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




Einsteinians: We Know General Relativity Is Not Right
Sean Carroll: "We know general relativity is not right" https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v=FgpvCxDL7q4
"Not right" is a euphemism  Einstein's general relativity is obviously ABSURD. It predicts that the speed of light falling in gravity DECREASES: "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. [...] If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "...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+Ï†/c^2) where Ï† is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speedlight.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Thus, as Ï† becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s601/601.htm The decrease is a fudge factor. Einstein had to reconcile the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory and the insane "gravitational time dilation" he had fabricated in 1911. The reconciliation is only possible if the speed of falling light absurdly DECREASES  the acceleration is NEGATIVE, (2g) near Earth's surface. Actually the speed of falling light INCREASES (near Earth's surface the acceleration is g), as predicted by Newton's theory: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 217, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf The PoundRebka experiment unequivocally confirmed Newton's prediction: Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests  the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift , you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the manysided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einsteinians: We Know General Relativity Is Not Right
Einsteinians also know that spacetime doesn't exist but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's false constantspeedoflight postulate, and LIGO's ripples in spacetime (ripples SHOULD exist, even though spacetime doesn't, because otherwise LIGO conspirators will have to answer for billions wasted):
Nima ArkaniHamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369 "We've known for decades that spacetime is doomed," says ArkaniHamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ureofphysics Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/responsedetail/26563 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..." https://www.edge.org/responsedetail/25477 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of spacetime. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity  one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...ofspacetime/ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Do Einsteinians Know That Einstein's Relativity Is Evil?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  August 30th 17 05:46 PM 
Einsteinians Contradict Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  March 15th 17 07:31 AM 
EINSTEINIANS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  September 13th 15 02:03 PM 
1 2 3  General Relativity  Marvin the Martian  Policy  0  March 13th 10 02:25 AM 
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  12  January 1st 09 03:20 PM 