A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 08, 10:23 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03...n03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....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://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

Clearly, Lee Smolin is the most honest Einsteinian. The most dishonest
Einsteinians are Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Jong-Ping Hsu and Tom
Roberts:

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...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "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


  #2  
Old September 6th 08, 01:34 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Igor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

On Sep 5, 5:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03...n03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....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://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

Clearly, Lee Smolin is the most honest Einsteinian. The most dishonest
Einsteinians are Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Jong-Ping Hsu and Tom
Roberts:

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...aches-Theoreti...
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...g/dc1ebdf49c01...
Tom Roberts: "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



Apparently, you still don't grasp all that business of the two
straight lines having unchanging slope under hyperbolic rotations, do
you?

  #3  
Old September 6th 08, 01:47 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

On Sep 5, 1:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]

How many hours a day do you spend looking up things that you do not
understand to post in a newsgroup that does not like you?
  #4  
Old September 6th 08, 04:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Josef Matz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ?
But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him.
Because you defend something not existing:

Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize
that the fundamentals
of Relativity are wrong.

But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all ****
around inclusive cosmology.
Maybe the universe is not a mathematical construct. I think i showed one
alternative but who can prove it ?
The answer is nobody can. But what is a mess too: You do not even accept
the cracks in Einsteins theory.

As it looks Pentcho has its own fight. Partly he says right but most is
wrong.
Who shall filter out whats interesting you ? How much hours do you spent
each day to keep something
wrong alive ?

Since you make down colleagues like Nimtz: You are not better than Valev:
You defend a phantom.
And you can say all we measuredis with Einstein. But many measured thing
that withspek Einstein.
There are some like you, Jewish probably that make all down not in agreement
with Einstein.
Einstein was no god. He was right and found many things that will survive.
He does not need Gisse
who makes down all withspeaking some of his findings. He has not necessary
you.

GR is wrong if you believe or not.



"Eric Gisse" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Sep 5, 1:23 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]

How many hours a day do you spend looking up things that you do not
understand to post in a newsgroup that does not like you?


  #5  
Old September 6th 08, 04:32 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

"Eric Gisse" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]

"Eric Gisse" schrieb:
PV, How many hours a day do you spend looking
up things that you do not understand to post in a
newsgroup that does not like you?

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Eric, as long as you
play the control-freak, and consider sci.physics
to be your own Erictum you are no better than
that kike Caccanova aka Barak#Democrat.org
who posts here.... ahahaha...
** Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's a beautiful choir! **
It'll give you a perspective like you can only very
seldom enjoy in real life. Cherish it...
Thanks for the laughs .... ahaha... ahahahahanson


hanson wrote:
Sepp, ahahaha... Hör mal. Wenn ich genügend Zeit
und Interesse finde werde ich Dein Beitrag wieder-
schreiben, so dass Du sehen kannst wie Dein Ton in
Amiohren ankommt... ahahaha... Gruss... ahahahanson

"Josef Matz" wrote in message
...
I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ?
But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him.
Because you defend something not existing:

Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize
that the fundamentals
of Relativity are wrong.

But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all ****
around inclusive cosmology.
Maybe the universe is not a mathematical construct. I think i showed one
alternative but who can prove it ?
The answer is nobody can. But what is a mess too: You do not even accept
the cracks in Einsteins theory.

As it looks Pentcho has its own fight. Partly he says right but most is
wrong.
Who shall filter out whats interesting you ? How much hours do you spent
each day to keep something
wrong alive ?

Since you make down colleagues like Nimtz: You are not better than Valev:
You defend a phantom.
And you can say all we measuredis with Einstein. But many measured thing
that withspek Einstein.
There are some like you, Jewish probably that make all down not in
agreement
with Einstein.
Einstein was no god. He was right and found many things that will survive.
He does not need Gisse
who makes down all withspeaking some of his findings. He has not necessary
you.

GR is wrong if you believe or not.





  #6  
Old September 6th 08, 07:18 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

On Sep 5, 7:03*pm, "Josef Matz" wrote:
I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ?
But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him.
Because you defend something not existing:

Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize
that the fundamentals
of Relativity are wrong.

But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all ****
around inclusive cosmology.


Why?

[snip]
  #7  
Old September 6th 08, 10:52 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

Lee Smolin again: "SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

Why in 1907? What did Einstein realize in 1907 that convinced him that
special relativity was wrong? John Norton gives the answer to this
question:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
"What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there
is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The
constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect
homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a
special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same
velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to
general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of
light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

And this is the problem that can be defined as "the Nightmare of
relatively clever Einsteinians" and which is in fact the most
camouflaged problem in Einsteiniana. If the speed of light varies with
the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), then, by applying Einstein's equivalence
principle, one can prove that an accelerated observer, in the absence
of a gravitational field, will measure the speed of light to be c'=c
+v, where v is the speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) relative to the observer (at the moment of reception). That
is what Einstein understood between 1907 and 1911 and then camouflaged
so fiercely, but that is also the source of numerous hints at the
falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate made by Einstein and his
relatively clever sycophants in moments of guilty conscience:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." 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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old September 6th 08, 05:35 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

The incredible phrase "Einstein may have started the rot" was written
by a journalist obviously inspired by the most honest Einsteinian Lee
Smolin:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...11/bosmo10.xml
"The crisis lies at the intersection between the empirical and the
epistemological. Attempts to explain the fundamentals of the universe
by the dominant paradigm of so-called string theory remain untested -
either, Smolin says, "because they make no clean predictions or
because the predictions they do make are not testable with current
technology". Einstein may have started the rot. When experiment
dominated physics, his work was driven by aesthetic concerns. He
sought beauty (notably symmetry) in mathematical haiku that capture
something complex, transcendental and profound."

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old September 6th 08, 08:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN

The most honest Einsteinan Lee Smolin:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These
writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to
"the other possibility...."

Unfortunately the less honest Einsteinian John Stachel, the discoverer
of "the other Einstein", does not take his own discovery very
seriously:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev

  #10  
Old September 10th 08, 09:32 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Josef Matz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN


"Sam Wormley" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:aDpwk.330096$yE1.88221@attbi_s21...
Josef Matz wrote:

Ein[s]teinian Black holes, Cu[r]ved spaces, gravity waves, and do not

recgonize [sic]
that the fundamentals of Relativity are wrong.



A theory is wrong when one or more of its predictions are
contradicted by observations. What contradictions are you
referring to?


Nimtz, Wang among others.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Honest indignation oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 September 3rd 08 08:20 PM
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 26 August 17th 08 08:31 PM
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 April 1st 08 12:10 PM
BAEZ AND SMOLIN WILL DEFORM SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 5th 07 01:12 AM
Looking for a honest opinion on TMB 152 waterfront Amateur Astronomy 1 May 1st 04 06:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.