THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE OTHER EINSTEIN

Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

However the Royal Society did not explain this shocking difference in
greatness. Simultaneously hypnotists in Einstein cult announced the
existence of an extremely dangerous villain called "the other
Einstein", a villain able not only to discredit the miracles the
original Einstein had introduced but also to destroy the whole farce
and money-spinner called "contemporary physics":

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
The other Einstein: "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."

So the existential question is: Did the Royal Society know about the
existence of the villain when they discovered that Newton was much
greater than Einstein? It seems they did:

September 9 2001:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts : "A GROUP of
astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to
govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity,
must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking
and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work
for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to
exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT
THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles a second in
a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact
of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in
Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Note that, as far as light is concerned, the "continuous structures"
the other Einstein refers to are the light waves whereas particles of
light are of course "discontinuous structures". And the particles of
light, like other particles, accelerate in a gravitational field and,
in the absence of a gravitational field, have a speed c'=c+v, where c
is the speed of the particles relative to the light source and v is
the relative speed of the light source and the observer.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

How do you measure greatness?

[snip more nonsense from the pentcho troll]

On 30 July, 12:26, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

ups.com...

Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

How do you measure greatness?

[snip more nonsense from the pentcho troll]

I somehow feel it. For instance, when I saw Master Tom Roberts'
discovery:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
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)."

I felt that was Absolute Greatness and immediately called Master Tom
Roberts "The Albert Einstein of our generation". Anyone who can
discover that special relativity will remain intact even if "light in
vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform", that is, that Einstein's second postulate is redundant, is
Absolutely Great. I had a small problem: it turned out that a French
intellect had made an identical discovery much earlier:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "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 non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse
limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le
"second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-
meme en serait-elle 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."

I would admit that the French intellect is also Absolutely Great but I
cannot call him "the Albert Einstein of our generation". Just because
Master Tom Roberts has already been declared the Albert Einstein of
our generation and one Albert Einstein per generation is enough.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 30, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

What this actually says is that polls of the public and of
scientists rank Newton higher on the questions they asked.

And I'd give a slight edge to Newton as well.

So what? Are you interpreting this to mean that Newton's
theories are somehow more accurate? Einstein's theories were
formulated at the end of nearly two-hundred centuries of remarkable
experimental progress, especially in the field of electromagnetic
theory that was unknown to Newton's time. Newton did a fantastic
job of explaining the data known to him, and Einstein did a fantastic
job of explaining the new data known to him which Newton's
theories could not account for.

- Randy

On Jul 30, 8:39 am, Randy Poe wrote:
Einstein's theories were
formulated at the end of nearly two-hundred centuries

Aargh. My first major obligatory typo of the day. Started
with "two centuries", edited it to read "nearly two hundred
years" and ended up with the above nonsense.

- Randy

On 30 July, 14:39, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

What this actually says is that polls of the public and of
scientists rank Newton higher on the questions they asked.

And I'd give a slight edge to Newton as well.

So what? Are you interpreting this to mean that Newton's
theories are somehow more accurate?

This depends on the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2):

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 (non-inertial) 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."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently
referred, 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."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

If Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct, Newton's
theories are more accurate. If the equation is wrong and should be
replaced with, say, c'=c, then Einstein's theories are more accurate.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 30, 11:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 30 July, 14:39, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 30, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

What this actually says is that polls of the public and of
scientists rank Newton higher on the questions they asked.

And I'd give a slight edge to Newton as well.

So what? Are you interpreting this to mean that Newton's
theories are somehow more accurate?

This depends on the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2):

I suspect you're attributing a prediction to Einstein
which he doesn't actually make.

At any rate, so far in every case where Einsteinian
and Galilean relativity make different predictions,
Einsteinian relativity has gotten the answer correct.

No exceptions.

- Randy

On 30 July, 19:12, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 30 July, 14:39, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 30, 4:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Some time ago the Royal Society suddenly discovered that Newton was
much greater than Einstein:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880

What this actually says is that polls of the public and of
scientists rank Newton higher on the questions they asked.

And I'd give a slight edge to Newton as well.

So what? Are you interpreting this to mean that Newton's
theories are somehow more accurate?

This depends on the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2):

I suspect you're attributing a prediction to Einstein
which he doesn't actually make.

Which prediction do you mean? That the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential or that this variability obeys the equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2)? More teaching from your masters:

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.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."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._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."

Pentcho Valev asked in sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered:
"Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime)." Tom Roberts

Pentcho Valev

"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
: In article . com,
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: September 9 2001:
: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts : "A GROUP of
: astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to
: govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity,
: must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking
: and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say ...
:
: SUCH LAWS MAY ONLY WORK FOR OUR UNIVERSE BUT NOT IN OTHERS
:
: ...that are now also thought to exist.....among the ideas facing
revision
: is einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same-
: 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so
: concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a
: private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."
:
: In view of the phrase in CAPITALS I fail to see what all the fuss is
about!
:
: --
: Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
: Buckingham, ENGLAND
: Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j
:
Failing to see is quite a common complaint among Usenet posters.
Try going to an optician.

"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
: In article . com,
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: September 9 2001:
: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts : "A GROUP of
: astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to
: govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity,
: must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking
: and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say ...
:
: SUCH LAWS MAY ONLY WORK FOR OUR UNIVERSE BUT NOT IN OTHERS
:
: ...that are now also thought to exist.....among the ideas facing
revision
: is einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same-
: 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so
: concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a
: private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."
:
: In view of the phrase in CAPITALS I fail to see what all the fuss is
about!
:
: --
: Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
: Buckingham, ENGLAND
: Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j
:
Failing to see is quite a common complaint among Usenet posters.
Try going to an optician.
I fail to see two stars for Algol even with HST.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm