There is something unsatisfactory about such a theory, surely. Experts cannot agree whether its most famous predictions -- that time goes more slowly and lengths contract in things that move with respect to an observer -- are real or not.....To me, however, Isaacson's Einstein unexpectedly reinforces a contrarian view that I have long entertained. It is this: that Einstein was right about quantum mechanics, and will eventually be vindicated. Furthermore, sooner or later his much admired notions about relativity will have to be discarded.....As for general relativity, it seems to give the right results, but by an extraordinarily complicated method. It is like Ptolemaic astronomy." Pentcho Valev |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Unlike quantum gravity theorists, string theorists (the silliest
Einsteinians) fiercely defend Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and special relativity. They are even able to discover that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate MORALLY follows from the principle of relativity: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lo...d-special.html Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics. The speed of light according to Newton depended on your speed and the speed of the source; something that was in tension with Maxwell's equations. According to Einstein, it must be a constant for all observers. Einstein preserved everything that was beautiful about the previous theory and reproduced all of its successful predictions; on the other hand, his new theory was compatible with the newer experiments by Morley and Michelson and it ignited the modern 20th century physics.....Many people outside the particle physics community are often confused about the relation between special relativity and general relativity. They imagine that general relativity has rejected special relativity. Quite on the contrary. General relativity is an extension of the principles of special relativity in which all coordinate systems, not just inertial reference frames, are equally good for our formulation of the physical laws. It is a theory of curved space where the laws of special relativity are locally satisfied in all freely falling reference frames. General relativity without the principles of special relativity inside it is no theory of relativity." Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 1 | March 9th 07 07:16 PM |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 4 | March 8th 07 09:02 AM |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 19 | March 8th 07 09:00 AM |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 0 | March 8th 07 12:36 AM |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 0 | March 7th 07 03:43 PM |