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




Einstein Will Be Replaced by... Newton!
"...the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma...einsteinwrong/
Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431 "You want to go back to a notion of spacetime that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about spacetime that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveauNewtonian." At 53:29 he http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 Insofar as their speed is concerned, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles. Actually this is a wellestablished truth but no one cares (posttruth science): "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form  particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave  like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QEDStrangeT.../dp/0691024170 "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the MichelsonMorley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelsonâ€“Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c Â± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory "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 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 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 If the next, Einsteinfree version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom "The speed of light is constant" will be replaced with the correct axiom "For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant". I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einstein Will Be Replaced by... Newton!
The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, which implies that Einstein's spacetime doesn't exist and neither do gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). LIGO conspirators look powerful, even invincible, but in the long run they are doomed:
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 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/ "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 Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
EINSTEIN OR NEWTON ?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  November 23rd 14 10:21 AM 
Einstein, Poincaré, Newton  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  9  November 1st 11 12:04 PM 
Newton still towers over Einstein  Androcles[_33_]  Astronomy Misc  9  September 2nd 10 02:51 AM 
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  October 3rd 08 09:38 AM 
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  September 1st 07 01:07 PM 