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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Einsteinians Tell the Truth
http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafÃ©s 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 welldefined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity  the notion of "now"  is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. (...) The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...realityreview "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.bookdepository.com/TimeR.../9780547511726 "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.newscientist.com/article...wardsintime/ "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order â€“ â€¨A, then B, then C â€“ someone moving â€¨at a different velocity could have seen â€¨it a different way â€“ C, then B, then A. â€¨In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://edge.org/responsedetail/25477 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einsteinians Tell the Truth
Banesh Hoffmann telling the truth: If you don't introduce absurd ad hoc hypotheses ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the MichelsonMorley experiment confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and refutes the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:
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 MichelsonMorley 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." Pentcho Valev 
#3




Einsteinians Tell the Truth
The Albert Einstein Institute, UIUC and Banesh Hoffmann telling the truth: The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not the result of time dilation  it is the result of the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests  the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift , you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann0486406768 Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock  even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
LYING EINSTEINIANS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  May 4th 15 12:19 PM 
WHAT EINSTEINIANS ARE PAID FOR  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  May 29th 14 03:28 PM 
HUMILIATED EINSTEINIANS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  22  February 12th 09 07:02 AM 
EINSTEINIANS AND OTHER PHYSICISTS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  13  January 14th 09 02:20 PM 
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  28  November 16th 08 02:52 AM 