THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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
Michelson-Morley 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."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:


As they say around here, Dead on arrival.

Einstein recognized the limits of Newton's physics and a domain which
required its own mathematical theory.

Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

The fact of the matter is Hubble redshift is empirical evidence of
changes in the fabric of space time over cosmological distances: that
relativity "as-is" is only in agreement with observations where Hubble
redshift is NOT observed.

See also section 401.0 of my Quantum Gravity thread, which has
somewhat analogous results about Bohr-Sommerfeld vs Dirac theory
related to recent research from Serbia.

Osher Doctorow

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

Michael Helland wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:


As they say around here, Dead on arrival.

Einstein recognized the limits of Newton's physics and a domain which
required its own mathematical theory.

Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

The fact of the matter is Hubble redshift is empirical evidence of
changes in the fabric of space time over cosmological distances: that
relativity "as-is" is only in agreement with observations where Hubble
redshift is NOT observed.

Too bad relativity perfectly models the behavior of light and matter over
cosmological time scales.

That you haven't the faintest ****ing idea about cosmology despite 5 years
of posting about it and me giving you hints the whole time just means you
are a clueless ****, not that there's a problem with the theory.

On Jul 11, 10:18*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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
Michelson-Morley 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."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

Complete nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Not a lie; fact.

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed.

No particular reason *to* discuss it. It's perfectly obvious.

The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

There *is* no sensible analogy between light and cannonballs.


Mark L. Fergerson

On 7/12/2010 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho wrote:
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

Complete nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

Don't let a little thing like a lack of reading comprehension get in the
way of his victory dance. He finally got a respected scientific journal
to agree with his point of view, even if it was in agreement for one
out-of-context sentence, and that sentence was also completely
misinterpreted.

Yousuf Khan

Einstein's Dingleberry "Yousuf Khan" wrote:
Einstein's Dingleberry Mark L. Fergerson, wrote:
The noble thinker Pentcho wrote:
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

Fergie wrote.... :
.... Complete nonsense. [.. Fergie does so regularly... ahahaha]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Fergie wrote:
Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Don't let a little thing like a lack of reading comprehension get in the
way of his victory dance. He finally got a respected scientific journal
to agree with his point of view, even if it was in agreement for one
out-of-context sentence, and that sentence was also completely
misinterpreted.
Yousuf Khan

hanson wrote:
Youssie & Fergie, your "sour grape" comments are touching. So do
the manly thing and follow the lead of Austrian poster Helmut Wabnig
who proudly posted: "I, Wabnig am an Einstein Dingleberry"...
You 3 guys are blossoms of religious Einstein Cultism... ahahaha...
Carry on with your worship of Albert's Sphincter & thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 7/12/10 12:26 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

Yup -- There has never been an observation that contradicts relativity
theory predictions--not one. General and special relativity remain
very fruitful tools for physicist and astrophysicist.

Helland out to read up on the testing and especially the practical
applications of those theories, such as particle accelerators and
global navigation satellite systems.

On Jul 12, 12:18*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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
Michelson-Morley 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."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev


Oh, PV, PV, PV.
Only you would think that if light is subject to gravitational
deflection (a la Newton), then it must ALSO be ballistic (a la
Newton).
After all, if it exhibits ONE Newtonian property, then it must exhibit
them ALL, eh?

A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest;

And ligth from a speeding train has more energy than ligth from a train at
rest.

Aage