If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 



Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein
1905 light postulate is false so special relativity is just a dangerous relict of a bygone era and should be abandoned: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. 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." Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298299: "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin] devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais, comme nous l'avons vu, celleci repose sur deux principes independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement. (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne soit plus constante." http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energydependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." However Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) also know that, in general relativity, Einstein secretly abandoned his 1905 false light postulate and reintroduced VARIABLE speed of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD." http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html "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." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (noninertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." So Einsteinians will continue to refer to and worship general relativity but, on the other hand, they will force Einstein zombie world to forget the dangerous special relativity (and Einstein zombie world will forget it very soon): http://www.newscientist.com/article/...bigbang.html NEW SCIENTIST: "The theory that the recycled universe was based on, called loop quantum cosmology (LQC), had managed to illuminate the very birth of the universe  something even Einstein's general theory of relativity fails to do....LQC is in fact the first tangible application of another theory called loop quantum gravity, which cunningly combines Einstein's theory of gravity with quantum mechanics....When the team used LQC to look at the behaviour of our universe long after expansion began, they were in for a shock  it started to collapse, challenging everything we know about the cosmos. "This was a complete departure from general relativity," says Singh, who is now at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. "It was blatantly wrong." Ashtekar took it hard. "I was pretty depressed," he says. "It didn't bode well for LQC." However, after more feverish mathematics, Ashtekar, Singh and Pawlowski solved the problem. Early versions of the theory described the evolution of the universe in terms of quanta of area, but a closer look revealed a subtle error. Ashtekar, Singh and Pawlowski corrected this and found that the calculations now involved tiny volumes of space. It made a crucial difference. Now the universe according to LQC agreed brilliantly with general relativity...." Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Amazing what mental illness can do to a person. 
#3




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
How fiercely hypnotists force Einstein zombie world to forget
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...elativity.html Why Einstein was wrong about relativity 29 October 2008 Mark Buchanan NEW SCIENTIST "Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York, begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with light  whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory for it." What's more, Feigenbaum claims in a paper on the arXiv preprint server that has yet to be peerreviewed, if only the father of relativity, Galileo Galilei, had known a little more modern mathematics back in the 17th century, he could have got as far as Einstein did (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234). "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says. "But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels at the same speed. 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. (...) The result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic, purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in relativity is a historical accident. (...) The idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small  less than 1049 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity." Pentcho Valev 
#4




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
"Sjouke Burry" wrote in message ... Pentcho Valev wrote: Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Amazing what mental illness can do to a person. I agree. Look what it has done to you, turned you into a snivelling dork called burrynulnulfour. 
#5




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 11, 12:36*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite speed of light. so special relativity is just a dangerous relict of a bygone era and should be abandoned: It has been, except as a stepping stone to current research... just like Newton is, and of course as a strawman argument for those than like to simply argue incessantly. David A. Smith 
#6




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 11, 10:05*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
How fiercely hypnotists force Einstein zombie world to forget Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html Why Einstein was wrong about relativity 29 October 2008 Mark Buchanan NEW SCIENTIST "Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York, begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with light  whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory for it." What's more, Feigenbaum claims in a paper on the arXiv preprint server that has yet to be peerreviewed, if only the father of relativity, Galileo Galilei, had known a little more modern mathematics back in the 17th century, he could have got as far as Einstein did (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234). "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says. "But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels at the same speed. 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. (...) The result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic, purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in relativity is a historical accident. (...) The idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small  less than 1049 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity." Of course, "Relativity independent of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate" is old camouflage used by Einstein criminal cult; JeanMarc LevyLeblond is the author but there are also a few plagiarists: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf JeanMarc LevyLeblond "De la relativite à la chronogeometrie 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 lumiere est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse infime, mais nonnulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie ellememe en seraitelle invalidee ? 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 economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf JeanMarc LevyLeblond: "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 spacetime 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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/EinsteinsRela.../dp/9810238886 JongPing 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 longstanding 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." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2 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)." Pentcho Valev 
#7




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false so special relativity is just a dangerous relict of a bygone era and should be abandoned: [snip 140 lines of crap] idiot http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html Special Relativity for yard apes http://www.eduobservatory.org/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Experimental constraints on Special Relativity Since SR is GR with Big G set to zero, http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr20063/ http://arXiv.org/abs/grqc/0311039 Experimental constraints on General Relativity idiot GPS idiot Pentcho Valev So sad.  Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 
#8




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
"dlzc" wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite speed of light. =============================================== Zombie Smiffy is one of the silliest. Not even the silly zombie Maxwell with his magic aether realised ALL speeds are relative. 
#9




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 11, 12:31*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"dlzc" wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite speed of light. =============================================== Zombie Smiffy is one of the silliest. Not even the silly zombie Maxwell with his magic aether realised ALL speeds are relative. I tink that in this discusion are given enough arguments that the light is the cause of the apparition of Special relativity. But there is not pointed out that the Lorentz transformation being reciprocally linked with light has allowed the errant conclusions about the the relativity of length of time etc. About the errant General relativity the only cause is the Principle of the equivalence. To show that this conclusion is corect I give the folowing mathematical :equesion" considering the Newton laws: [(first law, a=0)+(sec.law,Fi=ma)+(Fe=Fi)+(Fg=kM.m/r^2)=(principle of equivalence). Because of this replacement we have science which treats the problems at the earth conditions and science which treats problems in departed cosmos. 
#10




GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY
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 MichelsonMorley 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 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 08:16 PM 
RELATIVITY  The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory  Bill Sheppard  Misc  4  March 8th 07 10:02 AM 
RELATIVITY  The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory  Bill Sheppard  Misc  19  March 8th 07 10:00 AM 
RELATIVITY  The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory  Bill Sheppard  Misc  0  March 8th 07 01:36 AM 
RELATIVITY  The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory  Bill Sheppard  Misc  0  March 7th 07 04:43 PM 