EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT MAY RESURRECT PHYSICS

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories"
Joao Magueijo1,2,3 and John W. Moffat1
1Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St N,
Waterloo N2L 2Y5, Canada
2 Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, 60 St George St,
Toronto M5S 3H8, Canada
3 Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road,
London SW7 2BZ, England
(Dated: May 31, 2007)

"All theories under the name of VSL break Lorentz invariance in some
way.....The question is then: If Lorentz invariance is broken, what
happens to the speed of light? Given that Lorentz invariance follows
from two postulates - (1) relativity of observers in inertial frames
of reference and (2) constancy of the speed of light-it is clear that
either or both of those principles must be violated."

An incredibly deep logic. Einstein criminal cult may soon stop
camouflaging the death of physics:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...3f36a9696739e?

and may even move in this direction:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...73ab48c93aa46?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories"
Joao Magueijo1,2,3 and John W. Moffat1
1Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St N,
Waterloo N2L 2Y5, Canada
2 Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, 60 St George St,
Toronto M5S 3H8, Canada
3 Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road,
London SW7 2BZ, England
(Dated: May 31, 2007)

"All theories under the name of VSL break Lorentz invariance in some
way.....The question is then: If Lorentz invariance is broken, what
happens to the speed of light? Given that Lorentz invariance follows
from two postulates - (1) relativity of observers in inertial frames
of reference and (2) constancy of the speed of light-it is clear that
either or both of those principles must be violated."

An incredibly deep logic. Einstein criminal cult may soon stop
camouflaging the death of physics:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...3f36a9696739e?

and may even move in this direction:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...73ab48c93aa46?

Note the evolution in Einstein criminal cult. Only a few years ago
hypnotists were still gloriously using Einstein's false principle of
constancy of the speed of light in order to resolve problems with the
varying speed of light:

http://www.thestar.com/ScienceTech/article/121906
Einstein's Respectful Heretic

"Then, in May 2001, Italian physicist Giovanni Amelino-Camelia
proposed Double Special Relativity (DSR), based on the notion that
Einstein nailed down only half the story. In a DSR universe, NOT ONLY
DOES THE SPEED OF LIGHT APPEAR THE SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS, WHETHER
MOVING OR STATIONARY, but so does the length of a particle that is
shrunk to the microscopic threshold where quantum mechanics kicks in.
Magueijo and Smolin realized that Double Special Relativity could
provide a key to resolving problems with both the varying speed of
light and loop quantum gravity. They developed their own version of
the concept..."

Pentcho Valev

Two equivalent opinions:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Two equivalent opinions:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"

Pentcho Valev

Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
as the experimental record that agrees with them.

The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
hasn't happened. So far, all experiments which could
potentially invalidate relativity have instead agreed
with the predictions.

You aren't misreading "it is possible that someday an
experiment may invalidate relativity" as "relativity has
been invalidated", are you?

The first one is certainly true, but the second is false.

And even when the falsifying experiment happens, the
validating experiments are still part of the record which
the new theory will have to explain. That is, it will
still include such things as gravitational and velocity
based time-dilation, length-contraction, the speed limit
of c (in the sense of the asymptotic relation between
energy/momentum and speed as v-c), etc.

It will have to include those things because they are
experimentally verified.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Two equivalent opinions:
:
: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
: Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
: be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
: Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
: theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
: physics."
:
: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
: Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
: postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
: that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
: Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
: farce!"
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
: theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
: an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
: That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
: as the experimental record that agrees with them.
:
: The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
: hasn't happened.

Wrong, lying moronic troll and incoherent raving lunatic.

Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:40:10 GMT
:

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Two equivalent opinions:
:
: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
: Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
: be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
: Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
: theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
: physics."
:
: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
: Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
: postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
: that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
: Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
: farce!"
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
: theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
: an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
: That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
: as the experimental record that agrees with them.
:
: The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
: hasn't happened.

Wrong, lying moronic troll and incoherent raving lunatic.

Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Androcles is in fact correct here, on a technical subpoint;
Sagnac disproves SR. Androcles is now in a rather more
interesting position -- does Sagnac disprove GR as well?

It is worth noting that the principle behind Sagnac is
routinely employed in large naval vessels; therefore this
is not that idle a question. However, the disproof of
SR here by no means allows for its replacement using
Newtonian/Galilean, Valevian, Wilsonian, Setonian,
Wooblian, Shubian, or Savainian physics, and SR's
relationship to GR is similar to Newtonian physics'
relationship to SR: a useful approximation given a certain
error tolerance. As Uncle Al once put it (paraphrased):

Newtonian: c=infinite, G=G, h=0
SR: c=c, G=0, h=0
GR: c=c, G=G, h=0
QM: c=c, G=0, h=h (Dirac)
QM: c=infinite, G=0, h=h (Schrodinger)

where c is lightspeed, G is the universal constant of
gravitation, and h is Planck's Constant.

It is also worth noting that Sagnac is a useful
illustration of the difference between closing speed
(as observed by a third party) and approach speed.

--
#191,
GNU and improved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dear The Ghost In The Machine:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in message ...
....
Androcles is in fact correct here, on a technical subpoint;
Sagnac disproves SR.

What is it about a non-inertial rotating frame that "disproves" a
theory that explicitly states "inertial frames" in its
postulates? Because SR can be extended in certain well-behaved
circumstances to accelerating frames, does not mean that you will
find that SR applies to the majority of accelerating frames.

But everyone knows the "special" in special relativity has nearly
the same meaning it does when applied to special olympics. And I
find it hilarious that Androcles finds his trophy in attacking
it...

David A. Smith

On Jul 12, 6:05 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:40:10 GMT
:





"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Two equivalent opinions:
:
: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
: Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
: be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
: Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
: theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
: physics."
:
: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
: Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
: postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
: that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
: Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
: farce!"
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
: theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
: an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
: That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
: as the experimental record that agrees with them.
:
: The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
: hasn't happened.

Wrong, lying moronic troll and incoherent raving lunatic.

Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Androcles is in fact correct here, on a technical subpoint;
Sagnac disproves SR. Androcles is now in a rather more
interesting position -- does Sagnac disprove GR as well?

Uhm, no.

The Sagnac effect is _DERIVED_ from SR.


[...]

Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Two equivalent opinions:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"

Pentcho Valev

Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
as the experimental record that agrees with them.

The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
hasn't happened. So far, all experiments which could
potentially invalidate relativity have instead agreed
with the predictions.

You aren't misreading "it is possible that someday an
experiment may invalidate relativity" as "relativity has
been invalidated", are you?

Consider this:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Now try to answer the following question:

If the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 (confirmed
experimentally) is a corollary of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2), does this invalidate relativity?

Sometimes you give straightforward answers and I hope this time you
will do so again: Yes or No?

Pentcho Valev

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:40:10 GMT
: :
:
: "Randy Poe" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: : On Jul 12, 2:47 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: : Two equivalent opinions:
: :
: :
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
: : Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
: : be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
: : Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
: : theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
: : physics."
: :
: : http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
: : Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
: : postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the
linchpin
: : that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
: : Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
: : farce!"
: :
: : Pentcho Valev
: :
: : Congratulations. You've just discovered that scientific
: : theories can be falsified, meaning that it is possible for
: : an experiment sometime, somewhere, to prove them wrong.
: : That's what makes them sound science. They are only as good
: : as the experimental record that agrees with them.
: :
: : The status as of today is that the falsifying experiment
: : hasn't happened.
:
: Wrong, lying moronic troll and incoherent raving lunatic.
:
: Sagnac.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
:
: Androcles is in fact correct here, on a technical subpoint;
: Sagnac disproves SR. Androcles is now in a rather more
: interesting position -- does Sagnac disprove GR as well?

No need, GR is dependent on a constant speed of light relative to
the observer, see Hulse and Taylor.
The reason Sagnac works is the speed of light is source dependent,
as per the PoR.
Einstein's struggle was in reconciling his postulates, and all he
needed to do was dump the second one. He writes a chapter on
it, appealing to school children.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with
the Principle of Relativity

15 years after SR, he was still baffled and GR had been written.
Ockham's razor still applies.

As to "the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for
different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour",
that problem was first solved by Androcles in 1990, but of course everybody
talks and nobody listens (except Wilson, but he screwed it up).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm


: It is worth noting that the principle behind Sagnac is
: routinely employed in large naval vessels;


"Nowadays, Airbus and Boeing air-planes are equipped with laser gyros for
navigation. Beside their high precision, they have shown reliability, long
term stability as well as a long lifetime."

http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh

The military applications are ... old.


: therefore this
: is not that idle a question. However, the disproof of
: SR here by no means allows for its replacement using
: Newtonian/Galilean, Valevian, Wilsonian, Setonian,
: Wooblian, Shubian, or Savainian physics, and SR's
: relationship to GR is similar to Newtonian physics'
: relationship to SR: a useful approximation given a certain
: error tolerance. As Uncle Al once put it (paraphrased):
:
: Newtonian: c=infinite, G=G, h=0

That's lying bull****, Schwartz is a moron.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer


: SR: c=c,

More lying bull****, Schwartz is a ****in' stooopid moron.

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: It is also worth noting that Sagnac is a useful
: illustration of the difference between closing speed
: (as observed by a third party) and approach speed.


"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

That says it all, no need to complicate it with any time dilation
and length contraction bull****.
"Everything should be as simple as possible"-- Einstein.