A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 31st 13, 08:44 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011

New Scientist: "Sorry, Albert: Physics that challenges Einstein"

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million grant from the National Science Foundation to continue their work on finding an answer."

What If Einstein Was Wrong? Brian Clegg, Jim Al-Khalili: "It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Einstein could get it wrong, because science is not about absolute truth..."

"Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

New Scientist: "ADVANCES in physics often result from observations that don't fit theory: the Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, saw no universal ether, paving the way for Einstein's relativity. That successful theory is itself hard to square with one of the most universal observations of all. Relativity, and many subsequent physical theories, kill off the notion that time flows - but every human alive will argue otherwise. Well, almost every human: some physicists are resigned to the "block universe", with its static time. Others, however, feel that any theory that doesn't accommodate our experience must be flawed..."

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back?"

"...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."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..."
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein."
"C'est pas la vôtre?"
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava is challenging this notion... (...) Now Horava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and - in physics terms, at least - sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein's tenet that time is always relative, never absolute. Horava's controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute - an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein's subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity. "Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Horava."

Ordinary Einsteinians leave the sinking ship in panic:


Einsteiniana's high priests leave the sinking ship in a well-organized way:


Pentcho Valev
Old December 31st 13, 11:57 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011

Why are Einsteinians leaving the sinking ship so desperately? It takes not just stupidity but insanity to continue to believe that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the light pulses start hitting him more frequently (the frequency he measures increases) not because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer has increased (in violation of special relativity) but for some other reason:

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km). A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f=c/d:


An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d:


"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev
Old January 1st 14, 12:46 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km) towards the observer/receiver. Relative to the observer/receiver, the pulses have speed c and the frequency the observer/receiver measures is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:


It takes not just insanity but cretinism to believe that, as the observer starts moving away from the light source, the light pulses start hitting him less frequently (the frequency he measures decreases) not because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer has decreased from c to c'=c-v (in violation of special relativity), but because the distance between the pulses has increased from d to d'=cd/(c-v), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:


"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Sane scientists know that the decrease in frequency can only be caused by a decrease in the speed of light relative to the observer:

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, then the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is c'=c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

Einstein's relativity is obviously idiotic and the "embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier" is not just embarrassing - it sounds like a criminal accusation:

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev
Old January 1st 14, 12:24 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011

Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 361-367. ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one can find stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.]

And if Bryan Wallace was right? A century of farce just because in 1905 Einstein found it profitable to replace the true tenet of Newton's emission theory of light (the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the emitter, c'=c+v) with its false antithesis (the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the emitter, c'=c), originally a tenet of the ether theory? Can a single false assumption destroy a whole branch of science?

Noteworthily, Einstein made a similar suggestion in 1954:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

That is, according to Einstein, the assumption that physics can be based "upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" might have killed physics. It is by no means obvious that he euphemistically referred to his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate but the following quotations suggest that this might well have been the case:

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev
Old March 31st 14, 06:46 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011

Desperate schizophrenic Einsteinians:

Problems with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

Pentcho Valev

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 December 27th 11 03:40 PM
FAT RATS HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 19th 08 11:49 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.