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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity:
Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" is FALSE. Other mistakes, camouflages, plagiarisms etc. can be regarded as secondary. If the scientific community wants to get rid of Einstein's relativity (there are signs showing that it does), it should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an explicit and universally accepted replacement, any antiEinstein or beyondEinstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult and prolong the agony. Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
What about the error that something must have mass to have energy ?
y 
#3




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Jun 7, 8:38 am, Y wrote:
What about the error that something must have mass to have energy ? y you should be thinking about photons : mass=0 and energy=hbar*omega. Does E=mc2 apply ? Max Abraham uses this Einstein expression to derive the momentum of light... which is a controversed formulation... So if somebody have an idea... 
#4




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Jun 7, 3:35 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[...] draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an explicit and universally accepted replacement, any antiEinstein or beyondEinstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult and prolong the agony. Pentcho Valev If the Einstein's relativity if retired, you'll have to find something else to complain about. Better the devil you know... Sue... 
#5




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com... There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" is FALSE. Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? Or are you just posting so you can reply to yourself again? 
#6




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
*PLONK*
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com... "I, Pedro Valve Knobber, be a stupid capslock googleposter"' 
#7




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...] The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error. Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR), and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to local measurements. shrug Tom Roberts 
#8




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Tom Roberts wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...] The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error. Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR), and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to local measurements. shrug Tom Roberts OK Roberts Roberts I agree Einstein criminal cult has learned something but then let us analyse this something: Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Pentcho Valev wrote: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? 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 Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime. Pentcho Valev 
#9




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com... Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. You keep saying that, and despite request to do so, have not shown that that is actually the case.. can you show your derivation of this? Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime. Which accelerated observed and moving light source are we talking about here? Why do you want Tom to show this .. don't you have the equations yourself? And what's this stupid Roberts Roberts nonsense .. you know it simply makes you appear even more ridiculous, don't you? 
#10




GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com... There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" is FALSE. Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? Michaelson Morley. In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting body. Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse to accept. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For proof that sagnac and MM cannot be explained by the creationist style theory of SR see sagnac simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
EINSTEIN RELATIVITY: THE UNAMBIGUOUS AMBIGUITY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  May 22nd 07 08:11 AM 
LARSON IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG  [email protected]  Astronomy Misc  2  January 30th 07 04:55 PM 
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity  physicsajay  Astronomy Misc  38  November 8th 06 08:19 PM 
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity  AJAY SHARMA  Policy  11  November 7th 06 01:46 AM 
Einstein "Theory of Relativity"  Lester Solnin  Solar  7  April 13th 05 08:17 AM 