A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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: Special Relativity Is the Root of All the Evil



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 16th 19, 09:20 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Lee Smolin: Special Relativity Is the Root of All the Evil

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

Special relativity can only be "the root of all the evil" if a 1905 postulate is false. The speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant:

Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter, c'=c) speed of light posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old April 16th 19, 12:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Lee Smolin: Special Relativity Is the Root of All the Evil

Lee Smolin: "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." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm

What happened in 1907? Voil*:

John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf

Does "variable in the presence of a gravitational field" entail "variable in gravitation-free space as well"? Yes it does:

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...elativity.html

Substituting f=c/λ into Fowler's equation gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/λ = c(1+gh/c^2)/λ = c'/λ

where f' is the frequency measured by both the observer "stationary in the earth's gravitational field" and an equivalent observer who, in gravitation-free space, moves with speed v=gh/c towards the emitter. Accordingly,

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

is the speed of light relative to those two observers. Clearly, the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light.

Conclusion: The speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's theory and in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einstein knew the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense even before 1905:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 17th 19, 07:00 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Lee Smolin: Special Relativity Is the Root of All the Evil

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

"Over the past 25 years" is incorrect - it should be replaced by "over the past 114 years". Einstein's 1905 false axiom "the speed of light is invariable" turned fundamental physics into an insane ideology. Soon "the embarrassing question" will have to be answered:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Clock_Paradox

In future physics Einstein's 1905 false axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
 




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
Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 April 8th 19 05:55 PM
Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 13th 16 09:27 AM
THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IN PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 May 22nd 15 07:18 AM
SPECIAL RELATIVITY : THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 2nd 13 06:49 AM
BAEZ AND SMOLIN WILL DEFORM SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 5th 07 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.