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

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

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