|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
On May 19, 4:58*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae13.cfm QUESTION Would not the speed of a light beam headed toward a black hole increase tremendously? We do know it could be bent by the gravity of a star. Asked by: Joe Thomas ANSWER Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. In fact, one way to understand the bending of light by the gravitational field of a star is to regard it as resulting from the refraction of the wavefront due to the fact that the part of the wavefront that is nearer to the star moves more slowly than the part farther away from the star. The result is that the direction of advance of the wavefront is deflected toward (or around) the star. 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. Answered by: Warren Davis, Ph.D., President, Davis Associates, Inc., Newton, MA USA http://www.amazon.com/Time-Tense-Cau.../dp/0198250746 Time, Tense, and Causation by Michael Tooley http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00017 Michael Tooley: "According to the Special Theory of Relativity, there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, contrary to the view defended in the book. However, this chapter demonstrates that the Special Theory of Relativity can be modified so as to allow absolute simultaneity." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886 Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang': How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel, Einstein from "B" to "Z". "This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories." http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ hanson wrote: ahahaha... Andro, you have that post-script on for a week now and alluded to it for years. Yet AFAICS not a single one of the Einstein Dingleberries gave the obvious, glaring answer that stares into the face of these fanatics. .... All that one of the EDs came up with and then was parroted by a few others, was them saying: "But Einstein didn't say that"... despite the fact that Albert so did.... ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...in_Specrel.htm Why are these self-aggrandizing EDs not capable of facing the fact that Einstein **HAD** to say that because... ... ... ... Now, here is the chance for you EDs to finish that sentence and show that you really do UNDERSTAND REL, for if not then you EDs are nothing more than Sunday school children, infantile BELIEVERS, who are reciting and interpreting their bible.... worshipping and following all the **** that it contains and represents... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. ahahaha.... ahahanson |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible, the original text. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible, the original text. Pentcho Valev - Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same text, only 1 and 2. Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and *****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
On May 27, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote: On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message .... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible, the original text. Pentcho Valev - Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same text, only 1 and 2. Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and *****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think. Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson? Where is Einstein's original text? Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
... On May 27, 9:51 pm, wrote: On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote: On May 27, 8:22 pm, "hanson" wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ "Pentcho Valev" Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible, the original text. Pentcho Valev wrote in message ... Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same text, only 1 and 2. Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and *****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think. "Pentcho Valev" Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson? Where is Einstein's original text? [... ahahaha.. you snipped it, Pentcho!] Pentcho Valev -- hanson wrote: Bravo, jonas thornvall, you gave an incisive answer on 1 and 2 and on (3) your guess right too but you have not yet answered WHY that postulate was necessary... ahahaha... and Pentcho, shame on you. For the first time you disappoint me. You snipped the Zionist link I posted , twice, in my previous post AND in the other thread. Go look it up. It's all right in there, in AE's original 1905 paper. You should be able, with a single critical read-thru, to see 1, 2 & 3 and conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt, facing the fact, that Einstein **HAD** to say that because... ... ... ... Now, here is your chance to shine. Do it, Pentcho. ahahaha... ahahahanson |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS
On May 27, 11:42*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On May 27, 9:51 pm, wrote: On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote: On May 27, 8:22 pm, "hanson" wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message .... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "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." Pentcho Valev hanson wrote: ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin make it all too complicated. It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below: "Androcles" wrote Why did Einstein say (1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v, (2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v, (3) the "time" each way is the same? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ "Pentcho Valev" Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible, the original text. Pentcho Valev wrote in message ... Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same text, only 1 and 2. Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and *****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think. "Pentcho Valev" Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson? Where is Einstein's original text? * [... ahahaha.. you snipped it, Pentcho!] Pentcho Valev -- hanson wrote: Bravo, jonas thornvall, you gave an incisive answer on 1 and 2 and on (3) your guess right too but you have not yet answered WHY that postulate was necessary... ahahaha... and Pentcho, shame on you. For the first time you disappoint me. You snipped the Zionist link I posted , twice, in my previous post AND in the other thread. I don't think Einsteiniana has anything to do with the fact that Einstein was a Jew. Clausius was not a Jew and yet his contribution to the destruction of human rationality is much greater than that of Einstein. People just need miracles: mysterious entropy that always increases, twin that travels into the future and remains young etc. Science without miracles is dull and people replace it with science WITH miracles. Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DELIBERATELY AMBIGUOUS EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 11th 07 12:29 AM |
SHOULD EINSTEINIANS BE BROUGHT TO COURT? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 14 | November 7th 07 04:36 PM |
EINSTEINIANS READY FOR CONVERSION BUT.... | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | September 9th 07 01:13 PM |
EINSTEINIANS AND THE DEAD PHYSICS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 31 | August 7th 07 09:06 AM |
HOW EINSTEINIANS UNDERSTAND SCIENCE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 12th 07 06:36 PM |