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

Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 20th 16, 11:40 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011
Default Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order ? ?A, then B, then C ? someone moving ?at a different velocity could have seen ?it a different way ? C, then B, then A. ?In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now".. And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - 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 [Lee] Smolin."

Special relativity is the root of all the evil because a fundamental postulate is false:

"At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer..."

The speed of light cannot be independent of the motion of the observer. If it was, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The only explanation that can save Einstein's relativity is obviously idiotic:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light. In order for the speed of the light to remain constant (and Einstein's relativity to be gloriously saved), the motion of the observer must force the wavelength of the incoming light to shift from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v).

Pentcho Valev
Old February 21st 16, 07:31 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011
Default Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

Poincar and Ritz would have saved physics from Einstein but both died prematurely:

Henri Poincar: "Lorentz could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion [c'=c+v : the emission theory's postulate!] than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter."

"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences..." (...) Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und rtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Pentcho Valev
Old March 13th 16, 10:27 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,011
Default Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

A debate has just started he

"Do you think Einstein should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity?"

I voted NO of course. Here is my argument (in case it gets deleted):

EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS Einstein's 1905 second postulate was false - actually the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source. He camouflaged the falsehood by disfiguring space and time, and so physics became the Harry Potter science as we know it today (moving object gets shorter, traveling twin returns younger etc.).

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
EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS CORRUPT DEDUCTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 June 29th 15 01:30 PM
FATAL ACCELERATION IN EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 29th 14 10:46 AM
SPECIAL RELATIVITY : THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 2nd 13 06:49 AM
FQXi AGAINST EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 11 June 11th 11 08:10 AM
Heuristics in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 8th 10 09:29 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM.

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.