WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?

Dear Pentcho Valev:

On Oct 23, 2:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
....
Then Einstein discovered that the speed of
light is in fact VARIABLE

Not variable *locally*. This is covered in the continuous GR model,
where spacetime is piecewise (locally) "flat", but globally curved.

and obeys the discontinuous-particle concept
of light,

Nope. Still limited to c locally.

....
The problem is that an inconsistency also
"makes successful predictions over a very
wide range of the Universe around us".

That is the power and limitation of Science. We know everything we
have are approximations, and we do the best we can.

David A. Smith

On Oct 23, 5:25*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Pentcho Valev:

On Oct 23, 2:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
...

Then Einstein discovered that the speed of
light is in fact VARIABLE

Not variable *locally*.

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V and
Einstein has given two respective equations: c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's
1911 equation, and c'=c(1+2V/c^2), his final decision. Both hypnotists
and zombies in Einstein criminal cult should stop repeating "Not
variable locally" (a rather silly red herring) and start discussing
the implications of the variability of the speed of light discovered
by Einstein in 1907:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Pentcho Valev

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Peter Webb wrote in message

"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."


Like many of Einstein's thoughts, remarkably prescient.

There has been more and more discussion of the Universe being somehow
"digitized", possibly in the form of cellular automata. This would
demolish
the field concept, Einstein's theory of gravitation, and all physics done
since Newton (which is all the rest of contemporary physics).

I don't know when Einstein made this observation, but it was certainly
before the development of cellular automata theory. He saw far.

At least as far as Wolfram's bank account.

And you are his first monster ?

Wolframstein I ?

You are cellular and an think like an automaton...

And in your next upgrade they will incorparate my interpretation...

I can live with that....

Uwe Hayek.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. 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."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very specific
predictions indeed. And nor does your response even address the issue that
it has been successfully experimentally tested in dozens of different ways.
Like it or not, the Universe does at a large scale operate exactly according
to the equations of GR.

On Oct 24, 3:28*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. 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."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in this
case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very specific
predictions indeed.

"Every sentence of the language" is a conclusion Newton-Smith obtains
by using conditionals such as (if ‘p’ then ‘p or q’). Those
conditionals are not used in physical arguments and therefore you are
right - general relativity does not contain "every sentence of the
language". However it remains true that the inconsistency covers a
larger number of potential experimental results than the consistent
theory. Example: Pound and Rebka confirmed the validity of the
frequency shift equation:

f' = f(1+V/c^2)

and this, according to the mythology, is a glorious confirmation of
the predictions of the theory. If they had found no frequency shift,
that is, had confirmed the equation:

f' = f

then that again would have been a glorious confirmation of the theory
because the result is consistent with the prediction that the speed of
light is constant in a gravitational field (half of the Einsteinians
teach the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, the
other half teach it is variable).

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Valev:

On Oct 24, 12:20*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Oct 23, wrote:

Dear Pentcho Valev:

On Oct 23, 2:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
...

Then Einstein discovered that the speed of
light is in fact VARIABLE

Not variable *locally*.

The speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V

Apparently you have a comprehension problem.

One place = one gravitational potential = "local"
Variance in gravitaional potential = two places = "not local"

Each place you measure the speed of light, with "negligible
gravitational potential" across this laboratory, you get c. Even if
the source is moving at close to c. Light Compton scattered from a
packet of high energy electrons, doesn't hit the electrons unless the
travels at c, and leaves with gamma^2 (peak) of the electron's speed,
and is detected at l/c after the collision. Hardly an expectation of
a particle-based model.

David A. Smith

On Oct 24, 12:20*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V and
Einstein has given two respective equations: c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's
1911 equation, and c'=c(1+2V/c^2), his final decision.

The link you cited clearly explains that, in the completed theory of
general relativity, when expressed in terms of Schwarzschild
coordinates near a spherically symmetrical mass, the speed of light is
1 + 2V in the radial direction and 1 + V in the tangential direction.
This is what changed between 1911 and 1915. In 1911 Einstein was
working on a theory that gave a single speed of light at any
particular point, but by 1915 he had realized this doesn't work. It's
necessary for the speed of light to depend not just on the location,
but also on the direction. This means instead of a "scalar potential"
he needed a "tensor potential". It so happens that the scalar formula
he gave in 1911 was correct for the tangential direction, but not for
the radial direction.

Both hypnotists and zombies in Einstein criminal cult should stop repeating
"Not variable locally" (a rather silly red herring)...

That isn't exactly a "red herring", it's just stated rather sloppily.
The point is that, in general relativity, the coordinate system can be
chosen arbitrarily (the field equations are generally covariant), so
the "speed of light" depends on the choice of coordinate system. This
is also true in special relativity, but in that case there is a
natural "best" choice of coordinate systems, namely, the inertial
coordinate systems, and in terms of those coordinates the speed of
light is always c. In general relativity there is no long a natural
best choice of coordinate systems, because it isn't possible to define
a global inertial coordinate system (due to the curvature of
spacetime). It's like trying to define a Cartesian coordinate system
over the whole surface of the Earth. So we have to use some other
coordinate systems, like Schwarzschild coordinates, in terms of which
the speed of light is 1+2V radially and 1+V tangentially. Note that
the Schwwarzschild coordinates are NOT an inertial coordinate system.
The point of the "red herring" as you call it, is that we can always
define a LOCAL inertial coordinate system, in terms of which the speed
of light is c, just as in special relativity. This is essentially just
another way of expressing the Equivalence Principle. So it isn't a red
herring at all.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, moky wrote:
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. 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."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

******************
But GR clearly does not contain "every sentence of the language", or in
this case, predict every possible experimental result. It makes very
specific predictions indeed. And nor does your response even address the
issue that it has been successfully experimentally tested in dozens of
different ways. Like it or not, the Universe does at a large scale operate
exactly according to the equations of GR.

Like it or not, you are a lying idiot who knows nothing at all about GR.

You know that the relativity uses tensors right?! I see that you have
the middle-school level Mr. Valev, additions, subtractions, sometimes
a power You are so dumb my poor guy, I pity you sincerely. You
don't understand one bit of what you are discussing. So stop posting,
no body cares about stupid people like you.

myravian a écrit :
You know that the relativity uses tensors right?! I see that you have
the middle-school level Mr. Valev, additions, subtractions, sometimes
a power You are so dumb my poor guy, I pity you sincerely. You
don't understand one bit of what you are discussing. So stop posting,
no body cares about stupid people like you.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

--
kd