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

GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 7th 07, 07:35 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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 anti-Einstein or
beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult
and prolong the agony.

Pentcho Valev

Ads
  #2  
Old June 7th 07, 07:38 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

What about the error that something must have mass to have energy ?

-y

  #3  
Old June 7th 07, 09:46 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old June 7th 07, 11:02 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Sue...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default 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 anti-Einstein or
beyond-Einstein 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  
Old June 7th 07, 01:13 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default 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  
Old June 7th 07, 05:42 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Eduardo Fuctardo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

*PLONK*
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

"I, Pedro Valve Knobber, be a stupid caps-lock google-poster"'






  #7  
Old June 7th 07, 11:57 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old June 8th 07, 06:50 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old June 8th 07, 12:40 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default 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  
Old June 8th 07, 01:42 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default 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

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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.