EINSTEINIANA: COPERNICUS WRONG, EINSTEIN 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE TRUE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."

This is Einstein zombie world: George Ellis is making career and money
by questioning Copernicus and implicitly assuming that Einstein's 1905
false light postulate is true, other Einsteinians are making career
and money by questioning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and
implicitly assuming Copernicus is right:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"

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.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 energy-dependent 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."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These
writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to
"the other possibility [which] leads in my opinion to a renunciation
of the space-time continuum..."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert 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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev

On 13 Nov, 07:43, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...arth-at-the-he...
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."

This is Einstein zombie world: George Ellis is making career and money
by questioning Copernicus and implicitly assuming that Einstein's 1905
false light postulate is true, other Einsteinians are making career
and money by questioning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and
implicitly assuming Copernicus is right:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"

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.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 energy-dependent 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."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These
writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to
"the other possibility [which] leads in my opinion to a renunciation
of the space-time continuum..."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi...
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert 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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

What explanation do you offer for the supernova observations? As
ukastronomy would say a convincing explanation requires a peer
reviewed paper.

- Ian Parker

Pentcho Valev schrieb:

[nonsense]

Get your keybord repaired.

MfG,
Juergen

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."

That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe
was always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but
GR has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."

That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe was
always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but GR
has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.

What on Earth are you babbling about, Hayek?

On Nov 13, 5:22*pm, Hayek wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."

That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe
was always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but
GR has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.

Your Master John Barrow explains the truth about your daddy:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: “Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them…it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious.”

Pentcho Valev

Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."
That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe was
always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but GR
has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.

What on Earth are you babbling about, Hayek?

It is called gravitational length contraction.

Suppose you make inertia increase in the solar system.
Then the Earth would have to go rotate closer to the sun, since its
inertia has increased. We do not notice this because every molecule gets
smaller, as you know, atoms are almost completely made out of nothing, a
football at the center of a football field, for the nucleus, and a
cherry at the goalpost, for the electron, gives you an idea of the
emptiness of an atom.
Its is not the correct model, but it is easy to see that atoms can
shrink too, just like the solar system.

It's honey, the universe shrunk the kids, but it does not matter,
because everything else shrank too.

So, for objects that are in some gravitational or other contact to each
other, we do not notice anything, but for galaxies far away, we see them
speed away from us, with no apparent cause. Unless of course, you
understand a little GR, and see what is happening.

And there is another anomaly that could be explained by this, the outer
parts of our galaxy rotate much slower than they should. But since there
is a delay of some 40.000 ly before gravity can catch up, then the
inertia of the outer parts increases first, before they can start to
accelerate towards the center of the galaxy.


Uwe Hayek.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."
That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe
was always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but
GR has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.

What on Earth are you babbling about, Hayek?

It is called gravitational length contraction.


Oh, I see. Does that have anything to do with bright green
flying elephants or any other kind of idiotic drool?
Perhaps you can show me some magnetic mass expansion
or electrostatic time combobulations to go with it. (Those
are MY brainchildren that even I do not understand - or need
to.)

Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."
That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe
was always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a billion
times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a billion times
larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of the cosmic soup
that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but
GR has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.
What on Earth are you babbling about, Hayek?
It is called gravitational length contraction.


Oh, I see. Does that have anything to do with bright green
flying elephants or any other kind of idiotic drool?
Perhaps you can show me some magnetic mass expansion
or electrostatic time combobulations to go with it. (Those
are MY brainchildren that even I do not understand - or need
to.)

It is quite easy to see, just increase the inertia of the Earth, and it
will rotate closer to the sun. The only way we would not notice this, is
if everything else shrank along. That is the principle of relativity,
and it holds, for certain aspects. This also means that the Earth now
rotates more slowly around the sun and rotates slower on itself.

But every clock follows inertia, inertia influences every clock, every
atom. And from all this we do not notice a thing, since we ar local
observers, and all our laws of physics remain the same.

It would be like putting a voltage on a closed metal cage with a man
with a voltmeter inside. He cannot measure that potential inside the
cage, he has to connect to a neutral terminal outside first.

Uwe Hayek.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...smic-void.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it
looked like it was speeding up. This startling possibility can be
accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a
price. That price is introducing dark energy - an unseen energy
pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating
expansion. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it
is....That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology
theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to
take
a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in
it.
"If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican
principle
is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start
questioning the Copernican principle."
That is the trouble with anyone interpreting GR, including Einstein.

Were is the gravitational volume contraction going to ?

Einstein did not need a fudge factor lamba, inflation of the universe
was always included in GR.

Suppose that at some point after the big shrink, our gamma was a
billion times lower, then our sun and proxima centauri would be a
billion times larger, and then they would overlap, giving an idea of
the cosmic soup that was about then.

GR does not need dark matter, GR needs someone who understands GR, but
GR has been single since inception, even daddy did not understand his
brainchild.

Uwe Hayek.
What on Earth are you babbling about, Hayek?
It is called gravitational length contraction.


Oh, I see. Does that have anything to do with bright green
flying elephants or any other kind of idiotic drool?
Perhaps you can show me some magnetic mass expansion
or electrostatic time combobulations to go with it. (Those
are MY brainchildren that even I do not understand - or need
to.)

It is quite easy to see, just increase the inertia of the Earth, and it
will rotate closer to the sun.

This may just be a language difficulty but I have no idea
what you are talking about.

Rotates = spins on its own axis.
Revolves = turns about an exterior point.

The Earth rotates on its axis daily and revolves around the Sun yearly.

What are the units of inertia? (or do you mean momentum?)